newsobserver.com projects - Rick Glazier - Comments

Great comment

James_Protzman — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 09:04:42 -0400

The lawn order crowd is indeed dumb about crime prevention, but given the state of North Carolina civic literacy, I don't hold much hope. Did you read this yet? Scary stuff.

Re: Sentencing changes pass

jayhurst — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 07:43:48 -0400

Don't keep getting suckered by the ridiculous fear-mongering. "Tough on crime" is another way of saying "dumb about crime prevention." The inmates getting relief from (outrageously long) sentences are not going to be dangerous rapists and murderers, it will generally be the non-violent property or drug criminal who got caught in the vengeful (read: anti-Christian) desire to imprison everyone possible, for as long as possible. The US Department of Justice has data that shows our draconian sentences don't stop rising crime in some years, though, while the Federal Bureau of Prisons has proven (empirically) that drug treatment programs reduce re-offense after release. Dumb-about-crime-prevention policies are overstuffing our prisons, which help bankrupt the State and make guards as well as inmates less safe (remember, if H1N1 wildfires through a stuffed prison, those guards can bring it home, and then home to you and your family). Let's stop knee-jerking, and actually get Smart About Crime Prevention with less spent on prisons, and more spent on drug treatment and mandatory education/job training (on pain of imprisonment).

Re: Sentencing changes pass

jesmyopinion — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 23:39:05 -0400

Just one more nail in the coffin of Democrats... They just raised taxes for every citizen in NC, and now they are going soft on crime by letting criminals out of jail early - beautiful - this should sell real well for Republicans during election time next year!

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: Deaf jurors debated

PJMarie — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 16:10:11 -0400

This comment by Mr. Sutton is unbelievable, unfair, discriminatory and not an inaccurate comparison. Is he saying that Deaf people should not be considered active citizens of this country?

The decision to run track is a personal choice or a hobby. However, if called, serving on a jury is a responsibility all citizens of this country as people of a free democracy. While not always fun, serving on a jury is a way of serving our country. True, quadriplegics can’t run, but Deaf people CAN do anything except hear!! We have Deaf doctors, lawyers, presidents, professionals, organizations, and publications (among other things). Why shouldn’t they be able to be a fellow peer? Would a jury of our peers really be so if we pick and choose who not to include in our society?

A Deaf person, given appropriately qualified and certified interpreters, will not miss anything that is ‘said’ in a court. They are still ‘hearing’ what is said, just through their eyes instead. The English word for water means the same thing as the Spanish word for water, the only difference being language it is conveyed in. We have no official language in this country so why can’t AMERICAN sign language be used in courts to give Deaf people equal access? What about the Americans with Disabilities Act? Doesn’t it require that services, such as interpreters, be made available for just such circumstances? Stop trying to weasel your way out of making all citizens equal. After all, it’s that what our country is based on?

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: Legislature conference draws 14 from NC

Proctor — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 10:19:37 -0400

It's a win for the W.C. Fields school of philosophy over home-state lobbyists across the land:

"I'd rather be in Philadelphia."

David McKnight

Re: Legislature conference draws 14 from NC

AquaMan — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 06:05:45 -0400

Show Us The Jobs!

Re: Deaf jurors debated

motherdhh — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 11:21:49 -0400

there's more

http://www.nad.org/blogs/lindanelson/north-carolina-legislators-oppose-deaf-jurors

Re: Deaf jurors debated

ASLPro9 — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 11:15:18 -0400

These reps have no idea of how much of an asset we are to the legal system and the community! Through the interpreters, not only we get verbal information, but we are capable of getting a lot of non verbal cues on our own. People with full hearing capabilities rely on their ears when they should rely on their sights. What happens if there are no sounds, what would you notice? The interpreters and deaf jurors are an enchantment to all in the court room, which is equality. Let's not go backward and remember we must not make mistakes for our future generations in our country. If we cannot achieve equality, American cannot maintain its greatness….

Re: Deaf jurors debated

carolinachickenboy — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 20:28:15 -0400

I just hope that the newspaper made a misquote when they interviewed Rep. Ronnie Sutton. If they didn't, then it is an embarrasment to NC a Representative of NC would think the way he does. He has taken the progress of the last 50 years back into the dark ages again. He has completely ignored the Americans With Disabilities Act, the Civil Rights Acts and has trampled on the Rights of every disabled citizen in NC.

It's a crying shame that he is not taking into consideration some of his own people in his own district who may have gotten injuried while serving the United States of America in the Armed forces, may have lost all of their limbs due to roadside bombs, or may have lost their hearing defending our country being inside the tanks. When he said that, he has absolutely removed these citizens from consideration eventhough they have given far more than many citizens who serve on the jury. Our Declaration of Independence indicates "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certian unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." It makes me wonder if he sees us as non-equals?

With this in mind, I sincerely hope that Ronnie will reverse his thinking, and support this bill. He is absolutely rejecting the 23 million Americans who have disabilities because he thinks they do not have the ability to perform tasks on a jury. Hmmm.... Does this mean that people who are Deaf or Quads are exempt from any legal rammificaitons? Does this mean that since we are not seen as peers, then the rest of society cannot be our jurors? We are entitled to be judged by a jury of our peers.

I just hope that he was misquoted, but if he wasn't then he should have no business being a Representative of the People because he sure isn't representing all of us equally!

I will say I am pleased that he is in the minority,.

A concerned citizen

Re: Deaf jurors debated

iluvmonica — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 21:12:54 -0400

Seems like the proposed law and debate are unnecessary. Doesn't federal ADA requirements trump state law in cases like this anyway?

Re: Deaf jurors debated

ajmarkin — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 12:14:22 -0400

As a long-time registered Democrat and NC licensed sign language interpreter, I have to say I am truly embarrassed and can say this is the most IGNORANT comment I have EVER read about deaf people from a state legislator. I wonder how my deaf attorney friends will feel when they read these comments by Rep. Sutton??? I can't wait to send it to them!!!