|
or jury in any criminal case would auto-
matically result in a disqualification from
voting.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bamberger.
DELEGATE BAMBERGER: I must ex-
press considerable uncertainty about my
answer because I am not really quite cer-
tain of just what would be the actual find-
ing in a criminal case where there is a
plea of insanity. But it certainly does
seem to me possible that the General As-
sembly could say, in a criminal case, where
a man is found to be not guilty by reason
of insanity, that that would amount to a
finding of mental incompetency which
would disqualify him from voting.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Marion.
DELEGATE MARION: I have one other
question.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Marion,
Delegate Bamberger only has 30 seconds.
If you make your question short, he can
answer it quickly.
DELEGATE MARION: The last two
lines, Delegate Bamberger, related to the
provision for the removal of such dis-
criminations.
Is that meant to encompass both such
things as the time or the occurrence of a
particular event or the circumstances for
the removal as well as a procedure for re-
moval or declaration of removal for such
disqualification?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bamberger.
DELEGATE BAMBERGER: Yes, it is
intended to provide all of those things.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any delegate
desire to speak in opposition to the amend-
ment?
Delegate Schloeder.
DELEGATE SCHLOEDER: Mr. Chair-
man, I would rise to oppose this amend-
ment on a number of grounds.
One, I must say that Delegate Bam-
berger's answer to Delegate Marion in the
last colloquy was disturbing. It would
seem from his answer that the jury made
up of lay people would judge a defendant
not guilty by reason of insanity and that
the state legislature could then use that to
disenfranchise the defendant. Also, I would
suggest that with its broadness the Gen-
eral Assembly would not do what Delegate
Bamberger would imagine it would do.
|
I would suggest that our Committee that
studied this particular question spent more
time on it than did the General Assembly.
Those people of the Governor's Mental
Health Commission who were professionals
in the area of mental health were very
much concerned that the General Assembly
would broaden this too much. The only
way to get at the real issue and the real
question here was to put it in the lan-
guage recommended by them to us that
we have them recommended to you.
For those reasons, I would rise to speak
against and hope that you would vote
against this amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN : Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in favor of the amend-
ment?
Delegate Clagett.
DELEGATE CLAGGETT: Would Dele-
gate Bamberger yield for two questions?
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in favor of the amend-
ment?
Delegate Byrnes?
DELEGATE BYRNES: Mr. Chairman,
I would point out to this house that we
have recently rejected an amendment.
The objection was that we want people
mentally incompetent to be disqualified
from voting. I do not think the majority
recommendation goes to what we want.
Secondly, it has the phrase "until such
adjudication is removed", and at this point
I still do not know what that means. I have
never heard of an adjudication being re-
moved.
Thirdly, I think all of the suggestions
made by Delegate Marion and by Delegate
Schloeder suggest that the General As-
sembly would act with wanton disregard
for due process and disregard of the sensi-
tivity of this area.
The General Assembly has shown over
and over again that it is very sensitive
about this area, very concerned about this
area, and I think we can repose in them
a greater deal of confidence than the ma-
jority recommendation would seem to say.
I suggest we adopt the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Taylor.
DELEGATE H. TAYLOR: Mr. Chair-
man, ladies and gentlemen of the Conven-
tion : I do not know whether there is any
significance in the fact that I have been
|
