Berko, Michele-Lee. Preserving the sixth amendment right of the deaf
criminal defendant.
97 Dickinson Law Review 101-130 (Fall 1992).

Harris, Susan R. The Hearing Impaired Advocate.
67 Judicature 95-97 (August 1983).

Harry, Bruce. A deaf sex offender.
29 Journal of Forensic Science 1140-1143 (October 1984).

Harry, Bruce. Offenders in a silent world: hearing impairment and
deafness in relation to criminality, incompetence, and insanity.
13 American Academy of Psychiatry & Law Bulletin 85-96 (March 1985).

Gallie, Beth and Deirdre. Representing deaf clients: what every lawyer
should know.
15 Maine Bar Journal 128-EOA (April 2000).

Gardner, Elaine. Deaf victims and defendants in the criminal justice
system.
19 Clearinghouse Review 748-751 (November 1985).

Lee, Stephanie Hoit. Wisconsin v. Rewolinski: do members of the deaf
community have a right to be free from search and seizure of their TDD
call?
10 Law & Inequality 187-216 (June 1992).

Lee, Randy. Equal protection and a deaf person’s right
to serve as a juror.
17 New York University Review of Law and Social Change 81-117
(1989/1990).

Manson, Harold. Jury selection: the courts, the constitution, and the
deaf.
11 Pacific Law Journal 967-992 (July 1980).

McAlister, Jamie. Deaf and hard-of-hearing criminal defendants: how
you gonna get justice if you can’t talk to the judge?.
26 Arizona State Law Journal 163-200 (Spring 1994).

Relyea, Gregg. Procedural due process: a deaf defendant’s right to be
heard should encompass a right to ‘hear’ civil trials through
interpretation.
29 Catholic University Law Review 867-890 (Summer 1980).

Sheridan, Brian D. Accommodations for the hearing impaired in state
courts.
74 The Michigan Bar Journal 396-400 (May 1995).

Shipley, Andrew E. The Deaf Witness.
14 Litigation 13-15 (Fall 1987).

Simon, Jo Anne. The use of interpreters for the deaf and the legal
community’s obligation to comply with the ADA.
8 Journal of Law and Health 155-199 (1993/1994).

Smith, Deirdre M. Confronting silence: the Constitution, deaf criminal
defendants, and the right to interpretation during trial.
46 Maine Law Review 87-150 (1994).

Tucker, Bonnie. Deaf prison inmates: time to be heard.
22 Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 1-71 (November 1988).

Tucker, Bonnie P. Accommodating hearing-impaired law students and
faculty members.
41 Journal of Legal Education 355-361 (September/December 1991).

Tucker, Bonnie. Mental health services for deaf persons: proposed
legislation.
Arizona State Law Journal 673-704 (Fall 1980).

Vernon, McCay and Lawrence Raifman. Recognizing and handling problems
of incompetent deaf defendants charged with serious offenses.
20 International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 373-387 (Summer 1997).

Vernon, McCay., Raifman, Lawrence J. and Greenberg, Sheldon F.
Forensic pretrial police interviews of deaf suspects: avoiding legal
pitfalls.
24 International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 43-59 (January/February
2001).

Vernon, McCay, Lawrence Raifman, and Sheldon Greenberg. The Miranda
(Miranda v. Arizona, 86 S. Ct. 1602 (1966)) warnings and the deaf
suspect.
14 Behavioral Sciences & the Law 121-135 (Winter 1996).

Vernon, McCay; Steinberg, Annie G.; Montoya, Louise A. Deaf murderers:
clinical and forensic issues.
17 Behavioral Sci. & L. 495-516 (Autumn 1999).

Wood, Jeffrey. Protecting deaf suspects’ right to understand criminal
proceedings.
75 The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology 166-197 (Spring 1984).

The Confidentiality of criminal conversations in TDD Relay Systems,
79 California Law Review 1349-87 (October 1991).

Due process: the deaf and the blind as jurors.
17 New England Law Review 119-152 (1981/1982).

Protecting deaf suspects’ right to understand criminal proceedings.
75 The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology 166-197 (Spring 1984).

Recognizing and preserving legal rights for the hearing impaired in
the courtroom.
57 Wisconsin Bar Bulletin 14-16 (November 1984).

It is sensible that people do this.

R-

It is simply not good for me.

I replied to that statement in my email to NAD.

“NAD staff and board members,

Please forward this email to appropriate people.

Good to hear but…

What is in your plan? Tell us. What will you do with the state deaf associations on this matter? Tell and show to us your ACTION rather than just telling us your position. Be more transparent as possible.

W****, a NAD member”

http://www.nad.org/site/pp.asp.....p;b=139133

While I sincerely hope that you never find yourself having to contend with a drug abuser, it could conceivably be an enlightening experience for you to see just how people transform themselves with drugs. I never planned to encounter drugged-up people, but I’ve seen enough to know that normal, rational, and peaceful interaction can be impossible in those circumstances. I would hate to be a police officer providing a solution to drug-fueled disorder. And I would be baffled by second-guessing on every nuance of my dialogue with the drug abuser or the people around him.

But more power to you for your advocacy. I agree with you that hearing people too frequently ignore those who are different from themselves.

I know “nitpicking” was yours and “lame” came from mmmm.

Relax, ok?

In my last post, Michele, I was specifically addressing your complaint that the cop erred by asking someone else if the deaf guy could talk. I don’t think he erred with his question — it was a reasonable query in those circumstances. It seemed, at least to me, that your determination to fault the cop on that point was not a compelling motive to render judgment.

I agree with you that police abuses should be stopped, and I also agree with you that police should be sensitive to the different constituencies of a community.

But we’ll just disagree on the handling of this case in Detroit.

By the way, I have some residual hearing, which enabled me to quickly enough contact the cops in the situation described above, but I consider myself deaf enough to have taken my lumps in the School of Hard Knocks. In some moments of frustration, I even like what Ridor says.

Oh boy, mmmm and JS…

JS, I have never dealt with druggies since my career is basically in writing and advocacy.

That said, I still believe that cops MUST show flexibility when dealing with deaf people.

So, yeah, I expect them to use non-violent options with deaf people instead of automatically shooting them down.

I also expect them to keep in mind that the world is not made up entirely of hearing people.

I am seeing too many cases of rigid thinking employed by cops over and over again that results in the deaf person either getting seriously hurt or killed.

That has to change.

JS, I don’t know if you are deaf or hearing or what, but you obviously handled the situation you outlined as best as you could. Keep in mind that if you are hearing, then when a hearing person deals with hearing people, it is not the same thing as when a hearing person deals with deaf people. Deaf people have historically been treated as invisible by hearing people, so they’re ultra-sensitive about that. And that should not be dimissed as “nitpicking” or “lame”.

mmmm, if a group of people is clearly telling the cops that the rake-wielding person is deaf, then hell yes, I expect the cop(s) to work a little harder to communicate with the guy, and do their best not to kill him. Shooting him in the leg, or even his hand would have done the job.

I am disturbed by increasing frequency of cases (both deaf and hearing) where cops got trigger-happy and shot their victim way too many times for it to be justified.