|
DELEGATE KOSS: My question, I sup-
pose, is how is one adjudicated mentally
incompetent?
Is that not the same procedure as is de-
scribed by "non compos mentis"?
THE CHAIRMAN: I do not know to
whom you are addressing the question. If
you are addressing it to the Chair, I would
be inclined to agree with you, but Delegate
Sybert may have different ideas.
Delegate Sybert?
DELEGATE SYBERT: The formal and
old-time, I might say, adjudication of a
person as non compos mentis has been by
jury action in court.
After a verdict of mental incompetence,
that is, if the person is non compos
mentis —
THE CHAIRMAN: If I may cut across
you, I think I understand what you are
getting at, and we could perhaps clear it
up by a matter of reference to the Com-
mittee on Style.
I take it that Delegate Sybert is afraid
that the phrase "adjudicated non compos
mentis" could refer only to the old sheriff's
jury verdict, on writ de lunatico in-
quierendo. (Laughter.)
I am sorry, there is no other way to say
it. He is suggesting that since that may
not be what the Committee means, would
you be willing to use a more modern ex-
pression if the Committee on Style deems it
appropriate, and I would suggest that you
answer in the affirmative. (Laughter.)
Delegate Koss?
DELEGATE KOSS: As long as that
language suggested by Judge Sybert would
carry on the standards that the Committee
wanted, we would certainly be willing to
come in in 1967.
THE CHAIRMAN: It seems to me, Dele-
gate Sybert, the Committee's intention is
clear that by the use of the phrase "ad-
judicated non compos mentis" they were
not intending to refer to any ancient
procedures.
Delegate Sybert.
DELEGATE SYBERT: But as I under-
stand the law, and I possibly need to
freshen up on it, the proceeding to adjudi-
cate a person as non compos mentis is un-
der one series of legal sections, one section
of the Code, and adjudication as a mental
incompetent is under another.
|
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Koss has,
at the suggestion of the Chair, given you
the affirmative answer that she would not
object to the use of the words "adjudica-
tion or judicial determination of mental
incompetence".
DELEGATE SYBERT: Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any further
discussion?
Delegate Wagandt.
DELEGATE WAGANDT: Would Dele-
gate Bamberger yield for a question?
DELEGATE BAMBERGER: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Wagandt.
DELEGATE WAGANDT: I am some-
what concerned with the term "mental in-
competence" and how broadly this could be
interpreted.
Would you accept as a substitute the
word "insanity" for "mental incompetence"?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bamberger.
DELEGATE BAMBERGER: I would
not accept the amendment, because I am
not sure I know what "insanity" means.
I think we should go ahead and vote on
this. The point really is rather simple and
is whether you wish to stay with the Com-
mittee's draft which says in the case of
insanity a person shall be disqualified from
voting by a certain procedure, but people
just as ill, who are not subjected to the
some process, may vote, or whether you
wish to say that this is a field which re-
quires further exploration, and that the
General Assembly should have the power to
remove from the voting rolls people who
may not have the mental capacity or men-
tal ability, who may be so diseased in mind
as to not be entitled to vote.
The amendment suggests that we em-
power the General Assembly to make these
decisions.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Lloyd
Taylor.
DELEGATE L. TAYLOR: I would like
to ask Delegate Bamberger a question if he
would yield.
THE CHAIRMAN: We have had the
period of questions of the sponsor renewed
four times. I think we have to cut it off
some time, so will you limit yourself to
one question, please?
Will Delegate Bamberger yield for a
question?
|
