¶1¶ 56. (concurring). In this case, one person who is profoundly deaf has come into contact with the legal system. Many people in this state cannot hear, speak, or understand the English language. For some this is because of a hearing impairment, for others because they are fluent in languages other than English. Because language is the basic tool of the legal system these people cannot fully participate.
¶2¶ 57. According to the 2000 census figures, Wisconsin's Hispanic and Asian populations roughly doubled in the past decade.
¶3¶ 58. This case illustrates how vital it is for the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of this state to work together to provide qualified interpreters and translators so that persons who cannot hear, speak, or understand English have meaningful access to the legal system. That's the fair and right thing to do.
¶4 See Heather Pantoga, Injustice in Any Language: The Need for Improved Standards Governing Courtroom Interpretation in Wisconsin, 82 Marq. L. Rev. 601 (1999).
¶5 "Fairness requires that [those who speak and understand only languages other than English] who may be defendants in our criminal courts have the assistance of interpreters where needed." State v. Neave, 117 Wis. 2d 359, 366, 344 N.W.2d 181 (1984).
¶6 Committee to Improve Interpreting & Translation in the Wisconsin Courts, And Justice for All: Improving Interpretation in Wisconsin's Courts (Oct. 2000), available at http:// www.courts.state.wi.us/circuit/pdf/Interpreter_Report.pdf