From there the court reporter or dedicated transcriber translates the code into written text to produce a final transcript. Court reporters working in realtime situations connect their stenotype machines to a computer, which then translates the phonetic code and displays it on a screen. Beyond stenography, which is the term used for using a stenotype machine to provide verbatim transcripts, some court reporters engage in voice writing, which is the process of echoing the spoken words of a proceeding into a special, mask-like device that is connected to a computer.
As the court reporter speaks into the machine, the computer software translates the spoken word into a transcription, which is then reviewed by the court reporter upon the conclusion of the proceeding. Although court reporters are essentially performing the same job, which is to provide verbatim recordings, the terms used to describe the various activities associated with stenography differ:.
Official court reporting , often referred to as judicial reporting, involves stenography in a court of law or legal setting. Court reporters in this type of setting are generally employed by the local, state or federal agency through which the court operates, and they often work exclusively for one judge or court.
Although many court reporters utilize the traditional stenography method, some are called upon to provide realtime court reporting using computer-aided transcription CAT , which is displayed inside the courtroom and even to remote locations.
Some may even perform their job using voice writing capabilities. Beyond the courtroom, many judicial reporters provide services for depositions or testimony in law offices, and many are called to provide stenography services in private business settings for events such as shareholder meetings and executive proceedings. Nobody should be tried and convicted by crime reporters, in the columns of a newspaper or over the air waves.
Of course, it is also important to society that journalists and other people have the right to talk about things, and we shall talk more about that later in this chapter. But where two important rights clash, one has to be limited in the interests of the other. For example, anyone has the right to drive from one town to another.
However, because the people who live along the way have the right to walk safely around their homes, the speed at which you can drive may be limited. And because people driving the other way also have their rights, you may be limited to driving on only one side of the road. In the same way, the right to talk about a crime is limited in order to protect the defendant's right to a fair trial. When a crime has been committed, reporters need to tell people about it.
They may talk to people who saw the crime, or whose property was stolen or damaged, and quote the things those people have to say. However, as soon as the police have caught someone they believe to be responsible for that crime, and are about to charge them with that offence, then reporters are limited in what they can say about the crime.
You can report the fact that the crime happened, that someone is being charged and any facts about it which are not likely to be challenged in court. We may write:. A man has been charged with burglary, following the break-in at Cut-Price supermarket at the weekend. It is important to note that we did not say that Maupiti actually committed the crime - that is not a fact. It is the job of the courts to decide whether or not he did it.
All we said is that Maupiti has been charged with the crime - that is a fact - and that there was a break-in at the store at the weekend - that is also a fact. Anything which reporters publish about the details of the crime or the suffering of the victims, after someone has been charged, could interfere with the court's job. If there is to be a jury, they could be influenced by what they read in the papers, or by what they hear in the news. If the sad stories of how the victims suffered continue to be published right up to the day of the trial, the jury may feel bitter and angry towards the accused person.
This will make it difficult for him to have a fair trial. Even in countries where there is no jury system, judges do not like cases being commented on, or background being published, until the case is finished.
So, from the time that someone is charged with a crime - or, more accurately, from the time when the police tell you that someone is about to be charged with a crime - the case is sub judice.
From that moment on, until the court case is completed, you should write nothing about the crime except details which emerge while the court case is being conducted. The courts are there to act on behalf of ordinary people, so it is important that they carry out their business in public, for all to see.
It is a vital principle that Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. In other words, courts have to do the right thing, and the public have to see and understand that they do so. For that reason, any member of the public may attend any court case, except for certain minor exceptions, which we will come to later in the next chapter. Reporters are members of the public, and so are the readers or listeners they represent. Reporters therefore have the right to attend court cases, and a duty to be there whenever possible on behalf of their readers and listeners who cannot be there.
Court reporters may be given a special place in the courtroom to sit, called a press gallery. Essentially, though, there is no difference between the court reporter and any other member of the public in the courtroom. There are three main reasons why journalists report court cases: to encourage public confidence in the law, to help the law deter future crime, and to get strong news stories.
If ordinary law-abiding people are to feel that their society is strong enough to protect them from criminals, then they have to have a system of law enforcement which they feel confident about. That means that they have to trust the police to catch criminals; and they have to trust the courts to punish people who break the law, to release people who obey the law, and to know the difference between the two.
In other words, society has to believe that the police and the courts are effective, fair and consistent. Let us consider each of these.
Effective : The police must have the willingness and the ability to catch people when crimes have been committed, and to make sure that guilty people are punished. Fair : The police have to question people because they believe they can help with inquiries, and arrest people only when there is reason to believe they have broken the law. If people believe that the police arrest anyone, without good reason, then they will have no confidence in the police. Similarly, if the courts convict or acquit people just because they are pretty or ugly, rich or poor, or come from the same part of the country as the judge, then people will have no confidence in the courts.
Only if the police and courts act fairly will society have confidence in them. If there are other factors, of course, the sentence may be different - one man may have committed an offence for the first time, while the other has been jailed for stealing money before. But if the circumstances are more or less the same, society will expect the punishment to be more or less the same. If the courts are not consistent, then it is unlikely that society can feel confident about the courts' ability to protect it properly.
Society needs journalists to attend court cases and to report exactly what happens there - who is accused of what, what evidence is brought for the prosecution and for the defence, what the court's decision is, and so on. Society's confidence in the legal system depends upon people being informed about what is going on. That is part of the journalist's job, and it is a vital one.
It is a job which needs to be done responsibly. As we saw in the last chapter, one of the reasons for punishing people who break the law is to deter other people from doing the same thing.
In some countries today and in many countries in the past murderers and other serious criminals are executed in public. Other criminals may be beaten in public. This is one way of letting society know the way in which law-breakers are punished, and this acts as a deterrent.
However, most countries nowadays prefer to use newspapers, radio and television to let people know what happens to those who break the law. Journalists have an important part to play in publicising the workings of the police and courts, so that society knows what happens to law-breakers. In this way society is helped to operate more smoothly.
If people believe that they can break the law and get away with it, they are more likely to break the law. After completing years of academic study and skills training, they can post speeds of up to words per minute. Even at this incredibly high rate, court reporters must catch every word, with a minimum required accuracy of 95 percent. Only a well-qualified person can serve as a court reporter, which might make them hard to find.
However, this is a service you cannot forego. Take a look at why the court reporting process is so important.
0コメント