Why are court reporters still in demand?
Just as these questions saturate so do the victories of the opposition emerge: A spokeswoman for the Utah state courts claims that the switch to technology is inevitable and completely efficient. She notes that "The average time to generate a transcript has plummeted from 140 days at times to only 2 weeks".
The justification, they claim persists and is apparent:
Why have an annual salary assigned to a function that a digital recording system can do at a fraction of the cost, when very few cases are ever even appealed?
Some states in America like Kentucky have passed legislation to stamp audio and video recording as the official record of the court, thereby eliminating and making obsolete the costs associated with court reporters and trial support services. Simply put, digital recordings of hearings can be uploaded to a federal court server where anyone can access; an accessible record is created.
A digital audio system can record throughout the day in all courtrooms, acting as a safety net if a stenographic court reporter falls.
In conclusion, although it is noted that the court reporter, at one time a stalwart in the judicial arena have been catapulted to the sidelines and substituted with digital recording, but on the other hand the man versus machine battle perpetuates.
