MSNBC show
Alan Keyes is Making Sense
Alan KeyesMarch 14, 2002
ALAN KEYES, HOST: Welcome to MAKING SENSE. I'm Alan Keyes.
Tonight, we have got what will probably be both an intense show and in some ways a dramatic one. We're going to be talking about what's been on everybody's mind and lips for the last few days — the Andrea Yates trial.
The verdict is in — guilty as charged. Now, the sentencing phase. And it appears that it's one of those things that's dividing people, dividing the country, dividing the talk shows right down the middle. Even the Internet where most folks are probably like myself, strong supporters of capital punishment, we take the Internet surveys. And people are pretty much divided right down the middle.
But that's because I think that there is a difference between understanding the importance of maintaining society's commitment to capital punishment in principle and with respect to certain categories of crimes and applying the death penalty at any given and particular case. I think in fact the best defense we can make of the death penalty, speaking as one who believes that there are times when it's necessary, is to make sure that when we apply it, we do so conscientiously and carefully, not out of a sentiment of vengeance or revenge or even the passions of repugnance and revulsion that crimes can inspire. No, we do so in order to defend the law from the terrible breach that is done to the law by cold-blooded murder.
And the question that I'll be raising tonight is whether or not, repugnant and repulsive as it was, this crime of Andrea Yates with all of the obvious elements of mental distinguishes and illness involved, whether it represented that kind of cold-blooded affront to respect for law. And if it did not, then I think it would be wrong to apply the death penalty in his case.
Well, we're going to be talking with a number of folks, some who were involved in and watching the trial who will help bring us up to date about that, and others who will be expressing their views, as I'm sure all of you have been expressing yours, about how the jury should go.
We're likely to learn about that possibly as early as tomorrow. It could go through the weekend. We don't know.
Then, in the segment in the second half hour, some of you — well, admit it — some of you did watch the Harding-Jones travesty, didn't you? Well, 12 million people watched it. Must have included some of you.
We're going to talk to Paula Jones this evening, asking some questions about how what appeared to be that undignified spectacle relates in fact to the dignified — the dignity that she was defending, rather — in the context of her confrontation with Bill Clinton. So, that's coming up in the second half hour.
Up front tonight, up front, we're going to be talking with a couple of folks who have been watching the case closely in the courtroom and who have followed it. Suzy Spencer, who spent time interviewing the Yates family, she has a book “Breaking Point,” which examines the case in detail.
Also with us is Chip Lewis, a former Texas prosecutor. Welcome to MAKING SENSE, you all, and thank you all for being with us tonight.
First let me go to Suzy Spencer. Suzy, looking at this case, it's obviously arousing a lot of opinion and emotion. I think there is a deep split about what the outcome ought to be. You have watched the case. Two questions. First, do you think that verdict made sense that the jurors were actually making sense of what they saw and heard? And, second, what is involved now in the decision they have to take with respect to whether to apply the death penalty?
SUZY SPENCER, AUTHOR, “BREAKING POINT”: Well, gee, on the first question, it sort of depends on how you look at it because the law says, did she know what she did was wrong? We had expert after expert testify that, yes, she knew what she was doing was wrong. But when it got down to it on Monday before the verdict was rendered on Tuesday, they put up a transcript from Park Dietz, the psychiatric expert for the state, saying — asking Andrea, “Did you know what you were doing was wrong?” And she — specifically, “When did you know what you were doing was wrong?” And she said, “When I called the police.”
And he said, “At the time that you did it, did you know it was wrong?” And she said, “No, I thought it was right,” that she was — she even talked about to Park Dietz how at the time she was drowning the children she was praying that they would go to heaven.
So, it depends on how you look at it, because, at that very moment, did she know what she was doing wrong? According to testimony from the state's own witness, no. But a few minutes later, she did.
KEYES: Well, what is going to be involved in the jury's deliberation about whether or not to apply the death penalty?
SPENCER: You know, I'm not sure that jury cares about what is involved in that, because you know how quickly they rendered their verdict. And when they're in there today listening to the testimony, they are stone faced. When Mrs. Kennedy, Andrea's mother, is crying and says, “I am pleading for my daughter's life. I have lost seven people in the past year,” because the verdict was rendered on the one-year anniversary of Andrea's father's death. The jury did not react at all.
KEYES: Now, do you think that's mainly because they're putting aside sort of whatever might be legal logic and argumentation and really going with the sense of revulsion against the nature of the crime itself?
SPENCER: I think so.
KEYES: I think that's always been a possibility. I think that clearly was part of what led to the verdict, though it did seem to me there was a ground for believing that she understood that what she was doing was wrong. Whether she could act on that understanding remains questionable.
Let me go to Chip Lewis. Chip, those seem to be the kind of questions that are involved, were involved, in the verdict. What is your sense, first of all, of how the jury has done thus far in terms of rendering a verdict of guilty, and whether in their deliberations they are going to be taking account of these arguments or just kind of going with their gut?
CHIP LEWIS, FORMER TEXAS PROSECUTOR: I think the jury has done a perfect job so far. They have applied the facts of the case to the law of the jurisdiction and rendered a just verdict.
If you look at the facts of this case, Alan, this verdict was grounded in reason and common sense. This lady didn't just snap out of this so-called psychosis when she called 9-1-1. You have to remember the thoughtful, planned, premeditated action she took in drowning her five own children.
She had to chase Noah down. She didn't snap out of a psychosis and chase Noah down and go back into a psychosis. She cased down her oldest son and drowned him in the same tub her baby girl was laying face down in.
This jury is not a runaway jury who didn't listen to the evidence and apply just some fundamental revulsion. They listened to the evidence. They applied the law, which said at the time of the commission of this crime, did the defendant know right from wrong? Clearly, she knew right from wrong.
KEYES: Well, what is going to be involved? Because I think to myself that you are right and that there was a very reasonable basis for the judgment that they took, and that as the testimony developed, I think there was a weight of it that supported what you just said, some things on the other side. But the balance of it, it seemed to me, could fairly be weighed by the jury to go in the direction of she had a moral capacity to distinguish right from wrong. She knew at that moment that what she was doing was not the right thing. What is the criteria they must apply with that same care when deciding about the death penalty?
LEWIS: We have a few special issues, as we call them here in the jurisdiction of Texas. We have first of all, is she a continuing threat? Is she a danger to society? That's the first question the jury must answer. The second question is, is there any mitigation that would rise to the level to necessitate not in essence killing this lady and giving her a life sentence?
First of all, what's going to be involved is, as we saw today, the state is not opposing that Andrea Yates prior to killing her five children was a good lady. She was a loving mother. She was a devoted nurse. She'd never been in any trouble before.
So the future's dangerousness can only really be assessed in terms of if she had more children. Forty years of hard time in the penitentiary would cut against anybody really realistically finding she's a future danger.
The second issue, whether there's mitigation, well, there's mitigation all over this case. She clearly had a mental illness. It did not rise to the level of insanity, as a jury correctly returned. But I think there's mitigation as well.
The only way I see this jury returning a death verdict is if, as you said, they're just so revolted by the crime, the commission of the crime itself and the way she drowned her five children, that they think they have to send a message to the community, to society as a whole, that if you drown your five children and you're sane, you must pay the ultimate price.
KEYES: Well, see, go ahead, Susan.
SPENCER: You know what I think is ironic about the case is that the prosecution came in there with fire and brimstone emotion that that's what they wanted Andrea Yates judged by. And the defense came in, we want to you use rational thinking. And what was it that sort of sent Andrea over the edge? That fire and brimstone, I am possessed by Satan. And what happened to her? That fire and brimstone emotion won out over rational thinking.
KEYES: I think that there are elements here that are ironic in precisely that sense. I want to thank both of you for joining us this evening and sharing those ideas, giving us a little greater clarity as to the issues they will be wrestling with.
We have assembled a panel of folks who will be talking about this question, going back and forth about it, as we approach the heart of the matter in the next segment. We're going to address what are I think the clear, the simple but clear, questions that are involved here. Was the verdict correct? Should we consider mental illness a mitigating factor in sentencing? And should Andrea Yates, based on that mitigation, be put to death or not?
I personally believe that the judgments involved here do go to the question of one's support or non-support for capital punishment because the best defense for capital punishment is a conscientious and careful application of it. And that's what I think is required here.
First, though, does this make sense? There was an employee at the Pentagon who had one of these charge cards that the Congress has been investigating the use of lately. She charged $12,000 in personal matters. I mean appliances and other things like this. She was never disciplined. She never repaid the money. She bought kitchen appliances, all other kinds of personal things.
And, of course, her superiors seeing this outrageous conduct, promoted her and put her in charge, made her officer in charge of cash integration. Do you get this? Well, she does know how to integrate the government's cash with her own, I guess. Does that make sense?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE LOVELACE, DEFENSE WITNESS: We all hope and pray that she is not given death, that the humane thing for Texas to do would be to allow this woman to be in prison and receive treatment. She'll have enough hell to live through knowing what she did to those children.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEYES: That was one of the defense witnesses today outside the courtroom. A reminder that the chat room is humming tonight. And you can join right in right now at chat.msnbc.com.
And coming up in our next half hour, Harding versus Jones. Have we no shame? I bet some of you were watching. You won't admit it now. But we're going to ask Paula Jones, who lost her bout with Tonya Harding last night, about the contrast between her defense of dignity against Bill Clinton and her surrender of dignity in some ways subsequently, a tough question, but I think one that's on a lot of minds.
But first, we're talking about whether Andrea Yates should be sentenced to death. That's a serious I think and very critical judgment, not just because an individual life is involved, but also because in the way we go about handling these matters, we are or are not going to undermine what I think is necessary public support for a punishment that is harsh but sometimes needed. Apply it in the wrong way, and that support will necessarily erode. So I think we have to be very careful with it.
Well, joining us to get to the heart of the matter, Basil Jackson, attorney and psychiatrist, who hs been treating cases of postpartum depression for the past 40 years. Also with us, James Curtis, a former posecutor and currently anchor of the show “Closing Arguments” on Court TV, and Rusty Hubbarth, vice president for legislative affairs at Justice for All, a criminal justice reform group. He'll join us in a bit.
Welcome to MAKING SENSE. Let me first go to Dr. Basil Jackson. Dr. Jackson, you are somebody who is obviously very knowledgeable about the psychological and psychiatric elements that are involved here. What is your sense of, one, the kind of things that jury should be considering right now in the sentencing phase and whether in fact her mental condition constitutes a mitigation that they should take seriously in terms of the death sentence?
DR. BASIL JACKSON, PSYCHIATRIST: Well, let me say first that, in my opinion, the prosecutor did exactly what he should have done and the defense did exactly what they should have done. And if I see that there's a problem here, it's with the standard and the law, rather than with the individuals involved.
I would like to think that the jury will try to get away from the simply heinous nature of the act and try to get away from a mere affective and emotional response and to think clearly that this is a lady who was psychotic. Now, it's not as a previous guest seemed to imply that because a woman is psychotic that she can't chase and she cannot have intent. Of course she can.
But at the particular moment — at the particular moment — and that is the crucial phase in the law — that she had lost the ability or some ability to differentiate between what she would have thought was good and what the law would have thought was good and what everyone would have known. Therefore, I hope they take that into account.
KEYES: Dr. Jackson, can I raise a question here, but it seems to me there's also a distinction between knowing the difference between right and wrong and being fully capable of acting on that judgment, given the sort of passions or demons that are besetting you. And when judging of responsibility and guilt, if you know right from wrong, I think we have to assess responsibility. But if your ability to respond to that judgment is not fully in play at the time, shouldn't that also be considered mitigation?
JACKSON: I think very definitely it should. And I think that is an excellent point. We used to have such a thing in the defense of this kind of case, of the defense of irresistible impulse. That's not now acceptable. But is it a fact? Does it exist? Absolutely.
And her psychotic condition — and remember that psychosis is not a disease, it is a phenomenological state at a given moment in time and space — at that moment, did she have the ability to differentiate between right and wrong? Now, as a pediatric psychiatrist, let me say — and I've practiced psychiatry now for over 40 years — I have never yet seen a patient who did not have some ability to dfferentiate between right and wrong. I've seen a child with an IQ of 30. And they will not touch the candy while I am watching because they know that it is inappropriate.
KEYES: Let me go to Rusty Hubbarth. Rusty, looking at this situation, obviously the simple questions about the verdict, its correctness, but also especially whether or not her mental state or condition should be considered a mitigation in terms of applying the death penalty, what's your sense of it?
RUSTY HUBBARTH, VICE PRESIDENT FOR LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS, JUSTICE FOR ALL: All factors that the defense can bring up in order to spare her from the death penalty should be taken into consideration, not just her mental state, her environment, her conditioning, heredity, all of the factors that created Andrea Yates and this horrible crime will be taken into account if the defense is doing their job.
However, I would take issue earlier about the point of not knowing whether it was right or wrong. I believe it was her constant defense that her belief was that killing the children was the lesser two of evils, as opposed to letting Satan have them. So, I don't think it was so much of an inability to focus on right or wrong. I think what they were trying to establish was the lesser of two evils.
KEYES: That does, Rusty, that does imply, though, that what she knew that what she was doing was evil.
HUBBARTH: Exactly. Exactly. And in that manner, in that case, the jury should take that into consideration. I believe, with the verdict that they did take it into consideration. And we'll see what they do when they return their verdict, whether it will be life imprisonment, which in Texas means at least 40 years, or whether it means the death penalty.
KEYES: James Curtis, insofar as we're dealing with a question of whether she poses a future danger to society, in addition to what might be the mitigating circumstances, do you think there's a case to be made that she does?
JAMES CURTIS, ANCHOR, “CLOSING ARGUMENTS”: No, I really don't. I mean, you have to look at the fact that if she's given life, as you just said, Alan, the idea that she's going to be locked up for 40 years, absent conjugal visits or some other leave or exception that's going to allow her to get out, she doesn't appear to pose that kind of future danger in this context.
However, I think there's a serious question as to whether we know enough about whether she poses a danger to other people. What if Satan says, “Hey, kill your husband, kill your neighbor because they're bad.” t's a different situation. And it could pose a problem and that needs to be examined.
KEYES: Well, if indeed, though, we look at the heinous nature of this crime, if she is not put to death, isn't there the danger that we will be encouraging folks in the midst of situations, maybe not exactly similar, but with temptations and anger and other things at work, to believe that somehow or another there's a tolerance for this kind of heinous crime?
CURTIS: Oh, absolutely. And when you listen to the prosecutor's argument during the penalty phase, in Texas they're allowed to make an argument that prosecutors all over the country in other states wish that they could. And that is that, look, you need to send a message. You need to send a message to this woman and to everyone else out there who might be plagued with some malady of this nature to make them understand that you are responsible for the maintenance of your illness or for whatever problem that plagues you so that you do not destroy other life or commit any other kind of crime.
And we have to understand that. And, as a matter of fact, a great article on the MSNBC web site speaks to this very issue. It is a myth that people who have these types of illnesses are inherently violent. That is not the case. And that needs to be clearly communicated.
KEYES: Go ahead.
HUBBARTH: I was going to say, can we reverse the question and say that people commit these acts of violence, are they psychotic at the time? Isn't everyone psychotic at the time that they're actually committing this act of violence?
CURTIS: Absolutely. And it opens the door up to all kinds of things like heat of passion. You catch your wife in the moment with your best friend. You get to kill them both, and you're off the hook. It opens the doors to all kinds of conduct and behavior that we as a society have gotten to the point to say that it's not acceptable. You have to control your conduct or suffer the consequences.
HUBBARTH: Exactly.
KEYES: Well, I think, though, as we look at this question, I think the jury has made a decision that says, yes, you must be held accountable. The question that is involved in the sentencing is whether that accountability should extend to the full extent of the law.
And I guess the question in my mind is obviously what one is doing with the death penalty is trying to heal the breach of disrespect for law that's involved in a crime like this. That's the message that you're trying to send, to restore that respect for law. But if there are in fact mitigating circumstances that partly derogate from one's responsibility, shouldn't that also derogate from the extent of the punishment? Dr. Jackson, is there a logic to that or not?
JACKSON: Well, I think we have to keep in mind that there must be accountability and there must be consequences. But there are mitigation — mitigating circumstances, very, very clearly. And the bottom line is, is she going to end up in prison A without treatment or prison B and receive some treatment?
Now humanity would say at least we should try to help her as much as possible. That doesn't mean that we plan for any doctor or anyone else to say she is now cured because she's not going to be and to let her be discharged. Those are the kinds of things that have to be considered.
KEYES: Well, I think one of the problems here, as I see it — and I don't know how you all feel — but is that I think there ought to be a possibility in a case like this of a life sentence without the possibility of parole, but with the understanding that you're going to be treated for the ailment that you have and so forth. That might in fact not be altogether charitable since the healthier you are, the more heinous your crime may seem to your healthy conscience. But nonetheless shouldn't the law include some such alternative for the jury?
HUBBARTH: No.
KEYES: No, Rusty Hubbarth?
CURTIS: The problem that you're speaking to, this problem that you're speaking to, Alan, is the inconsistency jurisdiction by jurisdiction. In California, there is such a thing as life without the possibility of parole, as there are in many other states. Texas law isn't structured that way.
And the same thing that Dr. Jackson talked about with respect to the definition of not guilty by reason of insanity, it varies from state to state. So maybe what we should be talking about is the idea of making something consistent across the board that deals with this particular issue.
KEYES: Now, Rusty, you were very emphatic that there should not be that alternative. Why not?
HUBBARTH: We have fought very hard over the last three sessions in Texas, especially during the last session, to eliminate the possibility of life without parole because life without parole would become a tool for a weak governor to start offering up commutations at last-minute executions because of political pressure. We feel that either life with 40 years, which is the lesser punishment for a commission of a capital murder, or execution gives them basically life without parole based on the 40 calendar years.
However, to give a third option in this sort of a case, or in any death penalty case, would open the doors for pressure for commutation. And we don't feel that that would be in the best interests of the citizens of the state of Texas.
CURTIS: Nobody in the state of Texas is in any position of control to give that kind of commutation.
HUBBARTH: The governor of Texas is.
CURTIS: Based on the people who live in Texas just like you who think that the idea that Texas puts more people to death in this state than other states combined over the last few years is exactly what they should be doing. I think that's an imaginary concern.
HUBBARTH: No, we've had a governor previous to the Bush administration that commuted two people based upon political considerations. One was based on religious pressure. And the other was based on racial pressure.
Both the people that she commuted were subsequently later executed. However, it shows — those two examples showed what public pressure and a weak governor could do. And I apologize to Ann Richards because I have a lot of respect for her in every other area. But that's not one of them. And...
CURTIS: Well, I still think it's a fake argument. It's an argument that individuals are not going to be falling prey to the idea that, look, I have this out, I have a way to get off the hook. People need to be put to death are certainly put to death more so in Texas than in any other state.
HUBBARTH: Exactly.
CURTIS: It doesn't have — that argument doesn't hold any water.
HUBBARTH: No, it's been there before. We've just managed to override the weakness of the governor.
KEYES: Gentlemen, thank you.
JACKSON: I must say...
KEYES: Go ahead. One last word, Doctor.
JACKSON: I must say that I'm a little uncomfortable with these kinds of political issues being of paramount importance when we're coming to the point of considering life and death for this human being.
HUBBARTH: Let's ask something about life and death for five children.
KEYES: Gentlemen, I'm sorry to interrupt. Wait, gentlemen. I'm sorry to interrupt, but we're going to have to call it to a close here because we've run out of time and I think actually at an interesting and good point. Thank you for coming with us this evening. Really appreciate it.
HUBBARTH: Thanks, Alan.
KEYES: I think that was obviously both a lively and an informative exchange. And it ended on a point that I think is critical right now. Are we dealing with issues of justice or politics? And insofar as politics is a necessary part of the administration of justice in a political system like our own, isn't it necessary that we apply consistent principles to that politics that are based on our need to respect how this applies in individual cases?
I happen to believe that if we don't do that strongly and conscientiously, then we will erode support for something that I believe at the end of the day is a necessary element of justice, the ability to stand in front of the hardened, cold-blooded, calculated killers who disregard the law for the sake of their own vicious interests, and say to them, “The death you have dealt is the death you will receive in order to make respect for the law whole once again of your calculated breach.”
But if we apply that penalty, which ought to be reserved I think for that kind of stone cold killer to those where there is a mitigating effect that will affect in the end the hearts and minds of people, I think that we're preparing ourselves for a slow, sad erosion of support for this critical element of a system of justice. We need to be careful, conscientious, and clear and not politicized in applying this penalty.
Next, Harding versus Jones. Celebrity boxing? We know what this says about celebrities. But what does it say about us? I'll be asking Paula Jones herself.
You're watching MSNBC, the best news on cable.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Welcome back to MAKING SENSE. I'm Alan Keyes.
Now I know a lot of you were aware of the big show, “Celebrity Boxing.” And since 12 million people watched, I can kind of guess that whatever might be your willingness to fess up right now, some of you were watching. Probably got a kick out of it too. Go ahead and admit it. There's no problem.
And, actually I want to be clear. I don't have anything against “Celebrity Boxing”. And I think celebrity boxing, celebrity golf, celebrity tennis tournaments, good idea, watch the entertainers, raise some money for charity. I'm very pleased tonight to have a chance to talk with one of the folks who participated in the celebrity boxing, Paul Jones. She lost her match to Tonya Harding, but I think in some ways, it was Paula, I have to tell you, it was a little bit of an unfair match. You didn't quite have the same background, you know, athleticism and so forth and so on. So that's kind of understandable, I suppose.
But I have to preface what I'm about to say with the fact, Paula and I know each other. I remember you from the years which I try not to mention very often on this show when that guy was president of the United States, and you stood, in fact, against him and against all the folks who were out there assaulting your dignity in order to stand on that dignity and assert the right, which I think is there for everybody, no matter what authority you're dealing with, be it the governor of Arkansas, the president of the United States, everybody in this country has the right to being treated with dignity and not to be assaulted in that dignity with propositions that are an affront to their decency.
And I thought you stood quite courageously for that and for many people like yourself as we saw that situation. And as I have in the past, I want to say now that I think your courage in that regard was exemplary.
PAULA JONES, CELEBRITY BOXER: Thank you.
KEYES: And I really appreciated it at the time. But I have a question for you now. The way my mind works, Paula, I have to apologize to people all the time, but I looked at the celebrity boxing. I have no problem with that. But when I saw Paula Jones and Tonya Harding put together, I kind of thought, to be quite frank, that just as Bill Clinton insulted you with his advances, that these people had insulted you with this pairing. After all, here is a woman, she was guilty of a crime. She was cold-bloodedly going after somebody in an act of violence. You are somebody who was precisely not guilty. Don't you feel a little insulted by that pairing?
JONES: Well, I mean, honestly, I mean, I chose to do it because I knew it was going to be a fun thing or I thought it was going to be a fun thing. And I thought, OK, well, you know, I can get a little bit of training in. And so I did. But it only ended up to be about six hours of training, so that wasn't a whole lot of training.
But I thought, well, maybe Tonya is wanting to create a new image for herself and not be so ugly and mean out there. And like I said, I was told ahead of time it was going to be a fun thing and that's what I was going out there to do. I was going out there to have a good time and learn some of the techniques and moves that I had learned from my training. And it kind of turned out a little bit different. And I guess I'm really not surprised but I was hoping it would have been more of a fun type deal.
KEYES: Well, see, I think the sad thing is though, Paula, that in a situation like this, it's one of the things that I see as a problem in the way the media handles things. There is no equivalency in my opinion between Paula Jones and Tonya Harding. You were not guilty of anything. You didn't attack anybody. Quite the contrary. Your dignity and decency were attacked.
JONES: That's true.
Do you think it's right for people to put you somehow or to put Tonya Harding somehow on the same plane with somebody like yourself? I mean, isn't that wrong?
JONES: Well, I think they did it for ratings, too. I mean, let's be honest. I mean, everybody tuned in. A lot of people tuned in and probably people that, like you said, too that don't even want to admit it tuned in because it got ratings. And they knew we were such opposite people, which, you know, I take good pride in because, you know, I am a sweet person. I'm not a fighter, I'm a lover. And, you know, I think they knew that, and they thought it would make for a good show, which it did.
KEYES: Well, see, this is one of the things that sometimes I get a little discouraged by, though, because I see a society in which we seem to be willing to sacrifice dignity for the sake of ratings — what do ratings mean? Money, right? I mean, they want to make money so they put people out there. They don't care what happens. It's happening right now with the Tyson fight. This man who really probably shouldn't be in the ring in this situation to box being pushed possibly to tragedy because somebody is going to make money.
Don't you think that, in a way, it is both insulting to you and to your own dignity that they push you out there, exploiting a false equivalence between you and Tonya Harding in order to make money? I mean, it seems to me that it cheapens the decency of people like yourself to be put in that situation.
JONES: Well, I mean, I don't think so because, I mean, I may have been through a terrible situation with the governor of Arkansas, but — or the president, too — but this was something that I chose to do, you know, for fun. And I thought, well, you know, this will be something different and exciting. And, you know, I don't really think that — they did not try to exploit me, I don't think, because I chose to do it, and it's like I said too, I think that Tonya got up there and did a little bit more than what she should have, you know, just to win, especially when she hit me in the back of the head when I was in my corner. But I was just out there to have a fun time and I was trying to put the past behind me.
KEYES: Paula, see, this is the problem I have, Paula, because after all is said and done, this was a lady who had gone after her competitor and gotten people to try to break the knees of her competitor.
JONES: I know.
KEYES: I would have expected her to be coming up behind you and doing who knows how much dirt. So in that sense...
JONES: Well, I was hoping that that wasn't the case. I was. And like I said, I give everybody the benefit of the doubt and I thought, well maybe — and different ones were telling me oh, Paula, she's not going to get out there and harm you. She's not going to get out there and really go after you because she wanting to try to look good and everything, you know. But you know, I mean, she proved in the end...
KEYES: I think in the end, it turned out that as with Bill Clinton, past conduct was the predictor of future behavior, and that's what it turned out to be, as in your case and Monica Lewinsky and others. Now, Paula, thanks for being with us tonight.
JONES: OK. You're welcome.
KEYES: I really appreciate it. I think we have best proof again in all of this that, in point of fact, it is kind of hard. We can defend our dignity against others. The hardest thing is to make sure that we don't surrender it ourselves.
We'll be right back with more on this topic right after this. And later, my outrage of the day. Yes, indeed, about folks who are getting all upset about Andrea Yates killing her babies, but don't want to seem to let Congress help us keep some babies alive. We'll see. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: We're talking about celebrity boxing? Well, that's part of the problem, isn't it? See the root of the word celebrity is celebrate. My question is what is it we're celebrating with respect to some of these people? And isn't the fact that we're willing to suggest we celebrate folks like Tonya Harding actually an indication of our own degeneracy? Well, I know, hard word but there we have it.
Joining me to talk about that right now, we Richard Bey, host of WABC's “Malsburg and Bey Show” in New York. And Robert Peters, president of Morality in Media, a media watchdog group. Gentlemen, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
ROBERT PETERS, MORALITY IN MEDIA: Thank you.
KEYES: I want to go first to Robert Peters. I find that with the ordinary celebrities out there, having a little fun in a sports game they don't know much about, it can be good clean fun. But when we start putting people like Tonya Harding in the position of a celebrity, aren't we celebrating violence and depravity? And isn't this going to have some harmful effects on the moral fiber of the country? What do you think, Robert?
PETERS: Well, you said it in a previous segment, that there isn't anything per se. I don't think with the concept of celebrity boxing. I would immediately think of someone like Geraldo, if my memory serves correct. He boxed in golden gloves as a kid.
And if there was somebody at least hopefully evenly matched and the two of them wanted to train and participate in a legitimate boxing match, I don't think that would be exploitive. And hopefully since both of them know how to box, there would be little or no risk of a serious injury. I kind of wish some of the hockey players instead of the referees letting them fight on the bloody ring, if they want to get into fistfights, let's have some ringside fistfights.
Let them duke it out in a rules setting display. But I would compare the Tonya Harding and — originally it was going to be Amy Fisher which — and then Paula Jones, and I don't mean to be hard on these women. But I compare it to going out and bringing together the town drunks, and telling them you get in there and fistfight and we'll give the guy that loses we'll give him five bottles of gin and the guy that wins, we'll give him 20. Now that's not an athletic contest, it's a cruel spectacle. It's a little bit of “Jerry Springer” that Fox has brought to Prime Time TV.
RICHARD BEY, WABC HOST: I think you just gave the programing executives an idea for their next show.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: But Richard, the problem I have — wait a minute. The problem I have was right there in what Robert Peters said, because looking at somebody like a Paula Jones, why on earth does one have the right to call her the town drunk and to act like she's on the same plane as a Tonya Harding who was out there the committing mayhem? Aren't we in point of fact destroying what ought to be our revulsion against the kind of actions that certain people have committed by giving them this celebrity status?
I think that's what really constitutes the morally objectionable side of this, that when it confers celebrity on people who have nothing in fact in themselves or their deeds to celebrate.
BEY: Well, you're protective of Paula, but why is Paula a celebrity, you know? She was — it was of her own volition that she agreed to go on this program. It was of her own volition that she — didn't she pose for “Penthouse” magazine, if I'm not correct. She gained a certain sort of celebrity from her notoriety, if you will, in the Clinton affair.
All of these people except for Barry Williams, I don't think was involved with scandal. Danny Bonaduce has had scandal in his lifetime, Todd Bridges has had arrests, and who is it — Vanilla Ice has had his problems, as well. All of these people, you're right, have had shady elements of their past. But that's one of the things that made it exciting to watch, because you felt that to some degree they would be willing to do whatever it took to win the fight. I think that's what drew us to watch it.
KEYES: Well, and you don't see — this I think is right. But Robert Peters, if we're in a situation like this, you're watching something like this and if that is the attraction, aren't we moving this society in the direction of kind of a depraved indulgence in our own sort of worst elements by raising these people up to a platform, and having such a great — oh, it's a great time to watch these sort of people without decency duking it out?
I understand what might be the impulse. I just wonder if it's healthy for us to be celebrating it in this way.
PETERS: Well, I'm not — people talk about the cult of personality in our society. And it's pretty, I think, an indisputable statement that oftentimes the celebrities that we celebrate are — and again, I don't want to be cruel, but they're very damaged goods. I'm a damaged good. I don't want to claim or imply that I'm somehow perfect, but I don't want anybody celebrating me, going out and getting into a fistfight, whether I'm overly matched or under matched. I mean — good Lord. But I mean, it's all part of this cult of celebrity. I suspect that our New York City police department and firefighters, that they hve legitimate boxing matches, wrestling matches, arm wrestling, football.
How many of the clowns that watched these two down on their luck women, and both of them are, how many of them would come out and watch our courageous firemen in a legitimate athletic contest? They wouldn't waste —
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: But wait a minute, wait a minute. I have a question for Richard Bay, because I actually think that what Robert has suggested — I bet a lot of people would in fact watch if you went for decent celebrities, people who were celebrated because of their heroism in the context of say the terrible events in New York, people who were celebrated because of their contributions to this society.
Celebrated people in a positive sense. Why go after people who are celebrated in this sleazy way, acting as if that's the only thing people will watch?
BEY: Well, you've just denigrated a viewing audience last night of millions by calling them clowns. This was the number one show in its time period. And people tuned in.
KEYES: Wait a minute. I didn't use the word clowns.
BEY: No, Bob Peters did.
PETERS: Well, I'll tell you if they skinned a cat alive...
(CROSSTALK)
BEY: You called them clowns.
PETERS: ... on NBC TV tomorrow evening it would probably be the highest rated program, and I suppose, I have a worse word than clowns for people who would watch such a thing.
BEY: Well, frankly I find it disingenuous to attack this form of entertainment in the same week when one of the major networks is contemplating canceling “Nightline” and putting a celebrity chat show in its place. If you want to talk about what's really of vital interest and importance to the American viewing public, I would be more inclined to be critical of the standards of journalism, what's happened to the medium of getting important information, putting it in the proper context to the American public, than I would over their viewing a silly, banal and yes, cheesy form of entertainment, which has always been a part of American culture.
PETERS: But Richard, how about if they had taken Pee Wee, the guy that got, you know — and again, I don't want to be talking, you know, but the guy that got caught in a porn theater and then it was Herb Alpert or Marvin Albert, the sportscaster.
(CROSSTALK)
PETERS: ... put them in boxers and to put them out there as a spectacle. Not someone like Geraldo who can handle himself, put him up against...
BEY: Geraldo is a spectacle!
(CROSSTALK)
PETERS: Listen. I'm not a fan of Geraldo's journalism...
(CROSSTALK)
BEY: ... O.J. Simpson, and that's called journalism?
PETERS: Well, I'll tell you, if you matched up Geraldo with O.J. Simpson, you'd probably be getting back into Tonya Harding and Paula Jones, because you're no longer taking two normal human beings and having...
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Gentlemen, you know what I think the problem is — and I listened to you go back and forth, and in one way I still think that you all are missing the point in a sense, because I worry less about the spectacle itself and this and that than I worry about what it says to and about us. At the end of the day, the things we hold up and celebrate in this way reflect our real values. And I'm wondering whether or not our values have now become so debased that in order to indulge ourselves, we'll raise up the worst people to celebrity status, and therefore say that we are willing to worship the worst things in ourselves.
Thanks for being with me tonight. We've run out of time, I'm sorry. But I thank you for coming along, really appreciate it.
Next, we'll have my “Outrage of the Day.” And if you want to make even more sense, sign up for our free daily newsletter at our Web site, keys.MSNBC.com. Each day in your mailbox you'll get show topics, my weekly column and links to my favorites articles of the day. I'll be right back with my “Outrage of the Day,” some people who want to kill fetuses even though they are born alive, pretending that just that use of that word justifies us in what we're doing. You stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Now my “Outrage of the Day.” Congress just passed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, thanks to the efforts of Illinois state Senator Pat O'Malley and nurse Jill Stanek who exposed hospital practices of infanticide for neglect for unwanted babies. Folks who would neglect those babies let them die.
Now, today's “Washington Times” “Inside Politics” by Greg Pierce reported that if you get your news from the Associated Press wire, as a good portion of the news reading world does, this is what you found Tuesday after that congressional vote, a headline that said “House OK's Fetus Protection Bill.” The first sentence: “The House voted today to define a fetus that is fully outside a woman's body as having been born alive, which would give the fetus legal protection.”
Did you get that? I mean, listen to Associated Press, we're not talking about babies who are alive and who are then going to be allowed to ie through neglect, we're talking about fetuses, as if calling them by some Latin name changes what we're doing. And in the context of the Andrea Yates trial, I've got to tell you, this ought to really catch our attention. Would the youngest child not be a culpable murder if we had just called it a fetus instead of a baby? Would she be less guilty of a heinous crime? What makes us think we're less guilty of a heinous crime just because we apply some Latin name to babies who are just as much alive as you or I? I think we better be careful of our language here, or we may destroy the difference between Yates and the rest of us.
That's my sense of it. Thanks. Lester Holt is up next. I'll see you on Monday.
Tonight, we have got what will probably be both an intense show and in some ways a dramatic one. We're going to be talking about what's been on everybody's mind and lips for the last few days — the Andrea Yates trial.
The verdict is in — guilty as charged. Now, the sentencing phase. And it appears that it's one of those things that's dividing people, dividing the country, dividing the talk shows right down the middle. Even the Internet where most folks are probably like myself, strong supporters of capital punishment, we take the Internet surveys. And people are pretty much divided right down the middle.
But that's because I think that there is a difference between understanding the importance of maintaining society's commitment to capital punishment in principle and with respect to certain categories of crimes and applying the death penalty at any given and particular case. I think in fact the best defense we can make of the death penalty, speaking as one who believes that there are times when it's necessary, is to make sure that when we apply it, we do so conscientiously and carefully, not out of a sentiment of vengeance or revenge or even the passions of repugnance and revulsion that crimes can inspire. No, we do so in order to defend the law from the terrible breach that is done to the law by cold-blooded murder.
And the question that I'll be raising tonight is whether or not, repugnant and repulsive as it was, this crime of Andrea Yates with all of the obvious elements of mental distinguishes and illness involved, whether it represented that kind of cold-blooded affront to respect for law. And if it did not, then I think it would be wrong to apply the death penalty in his case.
Well, we're going to be talking with a number of folks, some who were involved in and watching the trial who will help bring us up to date about that, and others who will be expressing their views, as I'm sure all of you have been expressing yours, about how the jury should go.
We're likely to learn about that possibly as early as tomorrow. It could go through the weekend. We don't know.
Then, in the segment in the second half hour, some of you — well, admit it — some of you did watch the Harding-Jones travesty, didn't you? Well, 12 million people watched it. Must have included some of you.
We're going to talk to Paula Jones this evening, asking some questions about how what appeared to be that undignified spectacle relates in fact to the dignified — the dignity that she was defending, rather — in the context of her confrontation with Bill Clinton. So, that's coming up in the second half hour.
Up front tonight, up front, we're going to be talking with a couple of folks who have been watching the case closely in the courtroom and who have followed it. Suzy Spencer, who spent time interviewing the Yates family, she has a book “Breaking Point,” which examines the case in detail.
Also with us is Chip Lewis, a former Texas prosecutor. Welcome to MAKING SENSE, you all, and thank you all for being with us tonight.
First let me go to Suzy Spencer. Suzy, looking at this case, it's obviously arousing a lot of opinion and emotion. I think there is a deep split about what the outcome ought to be. You have watched the case. Two questions. First, do you think that verdict made sense that the jurors were actually making sense of what they saw and heard? And, second, what is involved now in the decision they have to take with respect to whether to apply the death penalty?
SUZY SPENCER, AUTHOR, “BREAKING POINT”: Well, gee, on the first question, it sort of depends on how you look at it because the law says, did she know what she did was wrong? We had expert after expert testify that, yes, she knew what she was doing was wrong. But when it got down to it on Monday before the verdict was rendered on Tuesday, they put up a transcript from Park Dietz, the psychiatric expert for the state, saying — asking Andrea, “Did you know what you were doing was wrong?” And she — specifically, “When did you know what you were doing was wrong?” And she said, “When I called the police.”
And he said, “At the time that you did it, did you know it was wrong?” And she said, “No, I thought it was right,” that she was — she even talked about to Park Dietz how at the time she was drowning the children she was praying that they would go to heaven.
So, it depends on how you look at it, because, at that very moment, did she know what she was doing wrong? According to testimony from the state's own witness, no. But a few minutes later, she did.
KEYES: Well, what is going to be involved in the jury's deliberation about whether or not to apply the death penalty?
SPENCER: You know, I'm not sure that jury cares about what is involved in that, because you know how quickly they rendered their verdict. And when they're in there today listening to the testimony, they are stone faced. When Mrs. Kennedy, Andrea's mother, is crying and says, “I am pleading for my daughter's life. I have lost seven people in the past year,” because the verdict was rendered on the one-year anniversary of Andrea's father's death. The jury did not react at all.
KEYES: Now, do you think that's mainly because they're putting aside sort of whatever might be legal logic and argumentation and really going with the sense of revulsion against the nature of the crime itself?
SPENCER: I think so.
KEYES: I think that's always been a possibility. I think that clearly was part of what led to the verdict, though it did seem to me there was a ground for believing that she understood that what she was doing was wrong. Whether she could act on that understanding remains questionable.
Let me go to Chip Lewis. Chip, those seem to be the kind of questions that are involved, were involved, in the verdict. What is your sense, first of all, of how the jury has done thus far in terms of rendering a verdict of guilty, and whether in their deliberations they are going to be taking account of these arguments or just kind of going with their gut?
CHIP LEWIS, FORMER TEXAS PROSECUTOR: I think the jury has done a perfect job so far. They have applied the facts of the case to the law of the jurisdiction and rendered a just verdict.
If you look at the facts of this case, Alan, this verdict was grounded in reason and common sense. This lady didn't just snap out of this so-called psychosis when she called 9-1-1. You have to remember the thoughtful, planned, premeditated action she took in drowning her five own children.
She had to chase Noah down. She didn't snap out of a psychosis and chase Noah down and go back into a psychosis. She cased down her oldest son and drowned him in the same tub her baby girl was laying face down in.
This jury is not a runaway jury who didn't listen to the evidence and apply just some fundamental revulsion. They listened to the evidence. They applied the law, which said at the time of the commission of this crime, did the defendant know right from wrong? Clearly, she knew right from wrong.
KEYES: Well, what is going to be involved? Because I think to myself that you are right and that there was a very reasonable basis for the judgment that they took, and that as the testimony developed, I think there was a weight of it that supported what you just said, some things on the other side. But the balance of it, it seemed to me, could fairly be weighed by the jury to go in the direction of she had a moral capacity to distinguish right from wrong. She knew at that moment that what she was doing was not the right thing. What is the criteria they must apply with that same care when deciding about the death penalty?
LEWIS: We have a few special issues, as we call them here in the jurisdiction of Texas. We have first of all, is she a continuing threat? Is she a danger to society? That's the first question the jury must answer. The second question is, is there any mitigation that would rise to the level to necessitate not in essence killing this lady and giving her a life sentence?
First of all, what's going to be involved is, as we saw today, the state is not opposing that Andrea Yates prior to killing her five children was a good lady. She was a loving mother. She was a devoted nurse. She'd never been in any trouble before.
So the future's dangerousness can only really be assessed in terms of if she had more children. Forty years of hard time in the penitentiary would cut against anybody really realistically finding she's a future danger.
The second issue, whether there's mitigation, well, there's mitigation all over this case. She clearly had a mental illness. It did not rise to the level of insanity, as a jury correctly returned. But I think there's mitigation as well.
The only way I see this jury returning a death verdict is if, as you said, they're just so revolted by the crime, the commission of the crime itself and the way she drowned her five children, that they think they have to send a message to the community, to society as a whole, that if you drown your five children and you're sane, you must pay the ultimate price.
KEYES: Well, see, go ahead, Susan.
SPENCER: You know what I think is ironic about the case is that the prosecution came in there with fire and brimstone emotion that that's what they wanted Andrea Yates judged by. And the defense came in, we want to you use rational thinking. And what was it that sort of sent Andrea over the edge? That fire and brimstone, I am possessed by Satan. And what happened to her? That fire and brimstone emotion won out over rational thinking.
KEYES: I think that there are elements here that are ironic in precisely that sense. I want to thank both of you for joining us this evening and sharing those ideas, giving us a little greater clarity as to the issues they will be wrestling with.
We have assembled a panel of folks who will be talking about this question, going back and forth about it, as we approach the heart of the matter in the next segment. We're going to address what are I think the clear, the simple but clear, questions that are involved here. Was the verdict correct? Should we consider mental illness a mitigating factor in sentencing? And should Andrea Yates, based on that mitigation, be put to death or not?
I personally believe that the judgments involved here do go to the question of one's support or non-support for capital punishment because the best defense for capital punishment is a conscientious and careful application of it. And that's what I think is required here.
First, though, does this make sense? There was an employee at the Pentagon who had one of these charge cards that the Congress has been investigating the use of lately. She charged $12,000 in personal matters. I mean appliances and other things like this. She was never disciplined. She never repaid the money. She bought kitchen appliances, all other kinds of personal things.
And, of course, her superiors seeing this outrageous conduct, promoted her and put her in charge, made her officer in charge of cash integration. Do you get this? Well, she does know how to integrate the government's cash with her own, I guess. Does that make sense?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE LOVELACE, DEFENSE WITNESS: We all hope and pray that she is not given death, that the humane thing for Texas to do would be to allow this woman to be in prison and receive treatment. She'll have enough hell to live through knowing what she did to those children.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEYES: That was one of the defense witnesses today outside the courtroom. A reminder that the chat room is humming tonight. And you can join right in right now at chat.msnbc.com.
And coming up in our next half hour, Harding versus Jones. Have we no shame? I bet some of you were watching. You won't admit it now. But we're going to ask Paula Jones, who lost her bout with Tonya Harding last night, about the contrast between her defense of dignity against Bill Clinton and her surrender of dignity in some ways subsequently, a tough question, but I think one that's on a lot of minds.
But first, we're talking about whether Andrea Yates should be sentenced to death. That's a serious I think and very critical judgment, not just because an individual life is involved, but also because in the way we go about handling these matters, we are or are not going to undermine what I think is necessary public support for a punishment that is harsh but sometimes needed. Apply it in the wrong way, and that support will necessarily erode. So I think we have to be very careful with it.
Well, joining us to get to the heart of the matter, Basil Jackson, attorney and psychiatrist, who hs been treating cases of postpartum depression for the past 40 years. Also with us, James Curtis, a former posecutor and currently anchor of the show “Closing Arguments” on Court TV, and Rusty Hubbarth, vice president for legislative affairs at Justice for All, a criminal justice reform group. He'll join us in a bit.
Welcome to MAKING SENSE. Let me first go to Dr. Basil Jackson. Dr. Jackson, you are somebody who is obviously very knowledgeable about the psychological and psychiatric elements that are involved here. What is your sense of, one, the kind of things that jury should be considering right now in the sentencing phase and whether in fact her mental condition constitutes a mitigation that they should take seriously in terms of the death sentence?
DR. BASIL JACKSON, PSYCHIATRIST: Well, let me say first that, in my opinion, the prosecutor did exactly what he should have done and the defense did exactly what they should have done. And if I see that there's a problem here, it's with the standard and the law, rather than with the individuals involved.
I would like to think that the jury will try to get away from the simply heinous nature of the act and try to get away from a mere affective and emotional response and to think clearly that this is a lady who was psychotic. Now, it's not as a previous guest seemed to imply that because a woman is psychotic that she can't chase and she cannot have intent. Of course she can.
But at the particular moment — at the particular moment — and that is the crucial phase in the law — that she had lost the ability or some ability to differentiate between what she would have thought was good and what the law would have thought was good and what everyone would have known. Therefore, I hope they take that into account.
KEYES: Dr. Jackson, can I raise a question here, but it seems to me there's also a distinction between knowing the difference between right and wrong and being fully capable of acting on that judgment, given the sort of passions or demons that are besetting you. And when judging of responsibility and guilt, if you know right from wrong, I think we have to assess responsibility. But if your ability to respond to that judgment is not fully in play at the time, shouldn't that also be considered mitigation?
JACKSON: I think very definitely it should. And I think that is an excellent point. We used to have such a thing in the defense of this kind of case, of the defense of irresistible impulse. That's not now acceptable. But is it a fact? Does it exist? Absolutely.
And her psychotic condition — and remember that psychosis is not a disease, it is a phenomenological state at a given moment in time and space — at that moment, did she have the ability to differentiate between right and wrong? Now, as a pediatric psychiatrist, let me say — and I've practiced psychiatry now for over 40 years — I have never yet seen a patient who did not have some ability to dfferentiate between right and wrong. I've seen a child with an IQ of 30. And they will not touch the candy while I am watching because they know that it is inappropriate.
KEYES: Let me go to Rusty Hubbarth. Rusty, looking at this situation, obviously the simple questions about the verdict, its correctness, but also especially whether or not her mental state or condition should be considered a mitigation in terms of applying the death penalty, what's your sense of it?
RUSTY HUBBARTH, VICE PRESIDENT FOR LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS, JUSTICE FOR ALL: All factors that the defense can bring up in order to spare her from the death penalty should be taken into consideration, not just her mental state, her environment, her conditioning, heredity, all of the factors that created Andrea Yates and this horrible crime will be taken into account if the defense is doing their job.
However, I would take issue earlier about the point of not knowing whether it was right or wrong. I believe it was her constant defense that her belief was that killing the children was the lesser two of evils, as opposed to letting Satan have them. So, I don't think it was so much of an inability to focus on right or wrong. I think what they were trying to establish was the lesser of two evils.
KEYES: That does, Rusty, that does imply, though, that what she knew that what she was doing was evil.
HUBBARTH: Exactly. Exactly. And in that manner, in that case, the jury should take that into consideration. I believe, with the verdict that they did take it into consideration. And we'll see what they do when they return their verdict, whether it will be life imprisonment, which in Texas means at least 40 years, or whether it means the death penalty.
KEYES: James Curtis, insofar as we're dealing with a question of whether she poses a future danger to society, in addition to what might be the mitigating circumstances, do you think there's a case to be made that she does?
JAMES CURTIS, ANCHOR, “CLOSING ARGUMENTS”: No, I really don't. I mean, you have to look at the fact that if she's given life, as you just said, Alan, the idea that she's going to be locked up for 40 years, absent conjugal visits or some other leave or exception that's going to allow her to get out, she doesn't appear to pose that kind of future danger in this context.
However, I think there's a serious question as to whether we know enough about whether she poses a danger to other people. What if Satan says, “Hey, kill your husband, kill your neighbor because they're bad.” t's a different situation. And it could pose a problem and that needs to be examined.
KEYES: Well, if indeed, though, we look at the heinous nature of this crime, if she is not put to death, isn't there the danger that we will be encouraging folks in the midst of situations, maybe not exactly similar, but with temptations and anger and other things at work, to believe that somehow or another there's a tolerance for this kind of heinous crime?
CURTIS: Oh, absolutely. And when you listen to the prosecutor's argument during the penalty phase, in Texas they're allowed to make an argument that prosecutors all over the country in other states wish that they could. And that is that, look, you need to send a message. You need to send a message to this woman and to everyone else out there who might be plagued with some malady of this nature to make them understand that you are responsible for the maintenance of your illness or for whatever problem that plagues you so that you do not destroy other life or commit any other kind of crime.
And we have to understand that. And, as a matter of fact, a great article on the MSNBC web site speaks to this very issue. It is a myth that people who have these types of illnesses are inherently violent. That is not the case. And that needs to be clearly communicated.
KEYES: Go ahead.
HUBBARTH: I was going to say, can we reverse the question and say that people commit these acts of violence, are they psychotic at the time? Isn't everyone psychotic at the time that they're actually committing this act of violence?
CURTIS: Absolutely. And it opens the door up to all kinds of things like heat of passion. You catch your wife in the moment with your best friend. You get to kill them both, and you're off the hook. It opens the doors to all kinds of conduct and behavior that we as a society have gotten to the point to say that it's not acceptable. You have to control your conduct or suffer the consequences.
HUBBARTH: Exactly.
KEYES: Well, I think, though, as we look at this question, I think the jury has made a decision that says, yes, you must be held accountable. The question that is involved in the sentencing is whether that accountability should extend to the full extent of the law.
And I guess the question in my mind is obviously what one is doing with the death penalty is trying to heal the breach of disrespect for law that's involved in a crime like this. That's the message that you're trying to send, to restore that respect for law. But if there are in fact mitigating circumstances that partly derogate from one's responsibility, shouldn't that also derogate from the extent of the punishment? Dr. Jackson, is there a logic to that or not?
JACKSON: Well, I think we have to keep in mind that there must be accountability and there must be consequences. But there are mitigation — mitigating circumstances, very, very clearly. And the bottom line is, is she going to end up in prison A without treatment or prison B and receive some treatment?
Now humanity would say at least we should try to help her as much as possible. That doesn't mean that we plan for any doctor or anyone else to say she is now cured because she's not going to be and to let her be discharged. Those are the kinds of things that have to be considered.
KEYES: Well, I think one of the problems here, as I see it — and I don't know how you all feel — but is that I think there ought to be a possibility in a case like this of a life sentence without the possibility of parole, but with the understanding that you're going to be treated for the ailment that you have and so forth. That might in fact not be altogether charitable since the healthier you are, the more heinous your crime may seem to your healthy conscience. But nonetheless shouldn't the law include some such alternative for the jury?
HUBBARTH: No.
KEYES: No, Rusty Hubbarth?
CURTIS: The problem that you're speaking to, this problem that you're speaking to, Alan, is the inconsistency jurisdiction by jurisdiction. In California, there is such a thing as life without the possibility of parole, as there are in many other states. Texas law isn't structured that way.
And the same thing that Dr. Jackson talked about with respect to the definition of not guilty by reason of insanity, it varies from state to state. So maybe what we should be talking about is the idea of making something consistent across the board that deals with this particular issue.
KEYES: Now, Rusty, you were very emphatic that there should not be that alternative. Why not?
HUBBARTH: We have fought very hard over the last three sessions in Texas, especially during the last session, to eliminate the possibility of life without parole because life without parole would become a tool for a weak governor to start offering up commutations at last-minute executions because of political pressure. We feel that either life with 40 years, which is the lesser punishment for a commission of a capital murder, or execution gives them basically life without parole based on the 40 calendar years.
However, to give a third option in this sort of a case, or in any death penalty case, would open the doors for pressure for commutation. And we don't feel that that would be in the best interests of the citizens of the state of Texas.
CURTIS: Nobody in the state of Texas is in any position of control to give that kind of commutation.
HUBBARTH: The governor of Texas is.
CURTIS: Based on the people who live in Texas just like you who think that the idea that Texas puts more people to death in this state than other states combined over the last few years is exactly what they should be doing. I think that's an imaginary concern.
HUBBARTH: No, we've had a governor previous to the Bush administration that commuted two people based upon political considerations. One was based on religious pressure. And the other was based on racial pressure.
Both the people that she commuted were subsequently later executed. However, it shows — those two examples showed what public pressure and a weak governor could do. And I apologize to Ann Richards because I have a lot of respect for her in every other area. But that's not one of them. And...
CURTIS: Well, I still think it's a fake argument. It's an argument that individuals are not going to be falling prey to the idea that, look, I have this out, I have a way to get off the hook. People need to be put to death are certainly put to death more so in Texas than in any other state.
HUBBARTH: Exactly.
CURTIS: It doesn't have — that argument doesn't hold any water.
HUBBARTH: No, it's been there before. We've just managed to override the weakness of the governor.
KEYES: Gentlemen, thank you.
JACKSON: I must say...
KEYES: Go ahead. One last word, Doctor.
JACKSON: I must say that I'm a little uncomfortable with these kinds of political issues being of paramount importance when we're coming to the point of considering life and death for this human being.
HUBBARTH: Let's ask something about life and death for five children.
KEYES: Gentlemen, I'm sorry to interrupt. Wait, gentlemen. I'm sorry to interrupt, but we're going to have to call it to a close here because we've run out of time and I think actually at an interesting and good point. Thank you for coming with us this evening. Really appreciate it.
HUBBARTH: Thanks, Alan.
KEYES: I think that was obviously both a lively and an informative exchange. And it ended on a point that I think is critical right now. Are we dealing with issues of justice or politics? And insofar as politics is a necessary part of the administration of justice in a political system like our own, isn't it necessary that we apply consistent principles to that politics that are based on our need to respect how this applies in individual cases?
I happen to believe that if we don't do that strongly and conscientiously, then we will erode support for something that I believe at the end of the day is a necessary element of justice, the ability to stand in front of the hardened, cold-blooded, calculated killers who disregard the law for the sake of their own vicious interests, and say to them, “The death you have dealt is the death you will receive in order to make respect for the law whole once again of your calculated breach.”
But if we apply that penalty, which ought to be reserved I think for that kind of stone cold killer to those where there is a mitigating effect that will affect in the end the hearts and minds of people, I think that we're preparing ourselves for a slow, sad erosion of support for this critical element of a system of justice. We need to be careful, conscientious, and clear and not politicized in applying this penalty.
Next, Harding versus Jones. Celebrity boxing? We know what this says about celebrities. But what does it say about us? I'll be asking Paula Jones herself.
You're watching MSNBC, the best news on cable.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Welcome back to MAKING SENSE. I'm Alan Keyes.
Now I know a lot of you were aware of the big show, “Celebrity Boxing.” And since 12 million people watched, I can kind of guess that whatever might be your willingness to fess up right now, some of you were watching. Probably got a kick out of it too. Go ahead and admit it. There's no problem.
And, actually I want to be clear. I don't have anything against “Celebrity Boxing”. And I think celebrity boxing, celebrity golf, celebrity tennis tournaments, good idea, watch the entertainers, raise some money for charity. I'm very pleased tonight to have a chance to talk with one of the folks who participated in the celebrity boxing, Paul Jones. She lost her match to Tonya Harding, but I think in some ways, it was Paula, I have to tell you, it was a little bit of an unfair match. You didn't quite have the same background, you know, athleticism and so forth and so on. So that's kind of understandable, I suppose.
But I have to preface what I'm about to say with the fact, Paula and I know each other. I remember you from the years which I try not to mention very often on this show when that guy was president of the United States, and you stood, in fact, against him and against all the folks who were out there assaulting your dignity in order to stand on that dignity and assert the right, which I think is there for everybody, no matter what authority you're dealing with, be it the governor of Arkansas, the president of the United States, everybody in this country has the right to being treated with dignity and not to be assaulted in that dignity with propositions that are an affront to their decency.
And I thought you stood quite courageously for that and for many people like yourself as we saw that situation. And as I have in the past, I want to say now that I think your courage in that regard was exemplary.
PAULA JONES, CELEBRITY BOXER: Thank you.
KEYES: And I really appreciated it at the time. But I have a question for you now. The way my mind works, Paula, I have to apologize to people all the time, but I looked at the celebrity boxing. I have no problem with that. But when I saw Paula Jones and Tonya Harding put together, I kind of thought, to be quite frank, that just as Bill Clinton insulted you with his advances, that these people had insulted you with this pairing. After all, here is a woman, she was guilty of a crime. She was cold-bloodedly going after somebody in an act of violence. You are somebody who was precisely not guilty. Don't you feel a little insulted by that pairing?
JONES: Well, I mean, honestly, I mean, I chose to do it because I knew it was going to be a fun thing or I thought it was going to be a fun thing. And I thought, OK, well, you know, I can get a little bit of training in. And so I did. But it only ended up to be about six hours of training, so that wasn't a whole lot of training.
But I thought, well, maybe Tonya is wanting to create a new image for herself and not be so ugly and mean out there. And like I said, I was told ahead of time it was going to be a fun thing and that's what I was going out there to do. I was going out there to have a good time and learn some of the techniques and moves that I had learned from my training. And it kind of turned out a little bit different. And I guess I'm really not surprised but I was hoping it would have been more of a fun type deal.
KEYES: Well, see, I think the sad thing is though, Paula, that in a situation like this, it's one of the things that I see as a problem in the way the media handles things. There is no equivalency in my opinion between Paula Jones and Tonya Harding. You were not guilty of anything. You didn't attack anybody. Quite the contrary. Your dignity and decency were attacked.
JONES: That's true.
Do you think it's right for people to put you somehow or to put Tonya Harding somehow on the same plane with somebody like yourself? I mean, isn't that wrong?
JONES: Well, I think they did it for ratings, too. I mean, let's be honest. I mean, everybody tuned in. A lot of people tuned in and probably people that, like you said, too that don't even want to admit it tuned in because it got ratings. And they knew we were such opposite people, which, you know, I take good pride in because, you know, I am a sweet person. I'm not a fighter, I'm a lover. And, you know, I think they knew that, and they thought it would make for a good show, which it did.
KEYES: Well, see, this is one of the things that sometimes I get a little discouraged by, though, because I see a society in which we seem to be willing to sacrifice dignity for the sake of ratings — what do ratings mean? Money, right? I mean, they want to make money so they put people out there. They don't care what happens. It's happening right now with the Tyson fight. This man who really probably shouldn't be in the ring in this situation to box being pushed possibly to tragedy because somebody is going to make money.
Don't you think that, in a way, it is both insulting to you and to your own dignity that they push you out there, exploiting a false equivalence between you and Tonya Harding in order to make money? I mean, it seems to me that it cheapens the decency of people like yourself to be put in that situation.
JONES: Well, I mean, I don't think so because, I mean, I may have been through a terrible situation with the governor of Arkansas, but — or the president, too — but this was something that I chose to do, you know, for fun. And I thought, well, you know, this will be something different and exciting. And, you know, I don't really think that — they did not try to exploit me, I don't think, because I chose to do it, and it's like I said too, I think that Tonya got up there and did a little bit more than what she should have, you know, just to win, especially when she hit me in the back of the head when I was in my corner. But I was just out there to have a fun time and I was trying to put the past behind me.
KEYES: Paula, see, this is the problem I have, Paula, because after all is said and done, this was a lady who had gone after her competitor and gotten people to try to break the knees of her competitor.
JONES: I know.
KEYES: I would have expected her to be coming up behind you and doing who knows how much dirt. So in that sense...
JONES: Well, I was hoping that that wasn't the case. I was. And like I said, I give everybody the benefit of the doubt and I thought, well maybe — and different ones were telling me oh, Paula, she's not going to get out there and harm you. She's not going to get out there and really go after you because she wanting to try to look good and everything, you know. But you know, I mean, she proved in the end...
KEYES: I think in the end, it turned out that as with Bill Clinton, past conduct was the predictor of future behavior, and that's what it turned out to be, as in your case and Monica Lewinsky and others. Now, Paula, thanks for being with us tonight.
JONES: OK. You're welcome.
KEYES: I really appreciate it. I think we have best proof again in all of this that, in point of fact, it is kind of hard. We can defend our dignity against others. The hardest thing is to make sure that we don't surrender it ourselves.
We'll be right back with more on this topic right after this. And later, my outrage of the day. Yes, indeed, about folks who are getting all upset about Andrea Yates killing her babies, but don't want to seem to let Congress help us keep some babies alive. We'll see. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: We're talking about celebrity boxing? Well, that's part of the problem, isn't it? See the root of the word celebrity is celebrate. My question is what is it we're celebrating with respect to some of these people? And isn't the fact that we're willing to suggest we celebrate folks like Tonya Harding actually an indication of our own degeneracy? Well, I know, hard word but there we have it.
Joining me to talk about that right now, we Richard Bey, host of WABC's “Malsburg and Bey Show” in New York. And Robert Peters, president of Morality in Media, a media watchdog group. Gentlemen, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
ROBERT PETERS, MORALITY IN MEDIA: Thank you.
KEYES: I want to go first to Robert Peters. I find that with the ordinary celebrities out there, having a little fun in a sports game they don't know much about, it can be good clean fun. But when we start putting people like Tonya Harding in the position of a celebrity, aren't we celebrating violence and depravity? And isn't this going to have some harmful effects on the moral fiber of the country? What do you think, Robert?
PETERS: Well, you said it in a previous segment, that there isn't anything per se. I don't think with the concept of celebrity boxing. I would immediately think of someone like Geraldo, if my memory serves correct. He boxed in golden gloves as a kid.
And if there was somebody at least hopefully evenly matched and the two of them wanted to train and participate in a legitimate boxing match, I don't think that would be exploitive. And hopefully since both of them know how to box, there would be little or no risk of a serious injury. I kind of wish some of the hockey players instead of the referees letting them fight on the bloody ring, if they want to get into fistfights, let's have some ringside fistfights.
Let them duke it out in a rules setting display. But I would compare the Tonya Harding and — originally it was going to be Amy Fisher which — and then Paula Jones, and I don't mean to be hard on these women. But I compare it to going out and bringing together the town drunks, and telling them you get in there and fistfight and we'll give the guy that loses we'll give him five bottles of gin and the guy that wins, we'll give him 20. Now that's not an athletic contest, it's a cruel spectacle. It's a little bit of “Jerry Springer” that Fox has brought to Prime Time TV.
RICHARD BEY, WABC HOST: I think you just gave the programing executives an idea for their next show.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: But Richard, the problem I have — wait a minute. The problem I have was right there in what Robert Peters said, because looking at somebody like a Paula Jones, why on earth does one have the right to call her the town drunk and to act like she's on the same plane as a Tonya Harding who was out there the committing mayhem? Aren't we in point of fact destroying what ought to be our revulsion against the kind of actions that certain people have committed by giving them this celebrity status?
I think that's what really constitutes the morally objectionable side of this, that when it confers celebrity on people who have nothing in fact in themselves or their deeds to celebrate.
BEY: Well, you're protective of Paula, but why is Paula a celebrity, you know? She was — it was of her own volition that she agreed to go on this program. It was of her own volition that she — didn't she pose for “Penthouse” magazine, if I'm not correct. She gained a certain sort of celebrity from her notoriety, if you will, in the Clinton affair.
All of these people except for Barry Williams, I don't think was involved with scandal. Danny Bonaduce has had scandal in his lifetime, Todd Bridges has had arrests, and who is it — Vanilla Ice has had his problems, as well. All of these people, you're right, have had shady elements of their past. But that's one of the things that made it exciting to watch, because you felt that to some degree they would be willing to do whatever it took to win the fight. I think that's what drew us to watch it.
KEYES: Well, and you don't see — this I think is right. But Robert Peters, if we're in a situation like this, you're watching something like this and if that is the attraction, aren't we moving this society in the direction of kind of a depraved indulgence in our own sort of worst elements by raising these people up to a platform, and having such a great — oh, it's a great time to watch these sort of people without decency duking it out?
I understand what might be the impulse. I just wonder if it's healthy for us to be celebrating it in this way.
PETERS: Well, I'm not — people talk about the cult of personality in our society. And it's pretty, I think, an indisputable statement that oftentimes the celebrities that we celebrate are — and again, I don't want to be cruel, but they're very damaged goods. I'm a damaged good. I don't want to claim or imply that I'm somehow perfect, but I don't want anybody celebrating me, going out and getting into a fistfight, whether I'm overly matched or under matched. I mean — good Lord. But I mean, it's all part of this cult of celebrity. I suspect that our New York City police department and firefighters, that they hve legitimate boxing matches, wrestling matches, arm wrestling, football.
How many of the clowns that watched these two down on their luck women, and both of them are, how many of them would come out and watch our courageous firemen in a legitimate athletic contest? They wouldn't waste —
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: But wait a minute, wait a minute. I have a question for Richard Bay, because I actually think that what Robert has suggested — I bet a lot of people would in fact watch if you went for decent celebrities, people who were celebrated because of their heroism in the context of say the terrible events in New York, people who were celebrated because of their contributions to this society.
Celebrated people in a positive sense. Why go after people who are celebrated in this sleazy way, acting as if that's the only thing people will watch?
BEY: Well, you've just denigrated a viewing audience last night of millions by calling them clowns. This was the number one show in its time period. And people tuned in.
KEYES: Wait a minute. I didn't use the word clowns.
BEY: No, Bob Peters did.
PETERS: Well, I'll tell you if they skinned a cat alive...
(CROSSTALK)
BEY: You called them clowns.
PETERS: ... on NBC TV tomorrow evening it would probably be the highest rated program, and I suppose, I have a worse word than clowns for people who would watch such a thing.
BEY: Well, frankly I find it disingenuous to attack this form of entertainment in the same week when one of the major networks is contemplating canceling “Nightline” and putting a celebrity chat show in its place. If you want to talk about what's really of vital interest and importance to the American viewing public, I would be more inclined to be critical of the standards of journalism, what's happened to the medium of getting important information, putting it in the proper context to the American public, than I would over their viewing a silly, banal and yes, cheesy form of entertainment, which has always been a part of American culture.
PETERS: But Richard, how about if they had taken Pee Wee, the guy that got, you know — and again, I don't want to be talking, you know, but the guy that got caught in a porn theater and then it was Herb Alpert or Marvin Albert, the sportscaster.
(CROSSTALK)
PETERS: ... put them in boxers and to put them out there as a spectacle. Not someone like Geraldo who can handle himself, put him up against...
BEY: Geraldo is a spectacle!
(CROSSTALK)
PETERS: Listen. I'm not a fan of Geraldo's journalism...
(CROSSTALK)
BEY: ... O.J. Simpson, and that's called journalism?
PETERS: Well, I'll tell you, if you matched up Geraldo with O.J. Simpson, you'd probably be getting back into Tonya Harding and Paula Jones, because you're no longer taking two normal human beings and having...
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Gentlemen, you know what I think the problem is — and I listened to you go back and forth, and in one way I still think that you all are missing the point in a sense, because I worry less about the spectacle itself and this and that than I worry about what it says to and about us. At the end of the day, the things we hold up and celebrate in this way reflect our real values. And I'm wondering whether or not our values have now become so debased that in order to indulge ourselves, we'll raise up the worst people to celebrity status, and therefore say that we are willing to worship the worst things in ourselves.
Thanks for being with me tonight. We've run out of time, I'm sorry. But I thank you for coming along, really appreciate it.
Next, we'll have my “Outrage of the Day.” And if you want to make even more sense, sign up for our free daily newsletter at our Web site, keys.MSNBC.com. Each day in your mailbox you'll get show topics, my weekly column and links to my favorites articles of the day. I'll be right back with my “Outrage of the Day,” some people who want to kill fetuses even though they are born alive, pretending that just that use of that word justifies us in what we're doing. You stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Now my “Outrage of the Day.” Congress just passed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, thanks to the efforts of Illinois state Senator Pat O'Malley and nurse Jill Stanek who exposed hospital practices of infanticide for neglect for unwanted babies. Folks who would neglect those babies let them die.
Now, today's “Washington Times” “Inside Politics” by Greg Pierce reported that if you get your news from the Associated Press wire, as a good portion of the news reading world does, this is what you found Tuesday after that congressional vote, a headline that said “House OK's Fetus Protection Bill.” The first sentence: “The House voted today to define a fetus that is fully outside a woman's body as having been born alive, which would give the fetus legal protection.”
Did you get that? I mean, listen to Associated Press, we're not talking about babies who are alive and who are then going to be allowed to ie through neglect, we're talking about fetuses, as if calling them by some Latin name changes what we're doing. And in the context of the Andrea Yates trial, I've got to tell you, this ought to really catch our attention. Would the youngest child not be a culpable murder if we had just called it a fetus instead of a baby? Would she be less guilty of a heinous crime? What makes us think we're less guilty of a heinous crime just because we apply some Latin name to babies who are just as much alive as you or I? I think we better be careful of our language here, or we may destroy the difference between Yates and the rest of us.
That's my sense of it. Thanks. Lester Holt is up next. I'll see you on Monday.