Lack of hearing no lack of IQ

By Kristin Donnan Standard | Thursday, February 01, 2007

Previous Page

Share

• del.icio.us
• Digg
• NewsVine
• Fark

Print

Email

In Sioux Falls, defendant Daphne Wright's lawyers have played the Disabled Card. Wright, who is accused of kidnapping, killing and dismembering Darlene VanderGiesen, is deaf. So was the victim. Wright's attorneys have claimed that Wright's deafness-related limitations place her at an unfair disadvantage in the courtroom. Legal papers claim that Because of this disadvantage, she should be considered in the same category as a mentally disabled person or a juvenile.

It is important to acknowledge that everyone is innocent until proven guilty; we average newsreaders have no personal knowledge as to Wright's innocence or guilt. Having said that, however, it seems as if Wright's lawyers have grossly underestimated the public's - and, therefore, a potential jury's - response to such a blatant generalization about deafness.

One of several generalizations reportedly contained in the defense filing is that deafness since early childhood leads to difficulties with vocabulary and in understanding English. Lawyers say that in this case, such inhibition would derail Wright's ability to comprehend the legal proceedings and to effectively participate in a crucial death penalty hearing.

However, news articles since these claims appeared have included comments by Communication Service for the Deaf representatives, who contradicted these generalizations by saying that long-term deafness does not lead to what attorneys called "a significant cognitive deficit." The Service's Rick Norris has been quoted as saying, "There are a lot of deaf people that feel as if a deaf person should be treated just as a hearing person."

What seemed especially insulting in the filings was the assertion that early deafness causes complex topics to elude the understanding of deaf people - as if their lack of hearing lowers their IQ scores, and their ability to communicate their thoughts, intentions, and, perhaps, reasons for killing someone. Try looking at the About: Deafness Web site (a page on the About, Inc. site produced by the New York Times Company). Jamie Berke, the deafness guide on the site, was born deaf and understands and writes English with excellent clarity. So do several bloggers I read, who have very "vocal" opinions on this case.

What is reprehensible in this overall defense position is the several giant steps backward in social understanding that are required to make the argument. Deaf people have shown for decades that through the use of Sign Language, lip reading and various communication devices, they can interact successfully and thoroughly with the hearing world. (They can do much more than that, but this type of interface is the subject of these legal filings.) We have come to know that in these interactions, people of different cultures are sharing their experiences.

It would have been defensible had Wright's attorneys claimed that she personally was materially mentally disabled, because of the effect of whatever identifiable factors inform the story of her life. Instead, they said that deaf people can't understand what's happening around them.

Maybe, in their defense, Wright's attorneys were just beating the bushes for a viable argument. Instead, maybe they should be looking for a really good interpreter.

Kristin Donnan Standard lives and works in Hill City. Write to kedonnan@aol.com