NCJ Number
34571
Date Published
1975
Length
8 pages
Annotation
A REBUTTAL WHICH CHARGES THAT THE EARLIER STUDY, WHICH FOUND THAT TAPE RECORDING OFFERED A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE FOR COURT REPORTING, WAS CONDUCTED IN SUCH A WAY THAT ITS RESULTS WERE INACCURATE, MISLEADING, AND BIASED.
Abstract
ITEMS ARE QUOTED FROM THE ORIGINAL STUDY REPORT AND THEN REFUTED. IT IS ASSERTED THAT THE UNDERLYING DOCUMENTS OF THE PROJECT DO NOT SUPPORT THE REPORT'S FINDINGS AS TO COMPARATIVE ACCURACY. THE STUDY IS ALSO CRITICIZED FOR BASING THE COMPARISON OF SPEED OF TRANSCRIPT PREPARATION ON DELIVERY TIME ALONE WITHOUT STATING THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS BY BOTH SIDES. FINALLY, IT IS SAID THAT THE TIME AND COST FIGURES RELATING TO PREPARATION OF TRANSCRIPT BY BOTH SYSTEMS ARE BASED ON UNVERIFIED DATA, ARE NOT TRULY COMPARABLE, AND OMIT IMPORTANT ELEMENTS OF COST AND DEPENDABILITY IN THE USE OF TAPE RECORDERS. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED)