CNN Europe CNN Asia
On CNN TV Transcripts Headline News CNN International About CNN.com Preferences
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
SERVICES
 
 
 
SEARCH
Web CNN.com
powered by Yahoo!
TRANSCRIPTS
Return to Transcripts main page

CNN TALKBACK LIVE

Deportation or Asylum for Haitian Immigrants?; Should 17-year- old John Lee Malvo be Executed if Convicted in Sniper Murders?

Aired October 30, 2002 - 15:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ARTHEL NEVILLE, HOST: Hello, everybody. Welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Arthel Neville.

There are big protests in Little Haiti today following yesterday's flood of illegal Haitian immigrants into Miami. Some 200 of them have been rounded up by border control. And they are awaiting processing at a detention center. Protesters outside the immigration office insist the new arrivals be given asylum. We'll take a look at that in just a minute.

And then stay tuned, because I want to know if you think 17-year- old John Lee Malvo is old enough to be executed if he's convicted in the Beltway sniper murders.

And then later, Charles Barkley drops by to chat and to let off a little steam, I'm told.

First though, joining us on the phone from Miami's federal courthouse is CNN correspondent Mark Potter. Mark is going to tell us about some possible federal charges in this case -- Mark.

MARK POTTER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Arthel, federal charges indeed have been filed. And it turns out that those dramatic pictures that we saw yesterday of the Haitian immigrants jumping off the boat near the causeway between Miami and Key Biscayne are, in the minds of federal law enforcement officials, evidence of an alien smuggling scheme, an immigrant smuggling scheme.

Six men have been charged today with smuggling those immigrants into Miami. They are the owner of the boat, who is also believed to be the coordinator of the plot, three crew members, a mechanic, and a person designated as the security man on that boat. They are all Haitians. They appeared in federal court just a short time ago. And they are under arrest.

They were appointed a public defender and other attorneys to represent them. They will have another hearing on Friday. Now, according to an affidavit that was filed in this case by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, federal authorities believe that this trip began in Haiti at a place called Shushu (ph) Bay on October 24. It had been planned, this trip, since last December, according to the affidavit. The trip began on October 24 with 200 people getting on board there. The next day, according to the federal paperwork, October 25, the boat stopped at a place called Latori (ph), Haiti, for fuel and food and took on an additional 20 migrants at that location. It then headed toward Miami and took four days to get here.

The investigator says that the passengers all kicked in moneys and other services to help support the trip. And, again, this was coordinated and put into effect by six people, according to the charges, who have now been arrested. They have not yet been indicted by a grand jury. That could happen sometime soon. But the process has already begun.

Early this morning, INS officials warned us that this was being looked at as a criminal case. And, indeed, they have moved quite quickly and come to this already this afternoon -- Arthel.

NEVILLE: So, Mark, if this is being looked at as a possible criminal case, what will happen to the other immigrants who came on that boat?

POTTER: Well, they'll still have an opportunity to make their claim. And they will be questioned, not only what happened on this trip -- obviously, they already have been.

Some material witnesses have been set aside. From what I can read in the paperwork, it looks like five of them have been set aside by federal authorities to testify in this case. But the others will be questioned about why they left Haiti. And if they are able to argue credibly that they have a credible fear of persecution should they return to Haiti, then they may be able to apply for asylum.

The question in between is: What happens to those who are found to have a credible fear? Will they be released into the community, as the advocates here are urging, or must they stay behind the wire fence at the Krome detention facility, where they are now, to argue their asylum claim? That really is at the core of the argument that is being waged here in Miami today about the treatment that Haitians face vs. other immigrants.

The advocates here, the legal representatives here, say that the Haitians, unlike anyone else, are forced to stay in detention even if they're found to have that fear of persecution, unlike everyone else. Like everyone else, except Cubans, they have to argue for asylum. But there is that one little thing that seems to separate them. And that angers people in this community. And that's why we have had demonstrations today.

NEVILLE: Mark, give us an idea of how long they could possibly be in the detention center.

POTTER: Well, I'll give you an example from a past case. The last time we saw something like that, like this, was 10 months ago in December. There was another boatload found a little south of this one near Key Largo. And some of those people are still in detention.

Last Friday, just a few days ago, 52 of them finally lost their case fully and were sent back to Haiti. So this could take a while.

NEVILLE: Yes, indeed. Mark Potter, thank you very much for joining us here today on TALKBACK LIVE.

Now, with us is Ira Mehlman, the California media director for FAIR, the Federation for American Immigration Reform; and Cheryl Little, executive director of the Florida Immigration Advocacy Center.

I want to welcome both of you to TALKBACK LIVE.

CHERYL LITTLE, FLORIDA IMMIGRATION ADVOCACY CENTER: Thank you.

IRA MEHLMAN, FEDERATION FOR AMERICAN IMMIGRATION REFORM: Thanks.

NEVILLE: And I want to start with Cheryl Little on this one.

Unlike Cubans who reach dry land, Haitian migrants generally are denied asylum in the United States and are sent back to their country. Why is that?

LITTLE: Well, we're very concerned about the Haitians who arrived on December 3 of last year, because, rather than being released, as are asylum seekers from every other country in the Miami area, they were forced to go forward with their claims while in detention.

So most had no lawyers. Their cases were expedited. They had to fill out asylum applications in English, which was virtually impossible for them to do. So they really didn't have a full and fair opportunity to make their case for political asylum.

NEVILLE: So, then, if it looks like the cards are stacked against them, again, why is that?

LITTLE: Well, our administration is saying they're not releasing the Haitians because they want to deter them from coming, that they want to protect their lives. They don't want them risking their lives on the high seas.

Quite frankly, while we're all concerned about Haitians or anybody else risking their lives on the high seas, once they have made it here, they should have an opportunity to make their case. If we're definitely concerned about protecting their lives, then we should those Haitians already here a fair chance to make their case.

NEVILLE: Ira Mehlman, of course California is no stranger to people coming to America illegally. What do you think should be done in the case in Miami?

MEHLMAN: Well, what happens, when you release people into the community, you encourage more people to come here illegally. People get the message that, if you can get here, we will release you into the community. And there's really very little chance that these people will actually show up for their hearings once they're released.

And that triggers a flotilla, the kind that we saw back in the mid-1990s, when, ultimately, President Clinton had to impose new policies of interdiction and sending people back, because of the recognition that, No. 1, people's lives were at risk by getting onto these boats. And, No. 2, it was creating a tremendous impact on local communities, particularly in South Florida.

In the governor's race this year, the issues are of school overcrowding, of the strains on public health care. All of these things are contributed to by the fact that you have large numbers of people coming who depend on these kinds of services. So you also have to look at the impact on local communities.

NEVILLE: So let me ask you this, Mr. Mehlman. As we were comparing Cubans vs. Haitians, is there some sort of unfair treatment towards one group vs. the other?

MEHLMAN: Oh, absolutely. What we need to do is get rid of the Cuban Adjustment Act. It's a vestige of the Cold War. It's unfair. The Cold War is over.

It's also been a failure. The objective was to embarrass Castro. What it has done is taken all his domestic opposition and brought them to the United States, where they can't harm him. What we need is a consistent policy for all people from all countries that says, if you can meet the qualifications for political asylum, you will be able to make your claim here. But we're not going to accept people just because they come from countries with bad governments or with repressive governments or where there's poverty.

We need to be able to show that you have a well-founded fear of persecution in your homeland that's different from everybody else. And that's the policy that ought to be applied across the board.

NEVILLE: Now, Cheryl, you were saying, though, that apparently those documents are required to be filled out in English, which in this case could be quite difficult.

LITTLE: Right.

And not only that, once the Haitians arrive, they should be accorded due process and a fair opportunity to make their case. There was a study out of Georgetown University not long ago that concluded that persons in detention are far less likely to get attorneys and asylum seekers with attorneys are four to six times more likely to be granted asylum.

So these Haitians are languishing in detention, having no idea how to go forward with their cases, and, at the same time, seeing asylum seekers from every other country quickly come and go. When the asylum seekers from other countries are being released, they have several months to find lawyers and prepare their cases.

NEVILLE: Cheryl Little, I want to get to the question of why once again. I want to try to understand why. But first, I have got to go to California, where Elgin (ph) is standing by on the telephone.

Go ahead, you're live. CALLER: Good afternoon, Ms. Neville. Actually, it's Elgin.

NEVILLE: Oh, Elgin. Hello.

CALLER: You know, I think it's an atrocious policy we have, where you have Cubans who reach the soil and they're able to just, boom, come here and stay here. Haitians should be treated the same or you change the policy and you send Cubans just the same way you send Haitians back. It's as simple as that.

NEVILLE: Elgin, thank you very much for calling in.

I want to share an e-mail now with everyone. It is from Tina in Idaho: "Stop wasting money on legal fees for the refugees. Send them back to their homeland and use the money to beef up our national security."

And, once again, Ira, I want to get you in on this conversation as well. Again, you have got some folks here in the audience kind of nodding their heads with what Elgin just said, that, if it's good for one group, it's good for the other. Why not the Haitians?

MEHLMAN: Well, clearly, as I said, that the policy with regard to Cubans ought to be the same as it is for Haitians, that there should be no automatic guarantee that, once people reach this country, that they will be allowed to stay. Cubans should be treated like everybody else.

But you also raise the issue of security. And it's interesting to note that John Lee Malvo, one of the Beltway snipers, came into the country exactly like this, on a boat Haiti and was released by the INS. You know, the obligation of our government is to protect the safety and security of the American people. And we need to be able to keep people in custody, listen to them, make sure that they don't have a credible claim. And if they don't have a credible claim, then send them home immediately, so that we don't have these kinds of situations where people come en masse.

What's happened before is, as soon as the signal is given that the United States is receptive to this, you find these flotillas of boats, people risking their lives, and a tremendous impact on the community and the risk to the security of this nation.

NEVILLE: Listen. I definitely want to talk about this a lot more.

Chris in the audience, I know you want to speak out. I'll get to you in a moment.

Listen, there's a whole lot more to talk about here. So what we're going to do is continue after this break. And I want to know what you think should happen to the Haitians. Go ahead and give me a call at 1-800-310-4CNN or e-mail me at TALKBACK@CNN.com.

We'll be back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: Thank you, Christi in California, for that e-mail.

Welcome back, everybody. We're talking about what should happen to the Haitians who came ashore in Miami yesterday.

And I want to go ahead and get Chris here. You were going to say what, sir?

CHRIS: Well, believe that it should be a fair process for Cubans and Haitians. But the important thing is, we should follow the process. If nothing else, September 11 should have taught us that we have to be very careful of who we allow into this country and that we track and we know who is here. We can't afford to let people in this country anymore without knowing that they're not here. You know, I don't believe that -- I'm not saying we shouldn't let them here, but that they should follow the process, so that we know who is here.

NEVILLE: Follow the process for everybody. Thank you very much, Chris.

And before we move any further, I want you to listen to what happened earlier today when Governor Jeb Bush was caught off guard at a political stop in Little Haiti.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. CARRIE MEEK (D), FLORIDA: I came to ask you if you would call your brother and ask him to call INS to release the Haitians out of detention. They don't need a new policy. All they have to is call. The wet-foot/dry-foot policy will take effect. Those Haitians are standing on dry land.

GOV. JEB BUSH (R), FLORIDA: Congresswoman, I appreciate -- I respect your position.

MEEK: Call him, Governor, and ask him to please...

BUSH: Thank you.

MEEK: You can do it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEVILLE: OK.

Well, Ira, clearly, Congressman Meek put Florida Governor Jeb Bush on the spot, telling him to call his brother, the president. Will Bush get involved, though, is the question?

MEHLMAN: Well, this is always a touchy issue in Florida. And his brother is in a tight election. But I think we need to look at some of the policies that we as a nation have enacted that contribute to this. It was only about two weeks ago that...

(CROSSTALK) NEVILLE: OK, hang on. Before you move on to that, could you answer my question, please? Do you think the president will get involved? And, if so, why? And, if not, why not?

MEHLMAN: I don't know whether the president is going to get directly involved this. But I do know that policies like the one that Dick Gephardt announced, that he is going to try to bring an amnesty for everybody who's in the country illegally, is signaling to people all over the world, "Get here any way you can."

We're encouraging this. And we're encouraging people to risk their lives on the high seas. It's these kinds of irresponsible policies that result in these sorts of events. And we need to make it clear to people that you do have to follow the rules, that there are reasons why we have immigration policies in this country, and, if you don't follow the rules, we are not going to let you benefit.

NEVILLE: OK, listen, I'm going to go to Florida now, where Stella is standing by on the phone.

Go ahead, Stella. You're live.

CALLER: Hi.

I'm originally from Miami. And my main concern is that I grew up always seeing how, when Cubans reached dry land, they would be accepted into the country, while as Haitians were always turned back. And this is in the 1980s and the 1990s and even now in 2002. I think it is racially motivated by a lot of politicians. And it's just something that's not said, but it's underlying.

And like this gentleman said on your show, it's policies. Policies have to change, because it's not fair that the Cubans are always allowed to stay and the Haitians are not.

NEVILLE: Stella, thank you very much for calling in.

And I have Stansel (ph), is it?

STANSEL: Stansel.

NEVILLE: Stansel from Georgia.

STANSEL: Thank you.

As I said earlier during the break, that Elian Gonzalez had a battery of lawyers in the United States government trying to keep him here. And let's face it, folks. The boy was illegal. It's a sad situation. What's the difference between him and the Haitians who came here as well? They're both people trying to come to the land of milk and honey.

NEVILLE: Thank you very much.

Cheryl Little, once again, if the Haitians had a stronger political base, would the situation be different? LITTLE: Well, obviously, a stronger political base would help. There's no question about that.

I think, also, people are far too quick to assume that, just because they're from Haiti and it's not a communist country, that they don't have legitimate political asylum claims. Our own State Department very recently decried the political situation in Haiti, referring to recent increases in human rights abuses and the fact that the police force is really not a viable one at all.

In fact, the police have been accused of many illegal shootings. And there's no judicial system to speak of. So what's a poor Haitian to do? There's no in-country processing in Haiti. There are no asylum officers on board the Coast Guard boats. They're being persecuted in the Bahamas. They're being persecuted and kicked out of the Dominican Republic. And this is how we're treating them here.

NEVILLE: And, Cheryl Little, once again, why?

LITTLE: Well, I think the fact that they don't have a lot of political clout is a factor. But I also think that this is a racist policy. I mean, if you look at the treatment of Haitians over the years, it's blatantly discriminatory. I hate to say that, but I just don't know what else to say.

NEVILLE: Ira, go ahead and jump in.

MEHLMAN: Well, first of all, a good percentage of the people coming from Cuba are also black. So I don't think there's a racial element.

What it is, is a political element. It's a stupid policy, but it's a policy that harks back to the Cold War. It's one that should have been abandoned a long time ago.

NEVILLE: You know what, Ira? I'm going to jump in here. I don't mean to cut you off. It seems like I keep doing that. But I have a gentleman in the front row, when you said most of the people coming from Cuba are black -- and you say what, sir?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No. Cubans are Cubans. Blacks are blacks. And we need to get rid of all policies that are based on race. If you are going to change affirmative action -- and that's what the Republicans want to do, get rid of affirmative action -- then let's change all policies based on race. And the same with way the Haitians coming here, that's the same way we should do it for everyone. That's the bottom line.

NEVILLE: Thank you very much.

Let's see. So, Ira, you can finish your thought now. Sorry about that.

MEHLMAN: Well, I absolutely agree with the gentleman, that we ought to change the policy, that it ought to be a uniform policy for everybody, regardless of where they come from. And the definition ought to be, are you being singled out for persecution in your country, not, do you come from a country that has a lousy government or that is impoverished, but rather, are you being singled out because of your race, religion or some other factor for persecution?

And, ultimately, the answer for Haiti is, the Haitian people have to stand up and say: "200 years of oppression by the government is enough. We need to take control."

NEVILLE: So, how are they going to do that, Ira?

MEHLMAN: Look, people have a sovereign responsibility to take control of their own destiny in their own country. And you can blame it on other countries. You can look for reasons to escape. But the only long-term solution for most countries is for people to take control of their own lives and demand that their governments respect human rights and provide the kind of opportunities that they deserve.

NEVILLE: Got your point -- sometimes easier said than done.

Rhoda (ph), you get the last word.

RHODA: Yes.

I'm from South Florida. And I've lived there for 29 years. And I really think it's an unfair situation. And I really think that, if we get down to the nitty-gritty, we should change the plaque on the Statue of Liberty: "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free."

NEVILLE: Thank you very much.

Ira Mehlman and Cheryl Little, thank you both as well for joining us here on TALKBACK LIVE today.

And up next: Why are some people rallying around accused Beltway sniper John Lee Malvo? At 17, is he a boy or a man? And if Malvo really killed those people, does he deserve to be executed?

TALKBACK LIVE continues in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: Skip in Arkansas, thank you very much for that e-mail.

Welcome back, everybody.

While various jurisdictions wrangle over who will get first crack at prosecuting the accused Beltway snipers, death penalty opponents are beginning to rally around John Lee Malvo. The sniper suspect is 17 years old. And the case is being made that, even if Malvo did kill several innocent people, he is still too young to be executed.

Here to talk about it: Robert Tarver, a legal analyst for NorthStarNetwork.com.

Hello. ROBERT TARVER, LEGAL ANALYST, NORTHSTARNETWORK.COM: Hi. How are you?

And there's Tom Fitton.

Hi, Tom.

TOM FITTON, PRESIDENT, JUDICIAL WATCH: Hey, Arthel. How are you?

NEVILLE: I'm good -- president of Judicial Watch.

All right, Robert, I haven't met you before, so I'm going to let you go first on this one.

If Malvo is convicted, should age matter when handing down the death penalty?

TARVER: Well, one of things that I think I have to say from the beginning is, I don't think age should matter. There should not be a death penalty.

But if you talking about having a death penalty, the last thing that you want to do is start to execute the most frail, the weakest, the least amongst us, the least culpable. And that's the juveniles. Now, we have made a determination that juveniles can't do certain things in this society. They can't vote. They cannot go into the military. There are a number of different things they can't do.

All the sudden, when it comes to a reactionary crime, where everyone is upset, we decide, "Hey, they're as culpable as adults." That's not logical and it's just plain reactionary.

NEVILLE: Tom Fitton?

FITTON: Well, that isn't a proper analysis of the law, Robert. The fact is, in Virginia, for instance, juveniles can be executed. The law made it clear that, if you're found guilty

(CROSSTALK)

TARVER: ... if that's what you'd like. I can give you that.

FITTON: If a jury finds you culpable, the law allows for the execution, if you're above the age of 16, I believe.

TARVER: Without a doubt, the law allows for the execution.

FITTON: And it should allow for it. The idea that this 17-year- old is weak, defenseless and not culpable, I think, strains reality.

(CROSSTALK)

FITTON: As it is going to up a jury to decide whether this person is culpable, Robert. I'm prepared, if this man, this young man... TARVER: Are you prepared to sit there and say that John Malvo is the ringleader in this whole thing, that John Malvo led

(CROSSTALK)

TARVER: Let's do that. This is a young man who was in the custody of an adult for four years.

FITTON: We don't know what the relationship is. You don't want anyone to be put to death for murder.

TARVER: Precisely.

FITTON: This individual, if he's is responsible

(CROSSTALK)

TARVER: I think it's barbaric. I don't want anyone to be put to death.

FITTON: Robert, you going to let me talk? If this man is responsible for one death, he ought to be put to death.

NEVILLE: Tom, guess what? Tom, I have to talk right now, because we have to take a break. I hate to interrupt you, but this is great stuff. I love the debate.

We'll continue after this break.

And I have a whole lot of people here in the audience who want to get in. If you want to get in, go ahead and call me at 1-800-310-4CNN or e-mail TALKBACK@CNN.com.

TALKBACK LIVE continues in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: Thank you, Wayne (ph), in D.C. for that e-mail. Welcome back, everybody.

We're talking about the death penalty and how it might be if the accused beltway snipers are convicted. In particular right now, we're talking about Lee Boyd Malvo, the 17-year-old of the duo. And, Tom, let me did you this. If it is proven that Malvo was working under duress, under the influence of Muhammad, should that make a difference?

TOM FITTON, JUDICIAL WATCH: Well, then a jury is going to find him innocent. The question is, if a jury finds him guilty -- if a jury finds him responsible for any one of these murders, he ought to be put to death. When one thinks of the horrific circumstances of the murders, shooting, aiming, stalking, the planning involved, if Malvo is responsible and the jury looks at the evidence finding him responsible, despite his supposedly young age of 17 -- I don't know how young 17 is; that's old enough for me -- if he's old enough to murder people, we ought to at least be consider putting him to death. And the law allows for it.

And there are people who don't want to see the death penalty applied at all, and they have a right to do that. In this case, it's perfectly appropriate.

NEVILLE: But I'm not sure if you answered the question. If it's found that he -- if convicted, if it's found that he was working under duress, do you think that should matter in this case? Did you say yes or no?

FITTON: No. I can't imagine any duress, any situation where duress would cause someone to murder someone. It's no defense. It was no defense at Nuremberg and it ought to be no defense for Mr. Malvo.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Arthel, therein lies the problem here. You know we need to be looking at real rational and reasoned solution to this. Now, the crime, whatever it was...

FITTON: Let him free? Is that what you want to do, Robert, let him free?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But we really do need to sit down and say to ourselves...

FITTON: Give him food and shelter for the rest of his life?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hold on a second, Tom. We need to sit down and say to ourselves, let's look at the role of this young man. Is he a young man that perhaps was led into this? For three years we know that he was under the influence of this gentleman, forced to endure some sort of very strange diet. We don't know what happened here.

It could very well be that Mr. Malvo made certain choices, but we're at this point right now where we're ready to put him under the microscope into the fire, it's like dropping raw meat into the fish tank. And we're just saying, kill him, kill him, kill him. That's not what we do in this society. We take a look at what's going on. We do it reasoned and rationally and determine what's going on.

FITTON: That's right. Give it to the jury.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And if we are reasoned and rational, we know that juveniles do not have the same thought processes or culpability as adults.

FITTON: Actually, we don't know that. Actually -- you know...

(CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: Hang on a second.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, you don't know that? You're obviously not a father.

(CROSSTALK) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You're obviously not a father and you obviously have never done death penalty work.

FITTON: No I haven't.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Let me tell you something -- well I have. And you sit at the table...

(CROSSTALK)

FITTON: You don't like the death penalty.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ... and you learn real quick to stop the rhetoric. And you learn how barbaric it is. When you've been there, Mr. Fitton, when you've been there.

FITTON: What is barbaric, Robert, is people being able to murder individuals with impunity. And putting them in prison, to me, is not a punishment. Death is a proper punishment; it's proper justice in this context.

NEVILLE: OK. I'm going to get the audience in. Excuse me, Robert. Go ahead, Kevin (ph).

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, I think what it is, is he is a child, he's a juvenile. So I don't think he should be executed for this until you find out what the (UNINTELLIGIBLE) found guilty. Then look at the fact -- try to help the child first before you try to kill him.

NEVILLE: Thank you very much. And I have another lady here in the audience. Stand up for me, Leslie (ph).

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This entire issue is being based on that he is a 17-year-old male. Let's say that John had fathered a child at 17, we would want him to stand up and suffer the consequences and be a father and be a role model and provide for that child. If he is old enough to conceive a child and be held accountable for those actions, he was old enough to know right from wrong when he committed those murders. And he should suffer the consequences for the actions.

NEVILLE: If convicted.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, realistically, a 13-year-old or a 14- year-old can sire a child. A 13 or 14-year-old, as we learned in Jonesboro, can fire a rifle and can do it quite accurately.

FITTON: We're not talking about a 13 or 14-year-old.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The question is the culpability level. Now anyone that wants to stand there and say that the same possibility that exists for a 13, 14 and 15-year-old...

FITTON: Robert, it is possible that Malvo is culpable?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ... as it does for an adult, is only fooling themselves. If you want to have irrational arguments... FITTON: Robert, if he's culpable, you don't think he should get the death penalty, is that correct?

(CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: Hang on. One at a time please -- go ahead, Robert.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The bottom line to the whole thing is we've made a decision about juveniles and adults, juveniles versus adults.

FITTON: And we execute juveniles.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And we have said the reason we have this is because we recognize that there is a lower culpability level.

(CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: OK. And now, Robert, that's where I'm jumping in here, though. Following up with you, though, now there are some -- and you said that you are a parent, that you're a father -- there are some mothers and fathers in the audience who are saying, wait a minute, innocent people died at the hands -- possibly if convicted -- at the hands of a juvenile.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Precisely.

NEVILLE: But they say, so what.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Let me tell you this, Arthel. If we're going to just have that type of retributive justice, then what we should do is we should just throw Mr. Malvo in a room with the families of the victims, and let them have at him with a rifle themselves. I state that not to be callous, but understand our system of justice is a reasoned, rational system of justice.

We sit back, we take a look and we assess the culpability and we move forward.

FITTON: Robert, you're not being reasoned or rational. We are talking about whether or not this individual, if found guilty of the crime in a court of law, with all of the procedural protections that he would have before a jury, if found guilty, will he be put to death?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Precisely.

FITTON: I think he ought to. No one is saying to execute him right now. And to pretend that's what is at issue here, I think is -- you're committing a fraud upon the public here.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm not committing a fraud...

(CROSSTALK)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Because what I'm saying is that to put to death a 17-year-old, a person that we've deemed a juvenile, under any circumstances is wrong. At some point, we need to take a stand and say, no, we're not going to do that...

(CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: Hang on, gentlemen, I'm going to go to New York, where Scott (ph) is standing by on the phone. Go ahead, Scott (ph).

CALLER: How are you doing? I agree with Tom wholeheartedly. Robert, you need to talk to the victims -- the families of the victims who this kid shot. He took a life. OK? He should be sentenced to death, which would set a deterrent and a precedence for every other -- anybody else who wants to go on a killing spree. We deal with the terrorists, we deal with these kids running around, there has to be a stop to it.

And you go tell these victims' parents that we should try to work with them or see what's wrong. No. Put him out of his misery. It's ridiculous.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, let me tell you something. For years, I told victims' families that. I was a prosecutor. But I also was a defense attorney defending people. I was involved in the first acquittal of a death penalty case. I have been there at the table with people and I know how barbaric it is when you sit there in front of a jury and 12 people look there and decide whether or not someone's going to live and die.

It's wrong when Malvo pulls the trigger, it's wrong when the state pulls the switch.

FITTON: No, it isn't the equivalent. You know it isn't the equivalent, Robert.

NEVILLE: OK, hang on. I've got Art (ph) from Massachusetts. Go ahead, Art (ph).

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: These people waited for these victims. They waited in the grass and they shot at them. I mean, this was premeditated. These people knew they were going to kill these people.

I just came from Baltimore. My daughter lives there. And I went down there just to be with her. Now I'm going to let these people free? If he killed them, he should die.

NEVILLE: Thank you very much, sir.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well we didn't say anything about letting them free, but we're talking about real consequences.

NEVILLE: OK, Wilma (ph), let's hear what you have to say.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Well, I just wanted to say that I have a 17-year-old son. I would not expect any less of him if he committed a crimes like that to get the death penalty. And my comment for Robert. Robert, what would you say to all these families that watch their families being killed in cold-blooded murders?

NEVILLE: Actually, I'm going to go to April here in the audience. Stand up for me, April (ph).

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We're assuming that this Malvo was even taught any values. We can't hold him responsible. It needs to be looked at.

I think the parents in this case failed, the school systems failed. We can't just do this retribution without looking at the facts.

FITTON: Well, you know there are a lot of people who were maybe in Malvo's similar circumstances who didn't commit murder. Malvo made the choice, if indeed he's guilty, and we're assuming, you know, as Robert points out, we shouldn't assume he's necessarily guilty. We're assuming that he's found guilty, and then the question is whether he is put to death.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Tom, did he make the choice if he's found guilty? Are you sure he made that choice?

FITTON: Well, you know you don't want the death penalty. This is one of the reasons that it ought to be kept out of Maryland. Because there are people in Maryland who agree with Robert that ruined the possibility of the death penalty ever being applied in this case. And there are people who are adamantly opposed to the death penalty...

(CROSSTALK)

FITTON: They'll make excuses for the murderers so that society can't protect itself and engage in justice for those murdered...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Are you really saying that if Malvo is not put to death society can't protect itself?

FITTON: That's correct. If we don't put...

NEVILLE: Hang on, guys.

FITTON: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) to death in this case, whoever is guilty, we might as well just give it up as a society because it shows we don't respect human life. That we allow the innocent to be murdered...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, and we respect human life by killing the humans that take life. I get it.

(CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: Anthony (ph), from California, you'll get the last word. Go ahead sir.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, I think the problem is, just like you two arguing, the reason you're arguing is because we have so many policies in the United States on everything that we do, that we can't get to the bottom line. I think the bottom line needs to be one rule, and if you break that rule, then this is the punishment.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. And that is the last word. Robert Tarver (ph), Tom Fitton, thank you very much for that lively debate.

Listen. All right, I think Charles Barkley is sitting over there. Are you there? Wave your hand or something. Oh, you're ready. He has his mike and everything.

OK. He's going to make his entrance soon, so get ready for some straight talk. Sir Charles is warming up in the ring. We'll be back in a moment.

(APPLAUSE)

NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody. I'm Arthel Neville.

Right now, let's welcome Charles Barkley, a CNN contributor and about to be a regular weekly guest here on TALKBACK LIVE. He is the author of, "I May Be Wrong, But I Doubt It." And he has a new TNT show, "Listen Up." We're going to talk about that a little later.

In the meantime, let's go ahead and get to John Lee Malvo. We were talking about that. And if convicted, wondering if you think he should get the death penalty.

CHARLES BARKLEY, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Oh, that's a no-brainer. Not just him, anybody who takes a life. I think the biggest problem with the death penalty is there's a double standard. Whether, you know, there are a lot of black people who get death penalty, who white people don't. Rich people don't get it, poor people do. That's the biggest problem.

But for me, that's a no-brainer on these two guys. If they did it, they definitely deserve the death penalty.

NEVILLE: Hey, Charles, and we were also talking about the Haitians, the immigrants. Wanted to know if you think they should be allowed to stay or should they be sent back home?

BARKLEY: Well that's a tough one. I mean, obviously, this is a greatest country in the world and we welcome people with open arms. But sooner or later, we just can't allow everybody in. And we've got a lot of people here who can't get jobs, who are struggling economically. And just because people come here -- I mean that's a tough decision. I don't think we have a right or wrong answer, but common sense tell you we can't just let everybody come here and get economic opportunities. We don't have enough economic opportunities ourselves.

NEVILLE: But you heard the debate about whether or not the Haitians are treated unfairly versus how the Cubans are treated?

BARKLEY: Well, that's the point I'm trying to make. We can't pick and choose who we're going to let in and who we're not going to let in. To me, they're all the same. They're all good people and they're coming here to make their life better. But you have to have some type of policy.

You can't pick and choose. I mean that's one of the reasons this country got a lot of problems. We pick and choose who we want to help.

NEVILLE: All right. Moving on now, as you know, there's a moving memorial held in Minnesota last night for the late Senator Paul Wellstone. Of course, his wife, his daughter and five others killed in the plane crash on Friday. Now, the event was also part political rally, so much so that Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott was actually booed. Vice President Cheney's offer to attend was reportedly snubbed, and Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura says he felt violated.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. JESSE VENTURA (D), MINNESOTA: I feel used. I feel violated and duped over the fact that that turned into nothing more than a political rally. And like in the case of Senator Lott flying all the way up here and being booed when he's supposed to be going to a memorial service. I think the Democrats should hang their heads in shame.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEVILLE: So what do you have to say about that? He's saying, hey, look, they turned this memorial service into a political rally.

BARKLEY: Well, it's unfortunate. It's unfortunate the man got killed and his family and the other aides and everybody. But politics is just so bad in this country right now, everything has become political. I mean, even the thing with the two snipers has become political.

But I like Jesse. He's one of my favorite people. And I think one of the reasons he is getting out of politics, politics are a scam. I mean, we in this country should not have to choose whether we're a Democrat or a Republican, whether we're a conservative or a liberal. Their job is to help everybody.

But what politics have become is a select few getting elected and they shift money off to their friends and the rest of us get screwed.

NEVILLE: And on that note, I'm going to commercial break. We're back with Charles Barkley in a moment.

(APPLAUSE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: Lynn (ph) from Minnesota sending an e-mail. And there is the CD book on tape.

Welcome back, everybody. We're talking to Charles Barkley. And what is this? Number 13 now on the best sellers' list?

BARKLEY: That's what they say.

NEVILLE: Wow, congratulations.

BARKLEY: I don't sit around and look at the best seller list, but that's what they say.

NEVILLE: Well, you know what? I want to bring up something, another topic. And that is something that used to be and perhaps still is taboo in the NFL, and that is a player coming out and announcing that he's gay. We're talking about Esera Tuaolo. Let's listen to a sound bite.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ESERA TUALO, FMR. NFL LINEMAN: I am a gay NFL -- well, former NFL player.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How do you feel about that?

TUALO: I feel wonderful. I feel like a burden has been lifted. I feel like I've taken off this costume that I've been wearing all my life.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEVILLE: OK. That was from HBO "Real Sports." How difficult is it for a former NFL player to come out and say, listen, guys, this is who I am? I am a gay man.

BARKLEY: Well, first of all, it's tough in America. We are very anti-gay. So it's tough for anybody to come out of the closet. I don't care, man. I don't care who he's sleeping with.

You know, it's not my job to judge other people. I have plenty of gay friends, and the man came out. God bless him. I hope he's happy, but I think we as athletes get an unfair rap.

First of all, there are a lot of people in here that don't like gay people. It's not just athletes. Athletes are insecure. Man, we got the testosterone rolling. We don't want to be around gay men, that's just how it is.

But most people world, unfortunately -- like I said, I have plenty of gay friends. It's no big deal to me because it's not my job to judge other people. But it's not just in the locker room. I mean, people just don't like gay people in this country. And that's sad.

NEVILLE: That is sad. Listen, I have to take a break right now. Hold on a minute. When we come back, we're going to squeeze in a little bit more with Charles. We're going to find out what he has to say about the new TV show.

A book, TV show, what else? An all-star player. You all go to break while I just list his credits, OK?

(APPLAUSE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: We're having a moment here at the TALKBACK LIVE set. We had a -- I know, right? I know. We have to take a shot of our friend up there.

Go ahead and get a shot of her up there. What's your name? You come down here, Maya (ph). Come down here. Come on.

I have to tell you what happened. Maya (ph) just apparently really, really, really admires Charles Barkley, and she got teary-eyed when she was mentioning it. And I'm going to go ahead and let you say hello to him.

BARKLEY: ... making me feel old.

NEVILLE: You're not old. Go ahead. You can go ahead and stand next to Mr. Barkley. Go ahead. Thank you very much, Maya (ph).

All right. Listen, obviously, you do have an impact on many lives and you're going to get a chance to spread your -- what do you say, your charisma and your charm, perhaps?

BARKLEY: I think that I want everybody in this world to do well. It's not -- one thing I talk about, there's no black, there's no white, there's no rich, there's no poor. And when September 11 happened, we got Democrat, Republicans and conservatives, liberals, those are all just words to me. We're all the same people. And my job is to tell people stop listening to the television all the politics. Realize we're all together. And I'm going to keep talking about that.

NEVILLE: But we have to let everybody know you're going to be on TV. Starting tomorrow, your new show debuts on TNT called "Listen Up," 7:00 PM Eastern, right? We'll check it out. And I'll be on, right?

BARKLEY: Yes, any time.

NEVILLE: OK. All right, listen, everybody, thanks so much for joining us, Charles Barkley. I'm Arthel Neville. We'll see you again tomorrow for more TALKBACK LIVE. I'll be here. He'll be back next Wednesday.

(APPLAUSE)

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com



year-old John Lee Malvo be Executed if Convicted in Sniper Murders?>

© 2004 Cable News Network LP, LLLP.
A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved.
Terms under which this service is provided to you.
Read our privacy guidelines. Contact us.
external link
All external sites will open in a new browser.
CNN.com does not endorse external sites.