|
invited to talk about whether a lunatic
should vote or not, but during the com-
mittee inspections on this subject I did
make certain statements because I have
had some experience with lunatics in my
law practice.
(Laughter.)
I know that the court does adjudicate
people as incompetent, and the thing that
frightens me is to allow the disqualifica-
tion for voting to be tied to the certifica-
tion. I have tried cases where an instant
defense has been made, and having heard
psychiatrists for the prosecution as well as
the defense, I have often felt that the jury
thinks the psychiatrists are the ones of
unsound mind.
I have often believed that within the
medical profession a man has been led into
the specialty of psychiatry to find out what
is wrong with himself.
It has been pointed out that this adjudi-
cation would involved very few people, but
it is a judicial process, and we cannot get
into determining whether people are sound
enough in mind to do everything but vote.
We have got to have some sound test, and
I submit this test is adjudication.
Now, whether you use the word "re-
move" or "vacated" we all know that if a
court does pass a judgment that that same
court has the power to vacate or to re-
move the judgment.
I do not know whether you all know this
or not, but Delegate Price is a Methodist
minister and, as you know, he has talked
about services that he had attended at
Delegate Dukes' farm.
THE CHAIRMAN: You have one-half
minute, Delegate Taylor.
DELEGATE H. TAYLOR: I understand
that this Sunday Delegate Dukes is going
to reciprocate, and he is going to watch
Delegate Price conduct services in his
church, and I hope that you will all join
with me in conducting services in the
burial of this amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in favor of the amend-
ment?
Delegate Bamberger, will you take the
floor and yield to a question?
DELEGATE BAMBERGER: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Clagett.
DELEGATE CLAGETT: Delegate Bam-
berger, can the General Assembly provide
|
and is it your intention that it can provide
that the removal of disqualification be
death?
DELEGATE BAMBERGER: I did not
hear that.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does the legislation
provide that removal of this disqualifica-
tion be death?
DELEGATE BAMBERGER: I think
not. I think it would be such a foolish act
on their part it obviously would not be in
the constitutional provision.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Koss, will
you take the floor and yield to a question?
DELEGATE KOSS: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Do you desire to
question, Delegate Sybert?
DELEGATE SYBERT: Would the Com-
mittee agree to revamp lines 1 and 2 of
section 5, that is lines 34 and 35 as printed,
so that they will read "no person who has
been adjudicated", or may be, "judicially
adjudicated non compos mentis or mentally
incompetent," which would cover everyone
who has been declared by court action non
compos mentis or judicially incompetent?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Koss?
DELEGATE KOSS: Delegate Sybert,
am I correct, then, that either the non
compos mentis or the mental incompetence
would require a judicial determination?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Sybert?
DELEGATE SYBERT: Yes, that was
my question.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Koss.
DELEGATE KOSS: Legally, is there a
difference? I do not understand, really,
what is added.
THE CHAIRMAN: I take it, Delegate
Koss, that Delegate Sybert is suggesting
more as a matter of style than anything
else that if there is any question about
the word "adjudicated" meaning judicial
adjudication, it could be included. I do not
think that is the burden of his question.
He is really asking you would you object
to inserting after the words "non compos
mentis" in lines 34 and 35, the words "or
mentally incompetent".
Is that correct, Delegate Syberl?
DELEGATE SYBERT: That is correct.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Koss?
|
