Skip to content

It’s Hard To Argue With Simplicity

A recent case of mine involved a client locked up for assault. Said client carries a diagnosis of mental retardation, severe epilepsy, and psychotic tendencies. A recent outburst of the aforementioned psychotic tendencies is what landed his butt in jail.

These cases are always a challenge for an interpreter. The trick of the matter is to be confident enough in your skills to know that you aren't missing nuances because of a lack of linguistic ability. I was rather impressed at the client's comprehension of his condition and location. When I asked him if he knew where he was and what a jail was, he responded that "jail is where they put you when they are not happy with you." A simple explanation, but pretty darned accurate. In asking if he understood what a judge does, I learned that a judge "listens to your story and lets you go if he likes the story, but keeps you in jail if he doesn't like your story".

As an interpreter, these answers were a bit revelatory. We get so caught up in trying to explain all of the details that go along with whatever we're trying to explain in a legal setting, that we often forget that simplicity is really the best answer. It forces me to re-examine the interpretations I have been rendering. The tendency is to expand upon the concepts being presented either for purposes of clarity or in some vain attempt to level the balance of power in a legal setting. Understanding that this might just be another form of oppression in that providing too MUCH information to a client, helps me to be a better practitioner.

Everyday is a practice and sometimes that reminder comes from surprising places.