New developments in technology have resulted in an ever-increasing array of sophisticated tools aimed at facilitating human interaction. There was a time when using an interpreter meant that everyone had to be in the same room or general area. Now some interpreting is done by video or by telephone. Interpreting by telephone is efficient when the sole purpose of the participants is to gather simple facts and to have some questions answered with the assistance of an interpreter. This style of interpreting is acceptable in situations involving an exchange of raw data, getting facts, communicating ideas and sending or receiving specific information.

In situations involving the fate of human beings, there is no substitute for live contact.

However, in situations involving the fate of human lives, the character of an individual, or under circumstances requiring the rendering of an opinion about a person, there is no substitute for live, face-to-face contact. Heads of state and diplomats serve as a clear example. Because of their elevated status, they undoubtedly have at their disposal the most sophisticated video conferencing equipment available anywhere.

Instead, high-level diplomacy today continues to take place eyeball-to-eyeball.As these historical events transpire they are then reported and we see the participants’ image on television or their photograph in the newspaper. There is often one more person visible, usually not identified by name: the interpreter, who was also physically present while high-ranking diplomats and government leaders were discussing delicate issues. Our President goes there, their leader or Prime Minister comes here, or two leaders are invited to meet on neutral ground. Still, face-to-face remains the favored means of civilized contact.

Something similar happens with the judicial system. If a judge were to impose sentence while observing a video image instead of a live three-dimensional defendant, that judge is prevented from fully perceiving the demeanor, mannerisms, attitude and other character traits of the defendant.

Why don’t we "improve" on the jury system by letting jurors go home to deliberate the facts of the trial via telephone or computer? Because there is no substitute for human dynamics, the highly charged atmosphere that permeates the deliberation room, where half a dozen conversations might be happening all at once, each dialogue somehow influencing the verbal interaction between others within hearing range. Slight nuances conveyed by body language, the need to persuade, the attempt to reach out to a stubborn, closed-minded individual, are important factors that come into play, not only among jurors themselves inside the deliberation room while attempting to reach a verdict, but also for other parties throughout the trial or hearing that preceded these deliberations. The jury charge read by the judge typically discusses the demeanor of witnesses as it relates to their credibility. In fact, the courtroom and the jury deliberation room are two of the best examples that demonstrate the absolute need for live, face-to-face human interaction in matters involving the fate of human lives.

Ines Swaney (72070.3045@compuserve.com) is a NAJIT member and a federal court- and California state-certified Spanish court interpreter residing in Oakland, CA.