Constitutional Guarantee of the Right to Interpretation in Criminal Justice Procedures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores the critical role of judiciary interpreting in legal proceedings, focusing on the necessity for accurate and effective court interpretation for defendants who do not speak the court's language. Judiciary interpreting is distinct from general interpreting because it directly impacts the protection of basic rights and the fairness of the trial. Without proper interpretation, defendants may not fully understand the charges against them or the legal procedures, leading to the potential infringement of their defense rights and the integrity of the trial. As South Korea transitions into a multicultural society, the influx of immigrants has led to an increase in criminal cases involving non-native Korean speakers. These defendants often face difficulties in both testimony and communication with legal professionals due to language barriers. In response, South Korean law mandates the assistance of interpreters during criminal procedures (Article 180 of the Criminal Procedure Act) and has introduced systems like the 2021 court interpreter certification program. However, issues such as a lack of qualified interpreters for minority languages and insufficient understanding of legal terminology among interpreters still hinder the full realization of defendants' rights. This paper addresses the constitutional foundation of the right to interpretation, emphasizing that this right derives from the principles of due process, the right to a fair trial, and bodily freedom guaranteed in the Korean Constitution. By comparing legal systems in Canada, the U.S., and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), this study examines the standards for interpretation rights and suggests improvements for South Korea's judiciary interpreting system. Key recommendations include establishing objective criteria for determining when interpretation is necessary, ensuring interpreter competence, and formalizing interpretation guidelines in the legal system to safeguard the accuracy and impartiality of court interpretation. The paper concludes that an effective judiciary interpreting system is essential to maintaining the fairness of trials in a multicultural society and calls for legislative reforms to enhance interpreter training and certification.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".