In previous discussions of transcription inside the courtroom, we explained that modern-day transcription is the most accurate that the legal system has ever seen. However, complications still exist on top of technical issues and background noise. A single misheard or ambiguous word can shift the legal meaning of an entire statement. Research indicates that shorthand reporters often mistranscribe non-standard dialects, and they may fail to capture certain contexts.
These small mistakes might go unnoticed, or they might not, as in the case of Derek Bentley. His reported phrase, “let him have it,” changed the course of his life when transcripts introduced confusion about his intent. The interpretation of that one phrase came with life-or-death consequences, evidence of a larger pattern in which mishearings can have dire consequences.
Why Speech Transcription Is Harder Than It Seems
People often think about speech as written language spoken aloud, but conversation is very different from prose. This can make transcription challenging and lead to errors.
Speech by word is flawed
Despite what you may initially imagine, humans don’t speak in clear-cut words as often as you think. “Did you eat yet” quickly becomes “Jeet yet?” during conversation. If a transcriber fails to capture the intended original, or if they transcribe the new version poorly, the intent can be lost.
Homophones complicate matters
Homophones, words that sound alike but have different meanings, don’t usually cause an issue, but they can. Think of the difference between “know” and “no” or “their” and “they’re.” Small changes or assumptions can alter meaning.
Context changes meaning
One of the most problematic elements of transcriptions is the complete lack of context. Take, for instance, the sentence: “I didn’t say he shot the clerk.” What happens to the meaning if the emphasis falls on:
- “I didn’t say he shot the clerk” – It wasn’t me who said it
- “I DIDN’T say he shot the clerk” – You accused me of saying so, but I didn’t
- “I didn’t SAY he shot the clerk” – He did, but I didn’t say so
- “I didn’t say HE shot the clerk” – Someone else did
- “I didn’t say he SHOT the clerk” – He harmed him, but not by shooting him
- “I didn’t say he shot the CLERK” – He shot someone else
Transcriptions are unable to capture these nuances, which can have potentially catastrophic effects if those distinctions matter, especially in witness testimony or confessions.
The Derek Bentley Case
Few examples illustrate the power of mishearings in a transcription better than the case of Derek Bentley in England. In 1952, 19-year-old Bentley and 16-year-old Christopher Craig attempted to steal from a warehouse. Police intervened, and Bentley surrendered to the police, but Craig remained nearby, armed with a gun. According to police witnesses, Bentley shouted to Craig, “Let him have it, Chris.” This single utterance turned the encounter deadly and, by extension, cost Bentley his life. Craig fired, fatally shooting police force member Sidney Miles. The prosecution in the case argued that Bentley’s words were instructions for Craig to shoot the officer (and, by a legal doctrine called joint enterprise, this made Bentley criminally responsible for the killing, even though he hadn’t fired the shot). The defense argued that in British English, “let him have it” can mean “shoot him,” but it could also mean “give the weapon to him.” No audio recording was available in the case, so everything depended on the transcription of witness testimony. That transcription failed to capture nuances in how that phrase may have been delivered. Bentley was convicted of murder and executed by hanging in January 1953.
Systemic Dialectical Challenges
Bentley’s case is sadly not unique. Mishearings happen all the time during transcriptions, and while they do not often cause issues, they can. Data indicate that some demographics are disproportionately affected by transcription errors. These include:
AAE
African American English, or AAE, has its own grammar rules. Compare the utterances:
- Standard American English: “He’s been a police officer” (i.e., he has, at one time or another, been a police officer)
- AAE: “He BEEN [or BIN] a police officer” (i.e., he has been a police officer for a long time and still is)
Transcriptions are unable to capture this meaning if the “been” is written down, and if it’s omitted, the meaning completely changes. Historically, AAE has been incorrectly transcribed at a systemic level.
Local dialects and non-native accents
Other affected groups include those who speak in Appalachian English, Southern American English, Caribbean English, Indigenous varieties of English, and non-English accents. The changes within a transcription often come less from difficulty in writing down individual sounds correctly. Rather, transcriptionists encountering accents are more likely to reshape unfamiliar grammar into forms that they recognize and use. This can alter meaning. When it comes to transcription, what we expect to hear and what is actually said can differ greatly. While audio and video recordings are helping to overcome the challenge of mishearings, vigilance is still necessary to ensure that ambiguities like those at the center of Derek Bentley’s case do not lead to such serious consequences.
