A CALIFORNIAN-IBERIAN APPROACH ON TECHNOLOGICAL ADOPTION AND AUTOMATION IN COURTROOMS: THE CASE OF VOICE WRITING

Abstract

In the 1940s, voice writing began to be implemented in United States courts. It transcended the abilities of shorthand reporters, who had difficulties in following the fast pace of speakers, and introduced the first stenomask, a device designed to confine the voice of the reporter. Voice writing also used a microphone and a recording machine; a typist would afterwards reproduce the audio in written form. In the 2000s, voice recognition software was set at the end of the process, allowing for real-time transcripts. Compared to stenotyping, the technique has been competitive enough regarding quality and training requirements. Besides, it has represented greater accessibility for deaf and hard-of-hearing citizens, who can now read the captions a few seconds later. However, uncertainty has set in among these well‑remunerated professionals: is artificial intelligence (AI) a real threat for voice writers? And what is the situation in Spain and Portugal? This paper aims to describe the experience of voice writing in US courts, as it is an unfamiliar practice in the peninsular area, as well as to examine the challenges posed by AI to respeakers. It also analyses the procedural frameworks in Portugal, Spain and California that allow for or forbid the presence of such professionals. In addition, the analysis describes the opportunities for implementing voice writing and AI in the Iberian courtrooms, and the impact that AI might have in the United States.