Deaf People in the Criminal Justice System

Selected Topics on Advocacy, Incarceration, and Social Justice

Debra Guthmann, Gabriel I. Lomas, Damara Goff Paris, Gabriel A. "Tony" Martin, Debra Guthmann, Gabriel I. Lomas, Damara Goff Paris, Gabriel A. "Tony" Martin

• Publisher: Gallaudet University Press
• Year: 2021
• ISBN:
  9781944838829
• Topic: Droit
• Subtopic: Théorie et pratique du droit

The legal system is complex, and without appropriate access, many injustices can occur. Deaf people in the criminal justice system are routinely denied sign language interpreters, videophone access, and other accommodations at each stage of the legal process. The marginalization of deaf people in the criminal justice system is further exacerbated by the lack of advocates who are qualified to work with this population. Deaf People in the Criminal Justice System: Selected Topics on Advocacy, Incarceration, and Social Justice is the first book to illuminate the challenges faced by deaf people when they are arrested, incarcerated, or navigating the court system. This volume brings interdisciplinary contributors together to shed light on both the problems and solutions for deaf people in these circumstances. The contributors address issues such as accessibility needs; gaps regarding data collection and the need for more research; additional training for attorneys, court personnel, and prison staff; the need for more qualified sign language interpreters, including Certified Deaf Interpreters who provide services in court, prison, and juvenile facilities; substance use disorders; the school to prison nexus; and the need for advocacy. Students in training programs, researchers, attorneys, mental health professionals, sign language interpreters, family members, and advocates will be empowered by this much-needed resource to improve the experiences and outcomes for deaf people in the criminal justice system. This book has been made possible in part by the National Endowment for the Humanities: Exploring the human endeavor. Any views, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this book do not necessarily represent those of the National Endowment for the Humanities.

Research and Evaluation Part 1

1

Demographics and Etiology in Deafness: Sociocultural Elements of Relevance to the Criminal Justice System

Damara Goff Paris, E. Basil Kessler,
and Gabriel A. “Tony” Martin

This chapter addresses the lack of specific statistics relevant to deaf individuals who have experienced the criminal justice system. We note the scarcity of comprehensive data relating to the number of deaf individuals who identify culturally as members of the Deaf community in the United States and who have also been involved in the criminal justice system. The few available sources of data are insufficient and incomplete and often focus on people who identify themselves from a medical model of deafness.

In this chapter, we include information about etiology and sociocultural factors of the Deaf community; varying degrees of hearing loss; Deaf cultural identity; and information on both disability and deaf populations relevant to court cases, incarceration, and interaction with law enforcement. Such information is important for professionals who are largely unfamiliar with and rarely interact with deaf individuals.

ADDRESSING ETIOLOGY AND SOCIOCULTURAL REALITIES

In any study on individuals who are deaf, it is imperative that readers understand that there is little homogeneity in the population. As noted throughout this chapter, the Deaf community is made up of diverse individuals with multiple etiologies.

The etiology of one’s deafness is central to understanding the experience of being a person who is deaf. It is not uncommon for those unfamiliar with members of the Deaf community to consider etiology from within an audiological framework. That framework focuses on whether the loss occurred prenatally, perinatally, or postnatally. An exclusively audiological understanding also includes the configuration of the loss, conductive or sensorineural, as well as the severity of the loss.

When the term “deaf” is used, many professionals unfamiliar with the diversity within the Deaf community likely default to what is frequently referenced as the medical model of deafness, that is, one’s lack of auditory acuity. This model, also referred to as a model of pathology, is easily defaulted to because nondeaf people believe they know what it might be like not to hear. Additionally, individuals who are not deaf often view the experience of being deaf as a significant loss, whereas deaf people do not. Jaspers and Hewstone (1982) maintained that attribution assignments are more easily justified by those who are not members of the group being defined. Such definitions are often ascriptions of assumed universal characteristics that hold hostage the reality and importance of diversity within Deaf communities and interfere with the possibility of individual agency.

It is therefore incumbent on anyone working with people who are deaf to set aside the medical/pathological model and replace it with the sociocultural model of and by deaf people. Although we briefly mention the medical/pathological models, we do so only to provide information about past (and still current) perspectives relating to deaf individuals. Ladd (2005) stated very clearly that the sociocultural model is a strengths-based model emphasizing capabilities and possibilities, not deficits. This model punctuates the linguistic and cultural realities of deaf people that rely not on one’s ability to hear but on shared membership with elements that include preferred language (American Sign Language [ASL]), educational experiences (residential school or mainstream programs with sign language interpreters), familial experiences (many deaf people having parents who can hear), arts, customs, athletics, political issues and activism, and specially modified communication devices. Each provides opportunities for unique experiences of human engagement. All are derived from a communal experience of being deaf that transcends the severity of a hearing loss and replaces it with a sense of membership and identity that must be addressed, purposefully and specifically, when working with deaf citizens in the criminal justice system.

BRIEF OVERVIEW OF TYPES AND CAUSES OF HEARING LOSS

Before discussing the demographics relevant to deaf individuals, it is important to touch on how hearing loss is defined as well as some of the more common causes of hearing loss. We provide this information only for the reader to understand how prevalent the medical model of deafness is when hearing loss is discussed in the literature or statistics, without reference to cultural aspects of the community.

The World Health Organization (WHO, 2016, p. 3) defines four categories of hearing loss:

•Slight or mild hearing loss (26–40 dB): trouble hearing speech from a distance, soft speech, or around background noise.

•Moderate (41–60 dB): Difficulty hearing normal speech even in close encounters.

•Severe (61–80 dB): Ability to hear only very loud speech or loud sounds in the environment (i.e., truck sirens). Conversational speech is normally not heard.

•Profound (over 81 dB): Loud sounds are usually perceived through vibrations.

There are three basic types of hearing loss. Conductive hearing loss relates to the outer and middle ear and its physiology, which can frequently be corrected through surgery. Sensorineural hearing loss is damage to the inner ear or the nerve pathways from the inner ear to the brain. Most frequently, the cause of hearing loss, it is often permanent and not surgically corrected (although this hearing loss sometimes benefits from cochlear implants). Mixed hearing loss is caused by the combination of conductive and sensorineural hearing loss.

We have briefly mentioned auditory information for those who are unfamiliar with decibel loss and types of hearing loss. However, this chapter focuses on issues regarding the demographics for culturally deaf populations who use ASL as their primary means of communication and often do not identify with medical models of hearing loss. The degree to which deaf individuals self-identify as culturally deaf or as individuals who have a hearing loss depends on many variables, including the age of onset, degree of loss, their parentage, their exposure to and use of ASL, and whether they identify culturally with other members who use ASL as their mode of communication.

GENERAL STATISTICS FROM VARIOUS ASSESSMENTS

According to Lin, Niparko, and Ferucci (2011), it is estimated that 12.7% of Americans 12 years and older have bilateral (loss in both ears) hearing loss and that the percentage increases to 20.3% if individuals with unilateral hearing loss (loss of hearing in one ear) are included. These percentages are based on a review of data from the National Health and Nutritional Examination Surveys from 2001 through 2008, as well as a definition of hearing loss provided by the WHO (2018). According to the most recent information from the WHO website, disabling hearing loss is defined as a hearing loss “greater than 40 decibels (dB) in the better hearing ear in adults and a hearing loss greater than 30 dB in the better hearing ear in children” (WHO, 2018, para. 3).

The American Community Survey is an annual demographics survey that provides population estimates for the U.S. Census. The 2019 Disability Characteristics Survey (U.S. Census Bureau, 2019) states that 2% of the survey respondents between the ages of 18 and 64 report a hearing loss, and 13.7% over the age of 65 report hearing loss. Although the survey breaks down ethnic identity by overall percentages reported, these numbers are not separated by specific disability. The survey discusses the percentage of hearing loss by age categories (i.e., under 5 and 5–17 years old) but does not include categories that identify communication methods such as whether the participants use ASL, signed English systems (which provide one sign for one English word regardless of the meaning of the word beings used) (Holcomb, 2013), or spoken languages.

The National Health Interview Survey, through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2017), provides a different statistical analysis. According to their report, between 2014 and 2016, 15.9% of the population over the age of eighteen report hearing difficulty.

Several data collection efforts focus on children in K–12 settings. The National Center on Deaf-Blindness (NCDB, 2016) developed an annual National Child Count of Children and Youth Who Are DeafBlind report in 1986. According to their 2016 report, a total of 9,574 children were identified as DeafBlind through their data collection efforts in 2015.

Until 2013 to 2014, Gallaudet University collected statistics annually on the national and regional number of deaf children and youth in K–12. According to their most recent report, a total of 6,804 students were reported, 53% of whom were male and 47% female (Office of Research Support and International Affairs, 2014).

RACIAL/ETHNIC GROUPS AND DEAFNESS

Those who work in the criminal justice field are faced on a day-to-day basis with issues of the intersectionality of their own racial and ethnic affiliation with those of men and women in the criminal justice system. When working with a deaf person, criminal justice personnel must determine what intersectional dynamics might be of particular import to those with whom they work. A number of researchers have identified some important findings concerning certain group membership within the larger Deaf community.

Hoffman and colleagues (2017) found that non-Hispanic White adults are more likely to have hearing loss compared with adults in other ethnic groups. Non-Hispanic Black adults have the lowest prevalence of hearing loss between ages 20 and 69. American Indians/Alaska Natives and White individuals had the highest numbers of hearing loss, whereas Black/African Americans had the lowest prevalence for those ages 65 and older (McKee et al., 2018). Research addressing hearing loss in the Hispanic/Latino community found that 1 in 7 people (15%) identified as having hearing problems (Cruikshanks et al., 2015).

IMPACT OF SPECIFIC ETIOLOGY ON STATISTICS

Other factors also may impact the collection of data and, subsequently, our understanding of deaf people in the United States. These include periodic epidemics of disease, genetic factors, infant screening for hearing loss, noise pollution, and hearing loss relevant to returning veterans of war. As a result of these factors, reported numbers on hearing loss and deafness will rise or fall accordingly or be skewed in one area of the country compared with the rest of the population.

The Rubella Epidemic

Research that began in the 1940s and continued into the 1960s in Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States cleared the way for recategorizing congenital rubella syndrome (CRS), once considered a minor rash, to a major health threat during pregnancy (Plotkin, 2006). The rubella epidemic struck the United States in 1964 and 1965, having migrated from Europe. An estimated 12.5 million people contracted the rubella virus between 1964 and 1965 (CDC, 2017). As infants were born, medical research recognized the systemic impact of CRS that lead to possible multiple pathologies affecting the brain, eyes, ears, lungs, liver, and spleen, to name but a few (Plotkin, 2006).

Doctor and Davis (1972) noted that the 1970 Directory of Services for the Deaf reported the greatest number of deaf students in preschool and regular classes in the country’s history. Specifically, residential schools had waiting lists of students looking to enter their doors. The numbers of students and schools for the deaf have decreased dramatically over the years as a result of vaccination that has reduced the prevalence of rubella. By 2004, rubella and CRS had been declared eradicated in the United States (CDC, 2017). Currently in the United States, fewer than 10 people are reported to have contracted rubella annually (CDC, 2017).

Usher Syndrome

Usher syndrome is a genetic disease that combines deafness or hearing loss with an eye disease called retinitis pigmentosa (RP). In some cases, balance is also impacted. There are three types of Usher syndrome. Type 1 refers to individuals who are born with profound hearing loss at birth and have balance problems. Visual problems usually occur by age 10, beginning with night vision difficulties and progress to significant vision loss over several decades. Often, children with type 1 Usher syndrome do not benefit from hearing devices (although they may be candidates for cochlear implants) and may be introduced to a signed English system or ASL. Type 2 refers to children born with moderate to severe hearing loss and may often communicate orally and benefit from assistive hearing devices. RP often occurs in late adolescence. Children with type 3 are often born with normal hearing at birth and a near-normal balance, but with age, a progressive hearing loss occurs with accompanying balance difficulties in some children (Malm et al., 2011). The decline in both hearing and vision varies, with hearing loss being developed by adolescence, and the individual may need hearing aids by mid- to late adulthood. Night blindness may develop during adolescence; vision loss increases to legal blindness by midlife.

According to the National Institute on Deafness and other Communication Disorders (2017), Usher syndrome accounts for about 50% of all hereditary DeafBlind cases, impacting 3% to 6% of all children who are deaf and another 3% to 6% of children who are hard of hearing.

Some populations demonstrate a higher incidence of Usher syndrome. For example, in the United States, a larger proportion of the Louisiana Acadians have type 1, which is the most severe (Umrigar et al., 2017). As a result, hearing loss-related population statistics might be disproportionate in this geographical area.

Noise-Induced/Acquired Hearing Loss

Noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) is cited as one of the most common forms of sensorineural hearing loss (Le et al., 2017). A 2011 to 2012 CDC study involving hearing tests and interviews with participants cited that at least 10 million adults (6%) in the United States under the age of 70 demonstrate hearing loss in one or both ears from exposure to loud noise. The WHO estimated that one-third of all cases of hearing loss could be attributed to noise exposure.

Recent studies show an increase in hearing loss in adolescents and young adults. Evidence suggests that loud rock music along with increased use of portable music players, frequently used ...