We hold up our legal system as society’s great equalizer, but is that being compromised by inequalities in the educational system that produces not only our legal professionals but also the juries they face?
Recent reports of juries lacking the basic ability to comprehend and process information have led to calls for juror literacy tests, or even intelligence tests. A trial at Southwark Crown Court last month descended into confusion when the jury took a prolonged period to deliberate a case which many legal professionals regarded as absolutely straightforward. Several notes were sent from the jury to the presiding judge, including one with a list of surprising questions. For example, the judge was asked if it was necessary to decide the case on evidence, or if a jury could rely on speculation. Eventually the judge dismissed the jury for “fundamental deficits in understanding.”
In the weeks since, some legal professionals have made a point of defending the right of a jury to ask questions but others have expressed their dismay at the level of comprehension and reasoning that this jury and presumably others have brought to the courtroom. In former years prospective jurors were asked to read aloud an oath written in complex and archaic language. Those who couldn’t demonstrate a level of comprehension were discreetly excused from duty. The problem isn’t simply literacy. We require our juries to decide guilt based on the concept of “reasonable doubt.” Anyone struggling to understand that concept will struggle to deliver a soundly reasoned verdict.
The problem is therefore connected to a much larger issue that plagues both American and British societies; namely the seeming decline of literacy and comprehension levels among all age groups. A federal literacy study in the United States prompted a famous 2009 headline in USA Today stating that “one in seven US adults are unable to read this story.” The following year the UK’s National Literacy Trust revealed that one adult in six had a literacy level below what would be expected of an eleven year old. While the decline of adult literacy levels in and of itself represents a critical problem for both nations, its compromising effect on our legal system must surely set alarm bells ringing not only for the profession but for all of us who believe in fairness and justice.
But what to do? A report published in the London Evening Standard earlier this week reinforced what many of us know to be true; that young people fluent in more than one language are better equipped for the job market than those who speak only their native tongue. In the article, London was described as “a city of polyglots,” with many households speaking two or even three languages. Consequently, reinforcing second language and foreign language education among both children and adults might help to reverse the troubling developments of recent years.
At EVS Translations we celebrate linguistic diversity, and it’s our pleasure to support legal clients with a service that allows them to speak to the world. When clients’ needs critical information to be conveyed with precision, our legal translators help them ensure the job is done. We share in our clients’ professionalism and success, and we also share their concern that this accuracy, this truth, might not be recognized by a jury whose members have been let down by their own education.
