hearing loss and the criminal justice system - Australian Indigenous ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Senate Inquiry March 2010_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________interpreter was driving N home, with N giving directions on how to get there, that itwas discovered that he was actually referring to a different community altogether.It has arguably been the case that N was not able to comply with his bail becausehe did not understand what his bail conditions were. As a result, N hassubsequently spent a lengthy period of time remanded in custody.Whilst in custody, N is not provided with appropriate services or assistance. Herelies heavily on relatives who are also in custody. He is unable to hear bells,officers’ directions and other essential sounds in the prison context. At one point,it was alleged that N was suicidal and he was moved to a psychiatric facility as aresult. N denied the allegation but was unable to properly explain himself to resisthis transfer.As described in this case study, there is a failure to properly address hearing impairmentissues for Indigenous defendants in the criminal justice system. The system deals withclients such as N on an ad hoc basis, without policies, guidelines or any kind of systematicapproach. And yet N is not the only client in this situation. At the present time, NAAJA hasanother client in an almost identical predicament.Another major issue is the way in which police respond to people with hearingimpairment. The conclusion that N demonstrated understanding because he lookeddistressed, is of grave concern. This is a scenario that often confronts people with hearingimpairment. They are unable to seek or provide information to police. They naturallybecome upset and distressed because they do not understand what they were doing'wrong'. Instead of thinking that there is a problem with their communication, police jumpto conclusions, such as they did with N, that the person knows they are in trouble and theirdistress is tantamount to an admission of guilt. Or more commonly, when faced withaggression resulting from this distress, police may respond with force. (NAAJA, 2010). WithNAAJA’s agreement, their submission to the parliamentary inquiry into hearing health has beenattached as Appendix 1 of this submission.In conclusion, I must comment on the unrelenting disinterest in the issue of Indigenoushearing loss within the criminal justice system. My involvement in the area began in 1990when myself and Sue Quinn, an audiologist who had been instrumental in raising the issueof hearing loss in Indigenous education, tried to obtain funding to investigate Indigenoushearing loss in the criminal justice system. A multitude of funding agencies rejected ourproposals, the health organisations saying it was a criminal justice issue, the criminal justiceorganisations saying it was a health issue. A shared issue easily becomes an avoided issue.We gave up trying to undertake the research but wrote about the anecdotes we hadcollected along the way, together with some discussion of the importance for the legalsystem provided by Martin Flynn and Jenny Blockland.Aside from the odd, unfunded foray into raising awareness of the issues, of the type that arementioned in this document, I have little involvement in this issue within the criminal justice_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________20 Phoenix Consulting
Senate Inquiry March 2010_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________system. I have observed with horror over the years the continued, and in some areasincreasing, involvement of Indigenous people in the criminal justice system. I continue tobelieve that understanding and addressing the role that hearing loss plays in thedevelopment of antisocial behaviour and as an obstacle to communication, especially crossculturalcommunication with police, judicial officers and corrections staff, can help reducethe over representation of Indigenous people within the criminal justice system.CROSS-CULTURAL COMMUNICATION, BREAKDOWN - ALIENATIONAND ARROGANCEThe preceding sections have raised issues around hearing loss that contribute to the overrepresentation of Indigenous people in the criminal justice system. This section describes insome detail important cross‐cultural communication processes that interact with andcompounded by hearing loss.The distinctive cultural heritage brought to cross‐cultural communication by differentparties results in predictably different communication experiences for those from eachculture. While Indigenous people often experience a barrage of unfamiliar and demoralisingdirect criticism, non‐Indigenous people usually encounter very little direct criticism and thiscan foster unrealistic confidence, even arrogance, about the way they are working.The following section describes the dynamic processes that contribute to such differentexperiential outcomes arising from shared experiences in cross‐cultural communication.Two key cultural differences between Indigenous and non‐Indigenous communication stylesare the relative importance of the non‐verbal elements of communication and the use ofindirect communication. The non‐verbal elements of communication include gestures, facialexpressions and body language. Indirect communication happens when people seekadditional information and clarification through a third party who may be known to both ofthe people involved in direct communication, instead of directly from the other person.With indirect communication, people must watch for and recognise the signals that indicatethat someone is conveying an indirect message, and be able to evaluate and understand thenature of that message. To do so, they often seek information from third parties to drawout the thoughts and feelings of others. Misunderstandings can arise if non‐Indigenouspeople do not realise that these kinds of indirectcommunication may be also be expected of them.With the more direct styles of Western communication,supervisors, colleagues and clients expect others to cometo them and to raise any concerns ‘directly’. However,with Indigenous communication styles, others areexpected to seek clarification in the case of any indirectmessages expressed.Non‐verbal messages can be of great importance inOften subtle non-verbal cues areeasily missed by non-Indigenousobservers. Looks and gestures thatfrom a western perspective mayseem insignificant can, in anIndigenous context, conveysignificant meaning and be aseffective as the spoken word indoing so._________________________________________________________________________________________________________________21 Phoenix Consulting
Page 6 and 7: Senate Inquiry March 2010__________
Page 52 and 53: Harrison, B. T., Partington, G., Go
Page 54 and 55: Miller, P. M., & Ingham, J. G. (197
Page 56 and 57: North Australian Aboriginal Justice
Page 58 and 59: elationships with teachers 6 . A 20
Page 60 and 61: 2. Prejudices within the Justice Sy
Page 62 and 63: And finally, the location and circu
Page 64 and 65: interpreter was driving N home, wit

hearing loss and the criminal justice system - Australian Indigenous ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?