Numerous barriers influence effective communication within the criminal justice system including racial, cultural and linguistic differences. However one’s ability to listen either because of physical impairment, mental disability or habits may also limit communication efficacy in the criminal justice system. However, barriers can be mitigated and addressed in order to promote effective communication.

Hybschmann Publishing, Inc. (2005) explicates that one does not have to give up or negate one’s experience, culture and/or values in order to delimit barriers. However, this may take some conscious effort. When listening to those providing information or responding, criminal justice professionals should carefully examine their own body language and that of the other person. this may yield clues as to whether the person understands the instructions being given or the procedures (Matthewson, 2009). If persons are deaf or vision impaired, then law enforcement has a responsibility to use the protocols set forth by the American Disability Association. If the person does not understand English or has limited competence because of foreign language fluency, officers can utilize interpreters.

Yet, Rahman, Hirsch & Shah (2007) reveal that in New York where more than 100 languages and many more dialects are spoken, sometimes, interpreters are either nonexistent or too far away (2007). For these reasons, New York’s criminal justice system has alternately engaged associative technology to assist in the field (2007). By engaging this technology law enforcement can type in phrases into their phones or electronic translators and show the person in question (2007). This facilitates the processes but does not fully address the need for two-way communication.

Nevertheless, Grubb& Hemby (2003) also states the most common communication barrier lies within the gap between the number of words one can understand per minute, approximately 400, and the number spoken, approximately 125 per minute. This gap between processing and speaking thereby induces the listener to the propensity for distraction. Therefore, Grubb & Hemby (2003) insist that criminal justice professionals should use short, simple sentences. By doing so, this delimits distraction.

References

American Disability Association (2006). Model policy for law enforcement on communication

withpeople who are deaf or hard of hearing. Retrieved from

lawenfmodpolicy.htm

Grubb, Hemby, R, K. (2003).Effective communication for criminal justice professionals.

Belmont, CA 94002-: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

Hyschmann Publishing, Inc. (2005). Communication barriers. Retrieved from

Matthewson, J. (2009). effective communication in criminal justice: Process, components, and

various types. Retrieved from

tucson/effective-communication-criminal-justice-process-components-and-various-types

Rahman, I., Hirsch, J., & Shah, S. (2007, Sept.). Overcoming language barriers in the criminal

justice system: Can language assistance technology help? Vera Institute of Justice.

Retrieved from

language_portal/files/Overcoming%20Language%20Barriers%20Vera%202007.pdf

Zumbrum, D. (2006). Effective communication for security personnel. International Foundation

for Protection Officers. Retrieved from