Kind of questions on ethical obligation
I would like to put a scenario, in which an ethical obligation arose, for you to discuss and I would like to invite other professionals to participate in this discussion as well. I would be quite grateful for any feedback. A little contribution surely can make much difference to me, thanks.
A scenario is that I was given an audio- tape to transcribe the context of my native language into English. The audio- tape is the recording of a police procedure, in which the police investigated the accused person, who does not speak English so that an interpreter was used in the procedure.
What I found out in the content of the audio-tape amazed me. There were a lot of misinterpretations, most of all, because of misinterpretations the accused person was unfairly disadvantaged in relation to his statutory rights. The interpreter seemed not to be aware of some legal terms such as ' arrest rights', 'submission of forensic procedure, and so on, as a result the accused person had been locked up in contrary to his legal rights. If the accused person had understood his legal rights, he would have been released on bail outright. I thought that it is a critical error at the cause of interpreter's misinterpretation. Our criminal justice system is based on the notions that " Accused person is presumed to be innocent until his guilt has been proven" and "the burden of proof lies with the prosecution'. At the start of the investigation, every accused person, except otherwise prescribed in any provisions contained in any specific law, shall have a right to be released on bail in accordance with the notions and statutory rights. So, in my scenario the accused person had been suffering irreversible damage. It is not fair.
My questions are: