| Pages in topic: < [1 2] | Interpreting for refugees, role as an interpreter? Thread poster: wonita (X)
|
|---|
Kaspars Melkis 
United Kingdom
Local time: 08:56
English to Latvian
+ ...
lee roth wrote:
Later on during the hearing, the government's attorney asked me to translate the respondent's Romanian ID card. His actual address for the last 10 years was in an apartment building!! You would think that the attorney or judge would notice the discrepancy!
How can we be sure that his official registered address was the place of his actual residence? I am not familiar with the Romanian situation, but in the Soviet Latvia it was common (and still is) for many people to be registered in one place in order to receive certain benefits while actually living in another. It could be even harder for a US judge to comprehend the implication of such situation that may or may not have a relevance in this case.
Or in the case of the original question when the documents are clearly falsified, I can easily imagine the situation where the investigators are even aware of this but they cannot be legally disputed based on the interpreter's opinion anyway. So, the interpreter is asked to translate them precisely as they are for the judge to enable them to find any inconsistencies.
| | | | | Agree with Jokerman | Aug 10, 2009 |
I agree with Jokerman. I have been doing the interpreting job for the last 18 year and I have interpreting a lot for the immigration and courts. I have been in a situation where I knew that the person I was interpreting for was lying and I was sure about it but I did not say a word. One day I had to interpret for a family ( I was hired from the immigration) that came in this counry. They met with 6 diffeent agencies and they told 6 different stories to each of them. Did I say a word? Absolutely ... See more I agree with Jokerman. I have been doing the interpreting job for the last 18 year and I have interpreting a lot for the immigration and courts. I have been in a situation where I knew that the person I was interpreting for was lying and I was sure about it but I did not say a word. One day I had to interpret for a family ( I was hired from the immigration) that came in this counry. They met with 6 diffeent agencies and they told 6 different stories to each of them. Did I say a word? Absolutely not. Later on I was called in a meeting with all of them for a clarification. It was their job to find out the truth.If you really want your client to ask for you again as an interpreter you need to understand your responsibility first.
Interpreter is a “language conduit.” As interpreters we should always faithfully,
accurately, and impartially interpret what is said using our best skills and
judgment. We do not act as advocates. We just emphasize the quality of the
communication and remain in the boundaries of an interpreter,no additions, omissions, editing, paraphrasing, changes, or polishing.
I hope this helps.
Best Regards,
Klemi ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Government verification? | Aug 10, 2009 |
Isn't it the the government's responsibility to verify the validity of the documents?
| | | | Liviu-Lee Roth
United States
Local time: 03:56
Romanian to English
+ ...
| government verification | Aug 12, 2009 |
Yes, it is. Experienced trial attorneys send questionable documents for a forensic analysis, to figure it out if they are real or fake.
| | |
|
|
|
Liviu-Lee Roth
United States
Local time: 03:56
Romanian to English
+ ...
How can we be sure that his official registered address was the place of his actual residence? I am not familiar with the Romanian situation, but in the Soviet Latvia it was common (and still is) for many people to be registered in one place in order to receive certain benefits while actually living in another. It could be even harder for a US judge to comprehend the implication of such situation that may or may not have a relevance in this case.
I think that it is a matter ... See more How can we be sure that his official registered address was the place of his actual residence? I am not familiar with the Romanian situation, but in the Soviet Latvia it was common (and still is) for many people to be registered in one place in order to receive certain benefits while actually living in another. It could be even harder for a US judge to comprehend the implication of such situation that may or may not have a relevance in this case.
I think that it is a matter of common sense (or professional ability) on the attorney's part to ask the respondent to explain the discrepancy. My point was that they did not pick out the lie, not to mention many other tell-tale signs. It is not the interpreter's job to open their eyes. ▲ Collapse
| | | | juvera
Local time: 08:56
English to Hungarian
+ ...
| Some points to reiterate | Aug 12, 2009 |
1. Do not let yourself into any situation where you could receive any information in private, and anything said by either parties in the presence of the other shall be interpreted. This way you don't have a problem about what to pass on or not.
2. Henry Hinds wrote:
Who am I working for? There lies my loyalty.
If I am being paid by the Immigration Service or any government agency to provide services to it, even as a non-employee on a freelance basis, I would feel it to be my duty to pass along any information I had picked up on that the agency people might have missed. I have a duty to help the agency enforce the law, and no duty to help a possible violator evade justice. I also have a duty of confidentiality to reveal nothing to other parties.
Would they want you to be partial or neutral? Is it within your capabilities and scope to decide on matters concerning any case? How can you be sure that the person violates the law?
It comes back to the above. You do not pick up anything. It is the official's job to pick up the information and decide the course of action. If you interpret properly, they could draw conclusions themselves, if they want or capable of doing so. If not, nothing you can or should do about it. (Unless you are absolutely sure that the official personnel are breaking the law and your statement to this effect could stand up in court, and you are prepared to go down that way).
That brings me to the next point:
3. lee roth wrote:
I think that it is a matter of common sense (or professional ability) on the attorney's part to ask the respondent to explain the discrepancy. My point was that they did not pick out the lie, not to mention many other tell-tale signs. It is not the interpreter's job to open their eyes.
Correct.
And you do not interfere.
Furthermore:
How do you know that the attorney or other official is not aware of a lie or discrepancy, but in his opinion it is not the time to confront the person with his suspicion or knowledge about it? (The address issue is a good example.) He may have decided to look into it without the other party's knowledge. And it is none of the business of the interpreter, therefore he is not going to divulge it to you!
There could be an awful lot of thing going on you may not be aware of, and they are not going to take you in their confidence, unless they find it necessary.
How many times I wondered "why don't they ask the obvious question"? ...only to be told later on, that they know everything about it, moreover they have proof of evidence about the falsity of the claim, and generally they know much more than the person questioned would imagine in their wildest nightmares!
Henry Hinds wrote:
If I am being paid to interpret for a lawyer and client, I have a duty to provide help if the lawyer and client are clueless about some items I could clarify, and I would help the lawyer and client in sorting them out. I also have a duty of confidentiality to reveal nothing to other parties because of the lawyer-client privilege.
You don’t know if they are clueless. They may be, but then it is their job to ask you, or somebody else, if they want to. That is their privilege. You only help them if they ask, and even then it is better not to refer to the case but just give general information and add, that it is only your opinion or experience.
4. Henry Hinds wrote:
If I am working for a court, a court is impartial and I must be impartial, without adding and subtracting anything, regardless of who I may be interpreting for.
There should be no double standards.
Even if you are interpreting to a private client, and you discuss their predicament with them first, you have to make them understand, when it comes to do the interpreting, you interpret whatever is said by either parties, to the best of your ability, and that's that. They have to say what they want to say and react to what is being said to them. You are not their lawyer or counsellor.
One of the worst things I come across when interpreting to someone is when they say "...but the other interpreter told me..." meaning THE INTERPRETER told them, gave the information, advice. Brrrrrrr…
| | | | Geraldine Oudin (X)
United Kingdom
Japanese to French
+ ...
| Code of Ethics | Aug 13, 2009 |
I agree with Jokerman. What he said basically reflects what is written in the AUSIT Code of Ethics for Interpreters and Translators, and I suppose in other Interpreters' Codes of Ethics around the world. Maybe you could check with your local professional association?
Here is the outline of the AUSIT Code of Ethics : http://server.dream-fusion.net/ausit2/pics/ethics.pdf... See more I agree with Jokerman. What he said basically reflects what is written in the AUSIT Code of Ethics for Interpreters and Translators, and I suppose in other Interpreters' Codes of Ethics around the world. Maybe you could check with your local professional association?
Here is the outline of the AUSIT Code of Ethics : http://server.dream-fusion.net/ausit2/pics/ethics.pdf
I have the paper version at home, which is much longer. It states a few exceptions to the "impartiality/confidentiality" rule, where disclosure to the authorities is mandatory by law in Australia : in particular, if you are reasonably sure someone is a paedophile.
But the Code of Ethics advices anyone who doesn't know wether he or she should report a specific situation to seek professional legal advice, as if you report someone for something which was not mandatory by law, or if it turns out they are not a criminal at all, they might find out you gave the information to the authorities and take you to court for breach of confidentiality.
I think interpreters should generally get a professional liability insurance just in case. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2] | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Interpreting for refugees, role as an interpreter? | TM-Town |
|---|
Manage your TMs and Terms ... and boost your translation business
Are you ready for something fresh in the industry? TM-Town is a unique new site for you -- the freelance translator -- to store, manage and share translation memories (TMs) and glossaries...and potentially meet new clients on the basis of your prior work.
More info » |
| | Protemos translation business management system |
|---|
Create your account in minutes, and start working! 3-month trial for agencies, and free for freelancers!
The system lets you keep client/vendor database, with contacts and rates, manage projects and assign jobs to vendors, issue invoices, track payments, store and manage project files, generate business reports on turnover profit per client/manager etc.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
Translation news
