I just got finished watching the Law and Order television program that starred a number of Deaf actors in a whodunnit murder case involving a ear doctor who does cochlear implants.
So what did I think?
It was… interesting.
Certainly I thought the program did a good job of covering some of the aspects of the Deaf Community – using videophones, sign language interpreters, the closeness of the members of the community, some of the “sensitive issues” that we deal with – such as cochlear implants, Deaf identity, etc.
I also thought it did a good job of showing some of the issues involved with interpreting – following the Code of Ethics, trying to maintain your proper role as an interpreter (especially in situations where you might be expected to wear different hats), how challenging interpreting can really be at times (the struggles of the gentleman to understand and voice the Deaf woman when she became hysterical.)
But was the plot itself a bit far-fetched? I have to wonder. While I can’t say that I am all that supportive of cochlear implants myself, would I go so far as to kill somebody over it? I would like to think that the majority of us are well-adjusted individuals who in spite of our personal opinions about these devices, are not about to commit murder over them.
I find it interesting that cochlear implants have played a significant role in the plot of two such law enforcement programs recently (remember Marlee Matlin and the program where her daughter was killed?)
I can’t help but wonder why Hollywood seems to have this fascination with wanting to focus on the whole issue surrounding cochlear implants and their impact on the Deaf Community. Or is it simply that they are reflecting what is already going on within our community? Let’s face it…there was some considerable discussion and feelings expressed regarding the portrayal of cochlear implants and oralism in the recent “Through Deaf Eyes” program.
In a way, maybe tonight’s Law and Order did a better job of truly portraying those Deaf Eyes than the PBS program did. I like to think that it really brought home what the Deaf Culture is all about in an eye-opening, thought-provoking manner. It showed us as we are – warts and all. It wasn’t always flattering, but it was honest and real.
Sure, we can scoff at Larry for demanding a Deaf cop, a Deaf judge, a jury of his peers. But as unrealistic as such a request might seem to be, is it really that far off from what some of us have thought and felt at one time or the other? It’s especially interesting when we consider that the Daphne Wright trial is going on right now, and those types of questions have been raised in the Deaf Blogosphere. Was Larry merely expressing the very concerns that we have had – how much justice can a Deaf person expect in a hearing world that often does not accommodate our needs, nor understand our issues?
What about Tommy, who killed the doctor out of his fear that a cochlear implant would destroy his relationship with Mahlia? That once she turned hearing, she would turn away from him and the Deaf Community? While I doubt any of us can support his actions, can we at least understand and sympathize with the feelings that drove him towards such actions?
Hmmmmm… lots to think about here.
Anyone want to share your thoughts?
This sculpture shows the sign for "connect"...and that is what Deaf Pagan Crossroads is all about - making connections. Connections between Deafhood and Paganism, connections between the Deaf Community and the Hearing Community, connections between myself as the writer and you as the reader. I hope you will take the time to read my various posts, some of which are listed below. Welcome to the Crossroads, and I hope you make some connections here!
Deaf Pagan Crossroads 
I had to laugh at Larry. It was obvious to me that some aspects of that episode were taken from the Gally protests, and that Larry was loosely based on Ryan Commerson.
In the past, I always cringed when I saw people signing on TV, because it was just horrible. But this time around, it was perfect. And I agree with you about how they covered the interpreter’s CoE. I was happy about that. I was also impressed how in the end, they made a point to handcuff in the front, instead of the back.
But I had to smirk at some stuff, like the deaf power signs. I haven’t seen that since DPN… And what was that about deaf people quickly making up? That has not been my experience! :p
As for the plot itself, I found it to be a bit contrived. Killing a doctor because he feels he’s going to be abandoned? It would make more sense for him to kill her, not the doctor.
Regarding the CI thing… I think the media and Hollywood focuses on that so much because they can’t really understand why we oppose it, and let’s face it – we’re pretty loud on that. We aren’t loud on other issues like deaf education.
I thought the show did a really good job, overall. You could tell that the producers and writers did their research and paid attention to the fine details. Definitely gets the thumbs up from me!
Great to see more exposure for the Deaf Community recently (Through Deaf Eyes and this Law and Order episode).
Project covered some of my thoughts. But I just want to add a few more (spoiler-alert for those of you who haven’t seen the show)
.
.
.
.
The interpreter on this show…if any of you were being grilled by the police, would you want that person to be your interpreter? It’s just that I noticed some points missed during the interpreting process (especially during the heated and fast segments) in the interrogation room. At one point, a lot was being signed, but the interpreter really condensed what was expressed. Just my impression.
The interpreter was discussing the politics of CI with the detectives. Basically, it was said that CI was just another option today, and that it was not such a hot topic that provoked so much anger like it did in the 1990’s…due to Deaf people having more access to hearing world via the internet and other communication technology. Any thoughts on this?
The ending: the motive for the murder of the CI doctor was clear…but nothing was followed up on the shooting of the Deaf dean (who survived after being shot in the neck). Not even a few statements at the end to clear up this loose end.
I enjoyed this show nevertheless.
I was wondering that too! (About the shooting of the Dean) I was like “WHAT was the connection between the murder of CI doctor and the attempted murder of the Dean?” Same shooter or two shooters? After all, Larry played the matyr, so I thought maybe he tried to shoot the Dean?? I mean, were there ANY connections between the dean and the deaf boyfriend of the woman who was about to get a CI?
Well….We were unable to watch the show becasue the weather warning program stole the almost entire show as well as the rest of the channels. We will have to wait for the re-run…When???
I was disappointed that our local st ation didn’t show the episode “the Silencer” of NBC’s law & Order: Criminal Intent . I can see that some of you had watched it tonight. It seemed that showed at mostly of Eastern Coast not Centeral time zone. I guess I will check it out again for this specific episode in West Texas area.
S.
Deaf Pundit,
That is a viciously false thing to say.
YOU have a problem.
i agree with lisa’s comment.. we were interrupted by weather warning in texas for most of the show..
when and if they will show the re-run?
I heard that it was going to be shown on April 11th, but I am not sure which channel. Sorry, my memory deserts me occasionally.
I understand why some of us are cringing at the episode… I did cringe at the Deaf Power signs, myself. But it’s a cop show, and they *never* show only the positive side about a community. So I thought they did a good job, considering they only had a hour interrupted by commercials to present both sides of everything.
I remember one episode – not on Criminal Intent, but on another Law and Order show… A black leader was murdered, and in the end, the leader’s family refused to press charges against the killer. Why? Because there were too many black men in jail. Is that truly representative of the black community? 😛
An afterthought: the loose end of the dean bugged me too… but there were allusions that whoever killed the ear doctor also tried to kill the Dean to frame Larry. *shrugs*
I give the show two thumbs DOWN.
Didn’t like it sorry – thought it was weak.
Showing the protest… ugh. Nice way of drilling into hearing people’s mind that we’ll protest everytime we disagree with something. Please.
Yeah, I thought it was cool that they went through trouble on details lik VP, eyeadropping, handcuffing hands in front (very important lesson for cops).
That’s all I liked. 😦
I thought that they were exaggerating on many things, blowing things out of proportion.
Some examples:
*Tommy and Malia making up after having a public argument on the ice rink and the police interpreter explaining that they had no other choice but to make up because they live in a “coccon” or close knit tight community and they only have each other to rely on. Are we really like that?
*deaf mother with deaf baby (tommy’s cousin) saying that a hearing baby is like a time bomb waiting to explode. Oh, puh-leez!
*when the cops were interviewing Tommy and Malia together, the guy detective asked why Malia would skip such a important event which was missing Tommy’s cousin’s baby party which meant welcoming a deaf baby into the community. Do we seriously celebrate that? Not to my knowledge. All I know is that when someone has a deaf baby, we just share our congratulations and comments, nothing more.
*It is so unrealistic for Larry to ask for deaf cop, deaf judge. It would have been more realistic if he demanded for a more qualified interpreter, not someone who could just sign.
Again this is TV. I hope people remember that it is just TV that they are watching. I remember another TV show talking about a religious group and they were so exaggerated on that presenting a unrealistic picture of them.
Good morning! 🙂
Thanks to everyone who shared their thoughts… I enjoyed reading your comments!
For those who were unable to watch the program last night 😦 perhaps it would be a good idea to contact your local NBC station and find out if they plan to re-air the program? It might be that they are planning to show it at another time.
I do live in the Central Time Zone and watched it last night, as did a friend who also lives in the Central zone, so I think it must just be select areas that did not show it last night – due to weather or other situations.
Jonathan and Jules…you brought up a good point! I didn’t think about that, but you are right – we never did get a clear answer to the shooting of the Dean. My guess is that Tommy did it to frame Larry and hopefully get away with the murder. But it does leave you wondering why they even included that scene if they weren’t going to provide the answers to that shooting. Makes me think they just wanted to show “the hazards of deafness” – what can happen when a Deafie can’t hear the gunshots. (groan…)
But at least I got to see Raymond (whom I wrote about in an earlier blog here – he’s the one writing the book on “Eyes of Desire”) Hey Ray!!! 🙂
Now that I have had some time to sleep on it, think about it, and read other comments on it, what do I think?
I never said that I thought it was a great show – a THOUGHT-PROVOKING show… yes. Did it have some positive things about it? Yes. Did it have some negative things about it? Certainly.
But is part of the reason we weren’t all so crazy about it is because perhaps it touched on some “unpleasant truths?” Let’s face it…as Deaf Pundit says, we have been pretty loud in expressing our opinions about Cochlear Implants. While I don’t think any of us would go so far as to commit murder, I have seen some pretty “heated” comments left on different blogs about these devices.
Drilling a perception of the Deaf Community into hearing people’s minds that may not be accurate? I think there is some truth to that, but then…this is Hollywood after all.
If it makes y’all feel any better…and I’m sure it doesn’t, but I will say it anyway! 😉 … we Pagans bitch and moan about the way Hollywood and the media portrays Witches and Druids and Pagans and the like also. We are always getting compared to “Charmed” or “Harry Potter” or as a special episode in one of those dang programs that ends up falsely portraying us as these “evil, devil-worshipping, harmful criminals.” Sigh.
Hi Jessica ~
Good comments! Thanks for refreshing my memory on a couple of specific scenes from the program.
I too winced at that whole making-up scene, and the “cocoon” remark. Kind of made me feel like we are expected to be some sort of “sheltered children” in a way, with little knowledge or understanding of the harsh realities of life or the “Real World” outside of our cushy little cubbyholes. I think most of us have a pretty good grip on that reality, thankyouverymuch. While we might view that world from our own unique perspectives, we are quite capable of navigating it successfully, the same way anyone else would… with or without hearing.
Hearing babies are a time bomb? I have to join ya on this one – “ohhh puh-leze!” When was the last time you saw a newspaper headline that said “Hearing Infant Explodes” ??? I wonder just what the writers were thinking…exactly what is this statement supposed to mean? Raising a child can be a challenge, period – especially with all the outside issues we have to deal with; such as drugs, alcohol, sex predators, teenaged pregnancies, gangs, peer pressure, media, etc.
Playing the Devil’s Advocate here…while most of us probably did think that Larry’s demands were unrealistic, were they REALLY inappropriate? Did they in fact express the “wishful thinking” of the Deaf Community? Have any of you ever wondered why there can’t be Deaf cops or Deaf judges or Deaf juries? Granted, maybe Deaf cops can’t work out in the field for safety reasons, but surely there are aspects of Law Enforcement that they could do (forensics, etc.) We have Deaf lawyers, so why not Deaf judges? True…it hasn’t happened YET – but has Larry just planted the seed in our minds of what COULD be? Or are we just going to pooh-pooh it as an unrealistic demand? Unrealistic today…maybe. Undoubtedly he was using this as a ploy to drag out the whole situation and create more hassles for the detectives. But is wanting to see a Deaf cop and a Deaf judge and so forth…and expressing such a desire a bad thing?
Like I said…something to think about.
Good point there about was it rather appropriate than realistic to ask for a Deaf judge or cop.
I don’t see why not this can’t be done. As long as have reasonable accommodations made. There are other positions in law enforcement such as medical examiner, crime scene investigator, forensic scientist, etc. Not just cops or judges. Would be nice if we could see a Deaf person acting any one of those roles,eh? Just to show what can be done. Like you said, we have a good number of Deaf lawyers out there.
If a African American (or some other culture such as Mexican, Asian, or other) came in to be interrogated, can they ask for another cop of similar culture? Or to ask for same thing when go to courtroom?
Guess I better reframe my last comment with different wording then.
Follow up for those of you who didn’t get to see the program the first time around…(thanks to Crystal Dolphin for bringing this to my attention!)
In some areas (such as Massachusetts where Crystal lives), the new Tuesday airing of L&O CI is usually re-run on NBC a week from the Saturday following the program. In another words, not the same week Saturday, but the next week Saturday.
So this means that yesterday’s episode will be aired on NBC again 4/14 at 10pm EST. You might want to check that out and see if this happens in your area.
Also, USA network re-airs the L&O CI episodes a week or two after original NBC airing, so if anyone misses it on NBC, they can search USA network for it.
Hope this helps for those who missed it!
Jonathan,
The interpreter was not just an interpreter. He was a cop. A CODA cop. That really is a conflict of interest. The ADA pressuring him to watch the conversation between Larry and his lawyer through the window which is against the law – privleged conversation between client and lawyer. She tried to exploit the fact that ASL is a visual language and tried to manipulate a colleague into interpreting a privileged conversation. Thankfully this CODA cop declined. Conceptually he was “thinking” would he want an ADA to manipulate a cop if Larry were his parents?
Many police departments exploit the cops who can sign to interpret…to save money. ADA law says they must hire an outside interpreter. Some states require the interpreter be licensed for any legal proceedings. This show present a downside on the PD part in exploiting their own colleagues in interest of saving a few bucks.
Cy,
Yes, you got a point there. We don’t want police departments across the nation to get that kind of idea. But good to bring up what is common issue for Deaf when they deal with the police.
Now that we are talking about interpreting, two situations that came up: the interpreter was not comfortable in “eavesdropping” on the deaf couple on the ice rink’s conversation and interpreting for Det. Goren. But Goren made a point that it was a public place and they were having a conversation open for others to see.
The 2nd situation: Larry was in the interrogation room openly discussing with his lawyer. The lady ADA wanted to know what they were saying but the terp refused to say anything because again he felt that it was not appropriate. But they were OPENLY talking between each other. Suppose it was a hearing person with his lawyer and they were talking out loud discussing their case in front of others instead of whispering quietly or going to another room, whatever, would that be the same thing?
So wonder if code of ethics for interpreters would be appropriate for them to go ahead and interpret what is going on? Do you think it was right for the cop interpreter to refuse to interpret?
If I may, I would like to jump in on this and offer up my own two cents…
If I remember clearly (and please feel free to correct me, this old brain of mine has memory problems these days 😉 ), when the interpreter introduced himself to the detectives, he indicated he was from the NYPD’s Dept. of Community Affairs or something like that. He did NOT say Homocide or Vice or Forensics or Crime Scene Investigations. Maybe I am wrong, but I got the sense that his position was more in the line of serving as a “Community Liason” for the NYPD, and assisting in cases which required interaction with specific community – in this case, the Deaf Community. And most likely, his job description did include serving as an interpreter…the same way that perhaps a position within that same department working with the Hispanic Community would assist in interpreting in Spanish, or one working with the Asian Community would be required to know Chinese or such.
So yes, he was a staff member of the NYPD, and maybe he did in fact have police training. Maybe he is in fact a “cop” in the sense of the word as we think of it. But I never got the sense that he was a true investigator, and his job was to actually help investigate this crime. Rather, I got the feeling that he was called in to assist the detectives in THEIR investigation by lending his knowledge and skill in working with the community that they needed to interact with – the Deaf Community.
I don’t see that as being a conflict of interest. That is not to say that this interpreter didn’t feel some personal and ethical conflicts in regards to trying to do his job properly. But the simple fact that he worked for the NYPD is in and of itself not a conflict.
There is nothing in the ADA that mandates that one must use outside interpreters. One can use staff interpreters, and those staff interpreters may indeed have other responsibilities. In fact, the ADA does not even mandate interpreters – it mandates “effective communication.” Yes, in most situations this does mean the hiring of a qualified sign language interpreter capable of translating and conveying the message accurately and impartially.
Many large hospitals in metropolitan areas with large Deaf populations do have their own staff interpreters. Courts and Police Departments and Governmental Agencies (such as VR, Commissions for the Deaf, Mental Health, etc.) may do the same, as well as Colleges and Universities. And sometimes those individuals do have other duties within those organizations. (A Staff Interpreter at a college might also teach ASL classes, or a Court Interpreter also serves as a file clerk for the court). In and of itself, this may not be a conflict – as long as the individual recognizes his/her appropriate role when requested to serve as an interpreter, and abides by the Code of Ethics and conducts himself/herself accordingly in an appropriate manner.
I do agree that if the individual has an outside involvement with or perception of the situation that could affect or influence the ability to properly serve in the role of an interpreter, the ethical thing to do would be to require that a different person be brought in to serve in the role of an interpreter.
But to the best of my observation, I saw nothing in this program that indicated a conflict of interest by which this individual should not have been serving as an interpreter. I didn’t get the impression he was there as an investigator, but as a communication facilitator.
The problem I saw was in fact a conflict in how this gentleman himself perceived his role as an interpreter, vs. how he was perceived by the detectives and the Asst. District Attorney.
To what extent is one required to interpret what is seen? Is the fact that sign language is a visual language mean that whatever is viewed by others is open to interpreting by those who could in fact see and understand it? This is a sticky issue.
There are certain “attorney/client privileges” which the police department are required to abide by. I am neither a lawyer nor a police administrator, so I cannot say just what the legalities of such privileges are.
But this does bring up an interesting question – let’s frame this in the context of a different language. Suppose the lawyer and the suspect were speaking in Russian and their voices could be heard by others. There was a Russian interpreter present. Would that interpreter be required to interpret what everyone could hear, or do those privileges come into play? How far can one use “ignorance of the language” to discuss matters in front of others and expect that legal protection? I don’t know.
I do believe that one problem we saw was when everyone left the interrogation room, but could still see the signs through the window. The ADA was demanding that the interpreter voice what was being signed simply because it could be seen, although it couldn’t be heard. From what I do understand from a friend who is a retired police officer, interrogation rooms are supposed to be designed to be relatively soundproof, and voices are heard through the speaker. If a lawyer and/or suspect request to have a private conversation, the police have to honor that, leave the room, and cannot listen in – that is considered attorney/client privileges.
The ADA demanded to know what was being said, and the interpreter refused. She was reminded by the police supervisor that to interpret the conversation would be considered illegal. Frankly, I thought the ADA was out-of-line on several occasions, and I was ready to smack her. It needs to be remembered that not only was she the ADA, she was also the victim’s fiancee. Frankly I think SHE should have been removed from the case – I believe it was a conflict of interest for her to have been involved. She certainly didn’t conduct herself in an ethical manner.
As for “eavesdropping” at the skating rink… Frankly, I think Tommy and Malia were a bit stupid to have been discussing the matter in front of the detective in the first place. They should have known better. I suspect they were counting on nobody being able to understand their words, or on the interpreter in fact refusing to voice them. The detective was making a valid point – they were saying it right out there in the open where anyone could see them, and if you know sign language, eavesdrop on what they had to say. What’s to say that someone else wouldn’t have seen what they were signing and reported it to the police? Sooooooo…..
I think this gentleman was struggling with just where do the boundaries lie in your role as an interpreter? How far are you expected to go in providing that communication access?
Let’s say that you are the personal interpreter assigned to the President of the United States in which he attends a meeting of the National Association of the Deaf. You interpret for the meeting as expected, and then at the cocktail party afterwards, you also interpret those conversations directed specifically to the President. However, he notices two Deaf individuals standing over in the corner having a rather animated and seemingly heated conversation. Does the President have the right to request that the interpreter voice what is being said…in the name of “national security?” (After all, they could be plotting a terrorist act and arguing over an assassination attempt!)
Hmmm…interesting thought.
it had its good points and its bad points, but i was told it was fairly acurate, and for some one trying to understand the deaf comunity, wellllll . i thought it was pretty good. felt bad for tommy though yeah he killed someone but fear of abandonment can be a powerfull thing. oh and the dean she turned saw the sofa bullet holes in her pictures why did she not hit the floor. well wouldnt you ok you couldnt hear the shots but your eyes told you the story the sofa the pictures some ones shooting at me, thats one of the bad points, hand cuffs in front was a good point was so he could still talk,and the interpreter not revealing what was being said in the interogation room, i may be rambling here but i just want to understand ,theres just too much intollerance in the world and i dont want to be part of it, all people should try to understand one another, not just deaf people and hearing people all people
I enjoyed the cultural aspects of the episode (secret signing, small community, coming together to stand for a cause, etc.) but the interpreter bothered me. Seeing that he was an Outreach worker and not an interpreter, I think they should have located a Certified Interpreter (Special Certificate: Legal, SC:L) to really authenticate the process. Someone who truly knows the system and can portray the elements accurately.
Overall, I was happy with the episode and wish more TV shows would do something similar. This is a great way to educate the public.
[…] Please feel free to view my dear friend’s blog on this Law & Order Criminal Intent episode at Deaf Pagan Crossroads. […]
I just ran across this discussion and wanted to mention that, if I recall correctly, it was not Tommy’s original intention to kill the surgeon; he intended only to wound him so that he would be unable to perform surgery. But Tommy became confused, uncertain whether the man’s cries for help would reach outside ears, and ended up killing him out of desperation. I think the comments about the episode’s being far-fetched in terms of Tommy’s motivation miss this detail.
I also found it fairly profound that Tommy’s intended method of wounding the surgeon–shooting him in the hand–is metaphorically a way of silencing someone, for a signing person. He follows this by injuring the man’s throat, silencing him in a second way, before ultimately killing him. Tommy is, symbolically, an embodiment of silence, beginning with his desire to prevent Malia from getting the cochlear implant.
I don’t pretend to understand what it is like to be deaf, but I think if you examine this episode in view of its many representations of silence (I’ve mentioned only a few here; there are many more), you may find more to recommend it.