|
have a great deal of experience in this
area and is particularly mindful of prob-
lems other states have been confronted
with in recent years. At the present time
in the State of Maryland a person who is
disqualified from voting for reasons of
mental condition must be adjudicated by a
court of law to be fit to manage his own
business affairs. The reasons that the Com-
mission and Mental Health Association
strongly urged the Committee to adopt the
language it has in the proposal is one that
there is no discretion to the General As-
sembly. The whole area of discretion that
you have given the General Assembly here
is subject to standards, for instance, of
commitment which is an extremely dan-
gerous thing. At the moment in Mary-
land's mental hospitals, about one-third of
the people there are old people for whom
there are no other institutions available.
For that reason they unfortunately have to
enter mental hospitals. The other possi-
bility that this lends itself to is certifica-
cation by two physicians. It does not take
much imagination to realze how that pro-
cedure can be abused.
The Committee did not feel competent to
define the question of mental illness or
mental incompetence nor do I think this
body is. This is an area of medicine that
is subject to daily changes and improved
treatment and so on.
I admit the number of people involved
here in terms of adjudication is minor. At
the same time, we have had no evidence
that people who should not vote by reason
of insanity or mental incompetence are in
any way flooding the polls. We felt very
strongly that there should be some stand-
ard in order to protect their civil rights
in order not to permit the undue and un-
reasonable limitation on a franchise. I
strongly urge you reject the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any delegate
desire to speak in favor of the amend-
ment? Delegate Sybert.
DELEGATE SYBERT: Mr. Chairman,
will the Chairman of the Committee yield
to a question?
THE CHAIRMAN: She has used up her
time at the moment. If she can get the
floor again, we will have her yield. Does
any delegate desire to speak in favor of
the amendment? Delegate Marion?
DELEGATE MARION: Mr. Chairman,
if it is appropriate, I have a question or
two of Delegate Bamberger.
|
THE CHAIRMAN : Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in favor of the amend-
ment? Delegate Bamberger, will you take
the floor to yield to a question?
DELEGATE BAMBERGER: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Marion.
DELEGATE MARION: Would it be
possible under your language for the Gen-
eral Assembly to provide that any person
who enters a plea in a criminal case of not
guilty by reason of insanity under broad-
ened tests for insanity be disqualified from
voting?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bamberger.
DELEGATE BAMBERGER: It would
be possible. Is it your question that merely
entering the plea would disqualify him
from voting?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Marion.
DELEGATE MARION: That was my
question, yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bamberger.
DELEGATE BAMBERGER: I think it
would not be possible.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Marion.
DELEGATE MARION:. Would it be pos-
sible for the General Assembly to provide
that anyone who was found not guilty
after having entered a plea of not guilty
by reason of insanity be disqualified from
voting?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bamberger.
DELEGATE BAMBERGER: I think
there would have to be some finding of his
mental incompetence as a matter of fact.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Marion.
DELEGATE MARION: By whom in
that situation?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bamberger.
DELEGATE BAMBERGER: In that
situation under the present criminal pro-
cedure by either the judge or the jury
which heard the case.
THE CHAIRMAN: Do you have fur-
ther questions, Delegate Marion?
DELEGATE MARION: Yes, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN : State the question.
DELEGATE MARION: As I under-
stand your answer, the General Assembly
could provide that that finding by a court
|
