A group of Wisconsin state lawmakers is proposing legislation that would allow courts to use artificial intelligence (AI) instead of human interpreters to help non-English-speaking defendants understand court proceedings. The idea, introduced by Rep. Dave Maxey (R-New Berlin) and Sen. Chris Kapenga (R-Delafield), aims to address the shortage of human interpreters and potentially save state and local governments hundreds of thousands of dollars annually.
Currently, Wisconsin law requires counties to hire human interpreters, preferably those certified by the state, to ensure competence. However, the demand for interpreters, particularly for languages such as Spanish, Hmong, and Mandarin Chinese, often exceeds supply, causing delays in court cases. Maxey cited a Waukesha County case where a Mandarin interpreter had to be flown in from New York, only for the hearing to be rescheduled.
The Interpreter Shortage Crisis
The shortage is not unique to Wisconsin; courts across the United States face similar challenges. While over 70 Spanish language interpreters are certified in Wisconsin, only five are available for Polish, and there are zero certified interpreters for languages like Haitian Creole. This shortage affects approximately 178,000 Wisconsin residents with “limited English proficiency.”
AI as a Potential Solution
Proponents argue that AI could fill this gap, particularly for routine matters. Maxey pointed to the successful use of Google Translate by police officers during traffic stops as evidence of AI’s potential in legal settings. The proposed legislation would give counties the option to use AI interpreters but would not make it mandatory.
Concerns and Criticisms
Critics, including Amanda Merkwae, advocacy director for the ACLU of Wisconsin, express concerns about AI’s ability to accurately translate complex legal terminology and cultural nuances. They worry that AI could compromise defendants’ constitutional rights, particularly in cases involving significant liberty interests.
“I think (the bill) is a misunderstanding of how in practice this would actually play out, particularly in those cases where there are significant liberty interests at stake,” Merkwae said. The ACLU is also concerned about accountability, data privacy, and whether AI tools could be held to the same ethical standards as human interpreters.
Alternative Solutions
Merkwae suggested that instead of adopting AI interpreters, the state could address the shortage by increasing funding for human interpreters or recognizing certifications from other states. “Increasing resources and exploring alternative ways to expand a pool of interpreters in Wisconsin should be tried first before allowing robots to be involved,” she said.
The Path Forward
The Office of State Courts Administration has not taken a stance on the bill but emphasized that any tool used in courtroom interpretation must meet high standards for accuracy, neutrality, and effective communication. As the debate continues, lawmakers and stakeholders must weigh the potential benefits of AI against the risks and consider alternative solutions to the interpreter shortage crisis.
