Every few years, one or two more states entertain the idea of converting their court systems from court officials or stenographers to sophisticated digital recording systems that will keep a record of all proceedings. The idea is that court reporters are more expensive, less reliable and can be replaced by machines, just like everything else in the modern era.

Alaska, Utah, New Hampshire, Kentucky and Vermont have all gone digital. Iowa, New York and Minnesota are among the states possibly moving in that direction.

As more and more governments find themselves tightening their belts and cutting budgets even further, they are running out of things to cut. In some places the court official, staple of the courtroom, is the next to go. But is it really cost effective and foolproof?

Like many things, it looks good on paper. Logistically, there are things that fall in favor of not having a live stenographer taking down the proceedings. Cost is the biggest factor. It appears cheaper, sometimes by half. The conversion equipment is less expensive and does not require a salary, benefits or holidays. It can work several hours on end without a break. Running past regular business hours does not result in additional hourly fees. It is quiet equipment that does not produce the faint tappety-tap-tap that can be heard from some stenotype machines.

What some may not factor in is the person that must run the machines and make sure they are maintained. They also must have someone to go through the transcription and make sure that it is legible and usable. The speakers must be identified for the record.

Consider the fact that reporters have been to school and specially trained for the job. They are professionals that understand the importance of creating an accurate record. Whether the case is in traffic court, a civil suit or a criminal trial, the court stenographer understands the gravity of the situation. One missed or misheard word can change the entire case. With criminal cases, one would question the reasonableness of putting someone’s life in the hands of digital equipment.

They know when people are speaking with an accent and can often decipher what is being said after listening for a few minutes. A machine does not have this capability. It cannot tell after a moment that the attorney is from the South and some words sounds similar, like while and wall. As a result, there are more mistranslated words to be cleaned up later, causing a longer amount of time to transcribe a case.