19 Feb Let’s Test Your Ethics: The Digital “Assist”
Let’s Test Your Ethics: The Digital “Assist”
The NAJIT Observer Team
Honoring the Lunar New Year
Before we turn to this month’s ethical discussion, we want to pause to recognize the Lunar New Year.
For many communities around the world, this celebration marks renewal, reflection, and the beginning of a new cycle. It is a time grounded in tradition, family, and forward movement.
In a profession centered on language and culture, moments like these matter. They remind us that our work exists within living communities shaped by history, identity, and shared experience.
As a new year begins for many of our colleagues and the communities we serve, we extend our wishes for prosperity, clarity, and continued growth.
Welcome to “Let’s Test Your Ethics”
As professional interpreters and translators, we often navigate challenging situations that test our ethical judgment. Whether it’s balancing confidentiality with transparency or maintaining impartiality in emotionally charged settings, these dilemmas are part of our work’s complexity.
This segment, “Let’s Test Your Ethics,” is designed to spark thoughtful discussion and provide a platform for our community to engage with hypothetical yet realistic scenarios. By exploring these challenges together, we can deepen our understanding of ethical principles and share insights that strengthen our collective professionalism.
Remember, there’s rarely a one-size-fits-all solution to ethical dilemmas. Your unique perspective, shaped by your experiences and values, is invaluable to this conversation.
Ethical Dilemma: The Digital “Assist”
The Situation
An AI-powered speech recognition and “translation” system is introduced in your courthouse as part of a pilot program. Court administration describes it as a “support tool,” not a replacement for certified interpreters.
Exploring ethical principles: A foundation for professional integrity in translation and interpretation
You are told:
-
-
- The AI transcript will not replace your live interpretation.
- It will generate a parallel English text display “for transparency.”
- It may help identify “efficiency patterns” and “accuracy trends” over time.
-
The judge refers to it as “the direction the profession is moving.”
At first, it seems manageable.
However, during proceedings, you begin noticing concerns:
-
- The system struggles with regional accents.
- Legal terminology is occasionally mistranscribed.
- Qualifiers such as “allegedly,” “approximately,” or “attempted” sometimes disappear.
- The AI’s partial “translation” appears on a courtroom monitor visible to attorneys and court staff.
In one hearing, the AI renders a defendant’s answer in a way that subtly shifts tone, making the statement appear more confrontational than it was. You observe the judge glance at the screen mid-interpretation.
No one formally addresses the discrepancy.
Your interpretation remains accurate.
Yet a second, visible version of the language now exists in the room.
Weeks later, you learn that administrators are reviewing AI transcripts alongside interpreter performance metrics “to evaluate modernization outcomes.” You are not informed how discrepancies between human and machine output will be analyzed.
Additionally, a newer interpreter expresses support for the system, stating that it provides reassurance during high-pressure hearings. Some experienced colleagues disagree privately but choose not to voice concerns publicly.
You continue interpreting.
But the technology is present,
visible,
and not logging off anytime soon.
Question:
Should you continue participating in proceedings under these conditions, trusting that your role remains intact, or do you raise formal concerns about the ethical implications of parallel AI output influencing courtroom perception?
Reflect on This:
-
-
- Does the presence of a parallel AI transcript compromise the integrity of interpretation, even if your live interpretation remains accurate?
- At what point does cooperation become endorsement?
- Are interpreters ethically obligated to adapt to technological shifts, or to challenge implementations they believe may undermine due process?
- Would your decision change if objecting meant risking steady assignments?
- How should generational differences in comfort with technology factor into this discussion?
-
Share Your Response
A dictionary: a vital tool for interpreters and translators in navigating linguistic precision
We’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments!
-
-
- How would you approach this situation?
- Have you encountered similar technology in your jurisdiction?
- What principles guide your decision-making when innovation intersects with ethics?
-
Disclaimer
The scenarios presented in this series are fictional and intended solely for discussion and educational purposes within our professional community. They are not based on real events or specific cases but are designed to foster engagement and dialogue about ethical dilemmas that may arise in the field of judiciary interpretation and translation.
Thank you for reading!
The NAJIT Observer Team
Let’s Test Your Ethics Series Archive
Explore previous ethical dilemmas in our ongoing series:
- Confidential Conversations — Should you uphold your obligation to maintain confidentiality, knowing the information cannot be acted on, or do you report the confession in the interest of justice and public safety, risking ethical and legal repercussions?
- Public Record vs. Confidentiality — Should you redact the confidential information before translating, adhering to ethical obligations but potentially facing repercussions from the agency, or do you translate the documents exactly as instructed, fulfilling your professional duty but risking harm to vulnerable individuals?
As this series continues to grow, each scenario builds on the layered realities of our profession and invites thoughtful dialogue within our community.
Interested in proposing a future ethical dilemma? Contact The NAJIT Observer Team.
Keep the Conversation Going
If this topic resonated with you, be sure to check out our previous blog posts for more insights on the realities of our profession, and the evolving world of judiciary translation and interpreting:
-
- On Verbatim — If “verbatim” really means word for word, why does taking it literally in court sometimes get the truth wrong?
- Not An Infallible Technique, After All— A trusted courtroom technique that usually ensured smooth interpretation failed in one high-pressure moment, forcing a reassessment of judgment, timing, and courtroom dynamics.
- Playing The Infinite Game In Your Interpreting Career — Legal interpreting invites us to think beyond the case in front of us and commit to protecting meaning, due process, and the long-term strength of our profession.
You can find these and more in our blog archives!
Interested in sharing your insights with our community? Check out Writing for The NAJIT Observer to learn how you can contribute.
The images used in this post are sourced from Unsplash. They are used for illustrative purposes only.