newsobserver.com projects - The Arc of North Carolina - Comments

Re: House not ready for deaf jurors

tpgrad — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 16:18:56 -0400

I can't believe, we in NC, are so far behind the times that we can not allow persons with disabilities to become jurors. Those in the legislature that are arguing to not have deaf jurors are the same ones that are running this state into the ground. I was born in SC and have a deaf sister two years younger than myself. In the late 60's she was put into a room at school with all severely mentally disabled students and received no education. So, when my father was asked to start up a new Engineering office here in Raleigh in the early 70's, he jumped at it. The services for deaf students were much better here and my sister was able to go to a regular public school in Cary and receive a good education, with special services for deaf students. She has battled this kind of thing her whole life, even being turned down to be a lifeguard. Well, a few years later she set 7 world records for the deaf in swimming. Tell me she wouldn't have made a great lifeguard. She was more observant than half my fellow lifeguards I worked with at the time.
We have got to get on the band wagon and start accepting that deaf persons are just as capable, if not more capable at some things, than those of us that can hear. Below is a bill that was passed long ago in SC to allow deaf jurors. Are we further behind than SC? That's scary!!

TO AMEND SECTION 14-7-810, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE REASONS FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF JURORS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A PERSON WHO IS BLIND, HEARING OR SPEECH IMPAIRED, OR PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED MAY NOT BE DISQUALIFIED TO ACT AS A JUROR OR BE EXCLUDED FROM A JURY LIST OR JURY SERVICE BECAUSE OF THESE HANDICAPS; AND TO AMEND SECTION 15-27-110, RELATING TO INTERPRETERS FOR THE DEAF, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT AN INTERPRETER BE PROVIDED WHEN A DEAF PERSON IS A JUROR AND PROVIDE CRITERIA FOR THE USE OF AN INTERPRETER WHEN USED TO ASSIST A DEAF JUROR.

Re: House not ready for deaf jurors

cdtew — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 10:31:05 -0400

As far as I'm aware, there's no such thing as "section 508" compliance with regards to jurors, jury selection, court hearings, or anything judicial other than access to the courts' electronic information.

Whats at issue is not really ADA compliance -- this would be a "spirit of the law" question with the ADA. What this is really about is that the court system is underfunded as it is. Adding another service the courts would have to provide would either mean a) the legislature has to increase the courts' budget from the pittance its already getting, or b) the courts would be unable to comply with an unfunded mandate, and the AOC would be swamped in its own compliance troubles.

As a person in the legal profession, it strikes me that there are times when a lawyer would absolutely not want a deaf juror, and would be forced to spend a valuable peremptory challenge on excusing that juror. Such might be the case when a witness or party in the action is unconvincing and exhibits certain vocal tendencies which lead people not to trust him or her.

A vast amount of information is conveyed to a juror based on how a witness or party says something on the stand, and that information is then used by the juror to determine how credible the witness is, in their own opinions.

Now, this isn't to say that deaf jurors (or blind jurors for that matter) shouldn't be used ever, but I think this issue needs to take a back burner until both the Court system in this state receives more than alms from the GA, and until a suitable technology can be implemented to aid disabled jurors.

Maybe 20 more innocent victims will get killed by men out on probation for their prior crimes, and then the GA will realize that the courts need reform, just not THIS reform.

Making the courts comply with a rushed, unfunded mandate at a time like this is just sheer stupidity.

Re: House not ready for deaf jurors

kevin_smith5 — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 19:35:56 -0400

I'm nt following why a deaf person can't be a juror....we have deaf lawyers, doctors, actors....with a sign language interpretor they will "hear" everything a lawyer says, so why object?

Re: House not ready for deaf jurors

robdarich — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 17:32:05 -0400

The audible component of legal action dates way back - as in: why do you think they call it a "Hearing".

Relying on audible noises firmly establishes a 3rd world country - that is stuck in the middle ages. Oh yeah, and NC too.

If jurors were also blind, they might have trouble convicting black people(smirk). Otherwise, it's a monster-huge expense to retrofit a legal system so it is accessible by those with disabilities.

Too bad our country was supposed to be founded on a fair legal system - so much gets spewed to politicial favors that the foundation's kind-of shot. The only consistent performer in NC - is corruption. I guess accessiblilty to the legal system will have to wait.

It's also odd that fat-cat lawyer/legislators are discussing how taxpayers should assist their livelihood (anyone want to reference Faison's campaign expenditures?)

If the legislators are not talking 508 compliance for everyone, then the subject's really just about greedy, self-rewarding, flim-flam practitioners. Typical NC...

Re: Quick Hits

ThunderPig — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 12:12:41 -0400

Ada Fisher is the one what should be resigning.

She has been a stalking horse for Katon Dawson in the RNC race, she can't get over that loss, and seems to spend more time attacking her fellow Republicans than doing something constructive. Enough, already, Ada!

Re: Quick Hits

captsfufp — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 11:28:33 -0400

I haven't read the anti-texting bill, but from the way it's being reported...it just doesn't make sense. You can access the internet but not text? I have no idea how you enforce that...does the law enforcement officer have to look at your phone to determine whether you wrote "brb" or were checking the latest on UtD via the Internet?

Re: Quick Hits

bkrueger — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 11:06:21 -0400

Fixed it. Thanks.

Re: Quick Hits

mdougyr — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 11:03:22 -0400

You put an extra "p" in happy.

Re: Cut would hurt dev. disabled

gstephens2 — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 15:55:41 -0500

I'm the head of one of those families Gov. Perdue intends to hurt. Just has my severely disabled son is old enough to qualify for these programs, Gov. Perdue pulls the rug out from under us. Someone should ask her if she wants the entire state to be filled with government dependent, illiterate citizens. That is exactly were her disability and education cuts are taking us!

Re: Cut would hurt dev. disabled

hayek66 — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 18:22:02 -0500

Great - cut funds from the people who have no voice; the people who can't fend for themselves. I certainly hope she reconsiders.