A bill that would have provided a procedure for judges to deal with deaf jurors led to a debate in the House over whether those who cannot hear should sit on a jury.
The bill would gurantee an interpreter for hearing-impaired jurors.
But some House members questioned whether a such a juror could properly appreciate the nuance of testimony.
"This is one example of taking political correctness too far," said Rep. Ronnie Sutton, a Pembroke Democrat. "We can't have quadriplegics running track, nor do we need to have deaf persons serving on juries."
Rep. Rick Glazier, a Fayetteville Democrat, said hearing impaired jurors have already served in North Carolina trials. Several states have similar laws providing for interpreters in those cases, he said. The bill still allows lawyers or judges to reject a hearing impaired juror.
"A hearing impaired juror who has the capacity to particiapte fairly and impartially ought to be allowed," Glazier said.
Reps. Ruth Samuelson, a Charlotte Republican and Deborah Ross, a Raleigh Democrat, pointed out that deaf people may pick up on subtleties that others miss because they are using different senses. And Ross, said, just because a person can hear doesn't mean would they would be a good juror.
"There may be plenty of people who can hear but don't listen," Ross said.
Opponents to the bill sought to send it to its death in a committee. Glazier successfully avoided that by having the bill delayed until next week.
Blog RSS feed
Re: Deaf jurors debated
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?