台美法院特約通譯規範之比較

A Comparative Study of Court Interpretation Regulations of Taiwan and the United States

系所名稱：財經法律研究所
學位別：碩士
畢業學年：105
指導教授：張瑞星；羅承宗
我國司法院於民國102年10月25日訂定<<法院通譯倫理規範>>，其中僅有第五條規定關於法庭對話中應譯出之部分:「通譯執行職務時，應忠實傳譯當事人、證人、鑑定人及其他關係人之陳述內容，不得有擅自增減、潤飾、修改、曲解原意或隱匿欺罔之行為」；然此規定似乎僅規範通譯為法官翻譯非中文使用者陳述之職，對於為非中文使用者通譯，以保護其參與我國訴訟上的各項權利及其人權，則未有明確規定。因此，本論文建議參考具法院通譯專法的美國，在前述第五條規定外，另增第二項通譯應譯出之部分:「應置不通中文者與使用中文者同一立場，使其了解法庭上一切陳述以及程序。」
為達到上述兩項口語通譯職務，長逐步口譯、同步口譯以及視譯乃是必要之口譯技巧，惟前述技巧為國內外翻譯學研究所口譯組之專業訓練課程，通常需經專業訓練方能習得，並非僅有雙語能力者所具備之能力，然目前各高分院的特約通譯教育訓練課程中卻未有此類實務演練訓練課程以及檢測方式；若不具上述技巧，通譯可能需要不時打斷陳述者，筆者並整理相關文獻，包括證人與律師受通譯打斷時對其可信度與專業能力之可能影響，並以外國刑事被告為翻譯對象的言詞辯論庭為例，說明法庭通譯需要具備的不僅為懂雙語即可進行的短逐步口譯，而是包含各種專業口譯技巧做為考核項目之理由。

Article 5 of Code of Conduct for Court Interpreters stipulated regulates that “An interpreter performing duties shall accurately interpret statements made by parties, witnesses, expert witnesses and other related parties without adding, omitting, embellishing, editing, distorting or hiding the original meaning of the statement.” It only regulates court interpreters’ task of helping judges understand foreigners; as to the rights of persons with no or limited proficiency in Mandarin, there is not related regulation. In contrast, there is a sound and well-developed “The Court Interpreters Act” in the U.S. where court interpreters are asked “to place non-English-speaking participants in legal proceedings on an equal footing with those who understand English to the extent reasonably possible.” It is suggested in this study that the same regulation stipulated.
To perform the twofold duty，long-consecutive interpretation, simultaneous interpretation and sight translation are necessary skills, which are the main training points of interpretation majors. However, there are no such training or screening tests in Taiwan. A study indicates that witness and lawyers could be considered less reliable and less professional with interpreters’ continuous interrupting due to a lack of interpretation skills. The study further take the interpreters’ duty for a foreign defendant in oral argument as an example to explain the reason why interpretation performance shall be part of the requirements for court interpreters.