|
which can change the sentence or the judg-
ment?
DELEGATE GILCHRIST: It should be
the law which was in effect at the time
this constitution is adopted, because this
is the basis on which the present status of
these things is controlled.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding): Dele-
gate Hardwicke.
DELEGATE HARDWICKE: If someone
is sentenced in this year 1968 before the
new constitution is adopted, and after the
new constitution is adopted the legislature
makes new laws which regard to the com-
mutation of sentences or something of that
kind, is it your purpose then that this
amendment would not permit the new law
of the legislature to alter the sentence im-
posed prior to the adoption of the new con-
stitution ?
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding): Dele-
gate Gilchrist.
DELEGATE GILCHRIST: No. It is quite
clear that by the language in line 13 of the
committee recommendation that when the
law is lawfully changed that that would
then become available, and this would per-
mit a sentence to be modified, for example.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding): Dele-
gate Hardwicke.
DELEGATE HARDWICKE: Delegate
Gilchrist, I am in sympathy with what you
are trying to do. The word that bothers
me is "existing". I want to know, existing
now, or after the constitution is adopted?
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding): Dele-
gate Gilchrist.
DELEGATE GILCHRIST: Obviously it
would have to be the law which exists at
the time at which the constitution becomes
effective, because this is the law which is
applicable to sentences, causes of action,
writs, whatever other subjects might be in-
volved in the recitation in lines 14 through
17.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding): Dele-
gate Hardwicke.
DELEGATE HARDWICKE: The ques-
tion that I have is, suppose that a sen-
tence is going to be considered in 1975. The
law with regard to whether that sentence
can be commuted or changed in the year
1975, would that be the law of 1968 or
would it be the law of 1975 ?
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding): Dele-
gate Gilchrist.
|
DELEGATE GILCHRIST: If there are
any new rights created between 1968 and
1975, the provisions of that section in the
recommendation would take care of this,
because it provides that if there is legis-
lation which is lawfully changed in accord-
ance with line 13, this right would obvi-
ously have to become available also; but
the thing that I was concerned about was
preserving those rights which are in exist-
ence.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding): Dele-
gate Hardwicke, I am afraid Delegate Gil-
christ's time has expired.
DELEGATE HARDWICKE: May I ad-
dress a remark to the Chair ?
I think the amendment is satisfactory
without the word "existing", because I
think that "law" does what Delegate Gil-
christ is trying to do.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding): Are
you suggesting that as an amendment?
DELEGATE HARDWICKE: As an
amendment to the amendment, yes.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding): Will
Delegate Gilchrist accept this modification
of the amendment?
DELEGATE GILCHRIST: I believe I
would accept the change, Mr. Chairman. I
believe that if we said "by law or in ac-
cordance" it would encompass both existing
and that which is enacted in the future.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding): Is
there any objection to the elimination of
the word "existing", so that the amend-
ment will read "by law or" ?
If there is no objection, we will consider
the amendment so modified.
Is there any further discussion ?
(Tli er e was no response.)
If not, the Clerk will ring the quorum
bell.
The Clerk will record the vote.
Has every delegate recorded his vote ?
The Clerk will record the vote.
T.here being 86 votes in the affirmative
and 5 in the negative, the amendment is
adopted.
Are there any further amendments to
section 10.01? We have on the desk an
amendment offered by Delegate Boyer, also
markd F. This is Boyer F.
The Chair recognizes Delegate Boyer.
|
