Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is a Referendum on this year's Ballot, which reads as follows:
Quote:
Constitutional amendment providing that a person accused of any criminal offense for which the State is not seeking a sentence of death in superior court may, in writing or on the record in court and with the consent of the trial judge, waive the person's right to a trial by jury.
I wasn't sure how to interpret the wording on the ballot, and I found this on line. I thought I'd share it with everyone here.
It seems this thing is being ignored by the media, as the Executive Summary from the above-linked document states:
Quote:
The proposed amendment would make a fundamental change in how criminal trials may be conducted in this state. But neither the media nor advocacy groups have paid much attention to it, and as a result, voters may know little about it. This non-partisan, non-advocacy report provides the information voters need
to make an informed decision about the proposed amendment.
Anyway ... I'm not sure how I feel about it, and would love to hear you folks debate it.
Aye, no coverage at all! And that doc I linked is 34 pages long! I printed it (double-sided, 2 pages per sheet) and will read it tomorrow when the sun is up ... gahhh these eyes are gettin' old
Yes, no coverage by media but this is another amendment this state legislature trying to pass overstepping the US Constitution which states everyone has a right to trial by Jury.
I had to be a witness to my mom absentee ballot and wording is different on her ballot than what mention in the pdf.
It mentions all criminals nothing about just felony cases .
It states "Constitutional Amendment providing that a person accused of any criminal offense for which the State is not seeking of death in superior court may, in writing ir on the record in court and with consent of trial judge, waive the person's right to a trial by jury."
I was also surprised to see that on the ballot. I voted against it. It seemed to me just some more gamesmanship from our current political set. I see no reason to make that change.
I get that it will save taxpayer money, but I'm not comfortable leaving someone's fate up to one person - there can be and are bad/biased judges. We have a right to a jury trial as Sunny said - I feel pretty strongly against this amendment.
We already have the ability to simply plead guilty and shorten a trial.
That's really all anyone needs.
Unless you want to plead innocent, right?
It's mainly about presenting complicated material and having that heard by a single
educated person (vs 12 nabob's) ...who can then give an informed opinion.
Quote:
Too easy for an unscrupulous judge or member of law enforcement
to coerce a defendant into agreeing to waive their right to trial.
Meh. It's far more likely to be abused at the high end than the low end.
47 other states manage with the provision... NC can as well.
It might also help to reduce the number of lawyers.
This last point is why I'll vote "FOR"
My view on ANY Constitutional Amendment is that the "default setting" should always be NO.
To amend the Constitution, the "Amend" side needs to make a compelling case as to why; if you're unsure, leave things as they are.
There has been absolutely zero press from either side on this, and for that reason above all (but also because I'm leery of what the amendment could do), I voted AGAINST.
Again, those who wish to amend the Constitution have the burden of proof on them as to why. They didn't present that with Amendment One, 2 years ago, and they certainly aren't doing it now.
Interestingly, I have seen both Left-wing progressive sites and Right-wing Conservative sites (yes, I read both) saying to vote Against. I wonder who is responsible for trying to slip this thing in, to begin with?
Location: The place where the road & the sky collide
23,814 posts, read 34,702,154 times
Reputation: 10256
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedZin
There's no way I'd vote in favor of that.
Too easy for an unscrupulous judge or member of law enforcement to coerce a defendant into agreeing to waive their right to trial.
We already have the ability to simply plead guilty and shorten a trial. That's really all anyone needs.
Exactly my thoughts. Seems shady to me. They aren't trying to sell this one.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
