Nelson:
There should be capital punishment, and death sentences should be carried out.
Marshall:
The people of Florida killed John Spenkelink but his accomplice walks free. Executing the remaining people on Death Row will not prevent violent crimes. It will promote injustice.
Dukakis:
Good evening and welcome to The Advocates. I'm Michael Dukakis. Our question tonight is whether your state should actually carry out the death sentence in the case of certain crimes. For a dozen years, from 1967 until this year, there was not a single involuntary execution in the United States. The case of Gary Gilmore is an exception, but because Gilmore asked to be executed, his death is generally regarded as a suicide. But this year on May 25, John Spenkelink was executed in the electric chair of the state of Florida, the first prisoner on Death Row to die under a new generation of state laws which the Supreme Court of the United States has found acceptable.
And now, this coming week, the state of Florida has scheduled two additional executions. More than five hundred inmates are today on Death Row in the prisons of the nation. They await our judgment on whether they, too, shall be executed. So our question tonight is whether the death penalty is a good idea in principle and in practice, not only whether there should be capital punishment laws in the books of our states, but also whether we should actually carry them out. For our system is this country has been curiously ambivalent on this issue. We have sentenced many people to death, but we have not executed most of them. Should your state carry out the death sentence? Advocate Avi Nelson says, "Yes."
Nelson:
We need capital punishment to stop the wave of violence and murder that has been plaguing the United States. To help me make that case tonight—two distinguished witnesses, Mr. Arthur Shuman, a former Assistant District Attorney from Philadelphia, and Senator Dale Volker, a state Senator from New York.
In the nine years after 1967 when the United States Supreme court said there would be no more capital punishment, capital offenses, murder in the United States skyrocketed. In 1976, the Supreme Court changed its direction and implied that capital punishment might come back. In just two years since then, capital offenses, murders, have been going down. Murder is, to a large extent, a deterrable crime. Our primary obligation has to be to the innocent victims and potential future victims; and that's why when we keep in mind that capital punishment is a necessity and a deterrent, we recognize that this primary obligation is something that we will be able to keep. In the United States, we have tried it both ways. We have tried it without capital punishment and with. And the fact is that the murder rate is lower when there is capital punishment. Society makes a statement when there is capital punishment and when death sentences are carried out about the value of innocent human life, and a statement that the most important thing we can do to protect human life is to make sure the criminal will not kill again and that additional murders will not be committed.
Dukakis:
Advocate Margaret Marshall says, "No."
Marshall:
We've taken a giant step backwards. Our society is back in the business of premeditated killing. With me tonight to argue against the death penalty are Don Reid, a reporter who has witnessed 189 executions and Mr. Alan Dershowitz, Professor of Law at Harvard University.
If you believe in the death penalty, you must believe that mistakes are never made. Why? Because there is no way to bring back an innocent person who's been executed. But in our system of justice, mistakes are made; and there are documented cases of that mammoth injustice. If you believe in the death penalty for murder, which is what most of the statutes today are, you must be willing to execute the 20,000 Americans who each year commit that crime. In fact, we execute only a very small percentage of murderers. And those we strap to the chair are almost never the rich, never the successful. They are the losers of our society, those who can't even afford a good criminal lawyer.
In our case tonight, we will show that Mr. Nelson is wrong. The death penalty does not reduce violent crime. It will not make you more secure. Indeed, we will show that the only purpose of the death penalty is to dehumanize us all.
Dukakis:
Thank you both very much. We'll back to your cases in a moment, but first a word about tonight's debate. It is true that the death penalty has been applied for some rather petty crimes during the history of this country and of Western Europe. But recently, the past 30 years or so, it has been limited in most states just to murder. There are some 35 states now that have the death penalty, but only three have had their laws approved by the Supreme Court, which in 1972, essentially forbad executions because the laws, it said, were so vague as to be unfairly applied. As each state now faces the question of whether to apply the death penalty, it must decide first whether it acts as a deterrent and then whether it is an appropriate punishment for any crime. And now, to the cases. Mr. Nelson, you're on. The floor is yours.
Nelson:
I call Mr. Arthur Shuman.
Dukakis:
Welcome to The Advocates, Mr. Shuman. Nice to have you with us.
Nelson:
Mr. Shuman, perhaps you would share with us by way of background some of the things that you have been doing that are relevant to the issue here tonight.
Shuman:
Yes, sir. For the past 10 years I've been prosecuting and/or defending murderers.
Nelson:
Now, when you have been prosecutor, on occasion you have asked for the death penalty?
Nelson:
Why have you found it necessary to ask for that?
Shuman:
Because I believe that capital punishment is absolutely necessary for the protection of our society.
Nelson:
When you say "protection of our society," how so?
Shuman:
Well, I think protection comes in two forms. I think you have direct protection; and that is, that the criminal himself, through execution, is eliminated and, therefore, his future victims are saved. And you have the indirect protection of deterrence. That is, we tell other members of our society that we will not tolerate these crimes.
Nelson:
Now, against whom exactly are we protecting ourselves? Perhaps you could give us an example of some of the cases or a case that you've come in contact with.
Shuman:
Well, as an example coming out of Pennsylvania, my home state, we've had many, many cases. But as an example, we have a fellow down there by the name of Stanley Haas. Mr. Haas some years ago committed a rape. He was sentenced to jail. He escaped from jail. Shortly thereafter, he was stopped by a police officer whom he shot and killed. He then took as a hostage a woman and her young daughter to flee. He killed them. He took another hostage and killed that hostage. He was later captured and brought back to Pennsylvania where he was tried, convicted, and sentenced to death. Because of the decision in Furman vs. Georgia, that death penalty was set aside. The protection comes in because since that time he's killed two additional people in prison, one inmate and recently a sergeant of the guards.
Nelson:
Now, we've heard it said that long jail sentences will deter these kinds of problems and will indeed provide the protection for society and for individuals that you ask. Do you agree with that?
Shuman:
No, I don't. You hear people refer to life in prison. But there really is no such thing as life in prison. We may provide for life in prison today, but a year, or two years, three years from now, some legislature may change that. A governor may commute it. A parole board may commute it. And, as I've just indicated in the Haas case, escape is a possibility.
Nelson:
You mentioned, by the way, a multiple murder. Is this the exception? Are there any other cases that you're familiar with where there—, where the murderer has committed a second or a third murder?
Shuman:
My research for the period from 1960 up to present in Pennsylvania alone indicates there were 27 cases of murderers who committed at least a second murder. There were two of those cases involved a third murder, and the case I just indicated involved more than three.
Nelson:
Now, you heard the advocate for the other side make the statement that we would have to execute the 20,000 Americans a year who are involved with murder cases. Is that your interpretation of what a death penalty is going to be?
Shuman:
No. And that's not accurate at all. There are murders, and there are murders. In most jurisdictions, capital punishment is available only for what we call first-degree murder, the most serious types of murder cases. For instance, in Pennsylvania, that amounts to something less than 8 percent of the total defendants charged with murder. So we're not talking about everybody charged with murder. We're talking about the worst kind of murder.
Nelson:
And you think it would be an effective deterrent even if we executed far fewer than the 20,000 that were mentioned earlier?
Shuman:
Absolutely, because these are the deterrable types of cases.
Nelson:
Now, there is a case that has been made that the, the capital punishment statute has been applied in a discriminatory manner. What about that? Does the problem of discrimination change your thinking on this issue?
Shuman:
It doesn't change my thinking. I think there has been a problem with discrimination in one part of the country—in the South. But, the fact that you have a problem like that is not a reason to eliminate the system all together. As an example, if somebody conducted a study and determined, for instance, if black people spent more time in jail for robbery than white people, would that be good reason to stop sending people to jail for robbery? Of course, it wouldn't be. We've got to work to correct that problem and eliminate it.
Nelson:
And to come back to another point that was made by the other advocate. What about the danger of executing innocent people?
Shuman:
Well, all I can say is, that in all of the hundreds of years of jurisprudence in the United States, there isn't one legally documented case of an innocent man executed. I think our system provides the guarantees that are necessary to prevent that, and it has.
Nelson:
And in effect, we have to weigh, of course, the danger to the innocent victims, the future victims, who will be executed, not executed legally, but murdered by a murderer or a future murderer if there is no capital punishment.
Shuman:
Certainly. If you have a man who's convicted of murder and he's guilty of murder and you're going to make a mistake, I would rather make that mistake in favor of his next victim than make it against him.
Dukakis:
All right, gentlemen. Mr. Shuman, I don't know how many times you've been cross-examined; but that's going to happen right now.
Dukakis:
Miss Marshall is going to ask you some questions.
Marshall:
Mr. Shuman, I know you've talked about the worst murders. Are there any good murders?
Shuman:
There's no such thing as a good murder.
Marshall:
I mean it's a nice legal technicality—bad murders, good murders. But the fact of the matter is that murders are murders; and we are only putting to death a very small percentage of those people who are even convicted for very bad murders, as you call them. Is that not correct?
Shuman:
Well, now, murders aren't murders. Some murders are—
Marshall:
Well, I'm delighted—
Shuman:
–accompanied by specific intent–
Marshall:
Well, I don't want to get into a semantic discussion, but in my book, at any rate, if I were murdered, I'd be murdered. I wouldn't care whether it was a good or bad one. Let me get on to the question that I really want to focus on tonight with you. One of the things that I find so terribly disturbing about somebody like yourself who trucks out a wonderful anecdote and then says to the hundreds of people who are watching the show, "If we impose the death penalty, violent crimes will go down." I—. You said you believed that it had a deterrent effect. All of the studies that I have looked at, that hasn't been the case—take, for example, the following situation. Would you not expect that after the moratorium on death penalties in 1967, that in those states that had the death penalty, there's now a moratorium on executions, that there would be an increase in the homicide rate in those states? Wouldn't that be a reasonable conclusion?
Shuman:
Not in 1967, no. I would expect, however, that in 1972, when everybody believed that the Supreme Court had outlawed capital punishment that there would be an increase in murder, and there was.
Marshall:
Now, what you have said is that you would expect that increase in murder. There has been an increase in murder in every single state. The point that I want to make is the following: You have two contiguous states, one of which is an abolitionist state. It hasn’t had the death penalty for 10 or 20 or 15 years. A state right next door to it is a state that does have the death penalty; and you would expect, I think, that if the death penalty were the determining factor, you could look at the crime rates. The states that did not have the death penalty, the crime rate would stay the same. When it was stopped, the states that did have the death penalty, the crime rate would go up. How come that doesn't happen?
Shuman:
You're referring to the Wolfgang study—
Marshall:
No, I'm not referring to the Wolfgang study. I'm referring to countless studies that have been done, starting with Professor Seline, and going down on it has been—
Shuman:
No, unless you evaluate the population make-up, urban verses suburb, and number of people—
Marshall:
Those were all very—
Shuman:
—types of racial and ethnic backgrounds. It's not a valid study.
Marshall:
Mr. Shuman, with all due respect, those—. With all due respect, those variables were controlled. That is to say, the states that have very similar populations, very similar urban populations, racial composition, economic composition—those were controlled. The facts are simply wrong. Let me ask you this question. Why do you think it is that the abolition states—Wisconsin, Minnesota, Rhode Island–"those states had the lowest murder rates; whereas the states that executed the most people—South Carolina, Texas, Florida, Georgia—had the highest murder rate? How do you explain that? It's not possible to explain it, is it?
Shuman:
Certainly it is. It's explainable in terms of the nature of the population. See, you're not comparing apples to apples here. You can't compare South Carolina to Minnesota.
Marshall:
And what is it about South Carolinans that they murder more people?
Shuman:
It's a different kind of population make-up.
Marshall:
What's different about it?
Shuman:
It's—, the nature of the population—you have—
Marshall:
You keep telling me the nature of the population.
Shuman:
—you have in the South, you have the deep-seated historical problem concerning slavery.
Marshall:
All right. Let me give—
Shuman:
You have the, the, you have in the, in the northern states, such as Minnesota and Wisconsin, you have a different ethnic background.
Marshall:
But why—. Can I suggest to you that even if you compare just northern states, you wipe out the southern states, and you look at the rate of homicides. In the abolition states they were consistently lower in northern states, within northern states. And how do you explain that? They were consistently lower.
Shuman:
The homicide rates were lower?
Marshall:
That's correct, sir.
Shuman:
I have no idea. The studies that, the study that I am—
Marshall:
I would suggest—. I would suggest to you, sir—
Shuman:
Excuse me. The study that I am familiar with, the Wolfgang study, which essentially treated that particular subject comparing certain states in the U.S.—
Marshall:
That is not—. That is not the only study.
Shuman:
Excuse me. Excuse me. —comparing certain states in the Midwest. I do not consider it a valid study because it did not go into the various factors that go into the make-up of the population.
Marshall:
That is not the only study. Let me get on to one of the other points you made—, I think—
Dukakis:
This will have to be the last question, Miss Marshall.
Marshall:
You indicated that there was racial discrimination in the system there had been. Is that correct?
Marshall:
Do you think that the penalty of life imprisonment is as severe as the penalty of execution?
Marshall:
And do you think the fact that today on death row there are a vastly disproportionate number of blacks on death row than whites, controlling for the percentage of crimes, if that makes a difference to you?
Shuman:
It doesn't for this reason—because as of this time, the proportion of people who commit murders, the, the—
Marshall:
I'm controlling for proportion.
Shuman:
No, excuse me. Excuse me. You asked me a question; I'm going to answer it.
Dukakis:
This will have to be the last answer.
Shuman:
The proportion of people who commit murders, that's the disproportionately high number of murderers, convicted murderers, are blacks; and therefore, the disproportionately high number on death row would be black.
Marshall:
It doesn't explain the difference.
Dukakis:
I'm sorry; I have to interrupt. Mr. Shuman, thank you very much for being with us. Appreciate it.
Dukakis:
All right, we're going to turn now to Miss Marshall; and she will present her first witness. Miss Marshall—
Marshall:
I call Mr. Don Reid.
Dukakis:
Welcome to The Advocates, Mr. Reid. Nice to have you with us.
Marshall:
Mr. Reid, in addition to witnessing the 189 executions, and that must be rather a singular experience of yours, you have been deeply involved, have you not, with people on death row and who have been sentenced to life imprisonment?
Reid:
Yes I have—throughout the entire Texas Department of Corrections for around 40 years.
Marshall:
I want to get at this question of, of deterring crime. Am I correct in understanding that at least in Texas, only 5 percent of those who are charged with a capital offense, that is, one that carries the death penalty, only 5 percent of them are sentenced to death?
Marshall:
Am I also correct in assuming that a disproportionate number of those are blacks and Mexicans?
Marshall:
What about people who commit the same crime? We have two people involved in a crime; there's a death; they both are guilty of the same crime.
Reid:
You mean multiple defendants in a crime?
Marshall:
They would be multiple defendants? Yes. Are they—
Reid:
Well, in Texas, the rule usually is to try them separately.
Marshall:
And what happens in those circumstances?
Reid:
Unfortunately, the sentence laid down by the various courts is not the same. I know of one case where three people were involved or charged in the one case. One person got 50 years in prison. The second person received a life sentence. The third person received the death penalty and was executed.
Marshall:
Have you ever known of any instance where two or three people have committed the same crime, have been involved in the same crime, in which a death occurred, and one of them or two of them are off scot-free, absolutely scot-free?
Reid:
I'm glad you brought that up because I just came from Lawton, Oklahoma, where there's a case of that kind. I was there as an expert witness in the punishment phase of the case.
Marshall:
And what happened in that particular case?
Reid:
In that particular case, there were three people involved, two people who admitted on cross-examination that they were involved in the case. They had robbed a man.
Marshall:
Correct. So they had admitted the robbery.
Reid:
They had the $3,000, and they made an agreement with the prosecution that they would not be prosecuted if they would testify against the third person.
Marshall:
And the third person was the victim.
Reid:
Well, the third person, fortunately, received a no guilty—was found not guilty.
Marshall:
But he—, but in fact he—. He was found not guilty. But in fact, there have-
Reid:
But the other two people are out. They can't prosecute them, and they've got the $3,000.
Marshall:
Mr. Reid, based on your very extensive experience with, with serious criminals, would you agree with Mr. Shuman that knowledge of the death penalty impedes violent crimes; and that once the Supreme Court had made it clear that there weren't going to be any executions that the crime rate just multiplied? What's your experience?
Reid:
In my opinion, this is good rhetoric; but I haven't found it so. I have interviewed literally hundreds of inmates on Death Row in Texas in addition to others—
Reid:
—who were tried in homicide cases but where the death penalty was not passed.
Marshall:
And you've concluded that they would not be deterred.
Reid:
And I concluded a long time ago they weren't deterred. I asked them, "Well, didn't you know that you could have received the death penalty?"
Marshall:
Mr. Reid, let me ask you this. If I could persuade you that they were deterred, would you be in favor of a death penalty under those circumstances?
Reid:
Absolutely not—under any circumstances.
Marshall:
Have you always been opposed to the death penalty?
Marshall:
What changed your mind?
Marshall:
Could I hear about that particular one?
Reid:
I'll try to give it to you as quickly as I can. It involved an eighteen year-old boy from Dallas—a white boy, Buster Northern, who was accused of literally stomping to death an aged grandmother in a twelve dollar hold up.
Marshall:
And he was sentenced to death?
Reid:
He was sentenced to death.
Marshall:
And why did you change your mind?
Reid:
The night of the execution I was introduced to the police officer who was responsible for his arrest.
Marshall:
Prior to the execution.
Reid:
Prior to the execution. And he told me at that time that he knew the boy. He knew the family. He said the boy was no good and it was going to be a pleasure to watch him die.
Marshall:
And then what happened?
Reid:
Well, in Death Row and in the death chamber, when they brought Buster Northern in and let him make his last statement, he thanked everybody for being kind to him and he asked the warden if he could repeat the Lord's prayer, which was granted. He bowed, the chaplain alongside of him, he repeated the Lord's prayer, he walked to the electric chair in his own power, and he was executed. Leaving the death chamber to get to a telephone to phone the story into the Associated Press, I noticed that the officer was not standing next to me any more. He had left. At the time I didn't know what happened. Walking from the death chamber to the warden's office, I had to cross the prison yard. And in the dimly lit yard, I noticed the officer seated on a tree stump, his head buried in his hands crying. And so I stopped momentarily to talk with him, and I asked him what was troubling him. He said, "You know something, when I heard that young man pray, suddenly, I wanted to reach out to him and say 'Son, everything is going to be all right.'" Well, I had two stories that night to file with the Associated Press. I really had three stories to file. The other story was my own conversion—
Reid:
—the fact that I wanted to work to abolish capital punishment in Texas.
Marshall:
Thank you, Mr. Shuman [sic], I have no further questions.
Dukakis:
Mr. Reid, thank you very, very much; and thank you for being with us.
Dukakis:
All right, we're going to get some searching questions now from Mr. Nelson, who's going to cross-examine.
Nelson:
Mr. Reid, that was a very eloquent and touching portrayal. Did you, that night, interview the family of the victim that that man had murdered?
Reid:
I talked to the family of the victim before that murder—, before that night.
Nelson:
Wouldn't it also have been possible for you to describe with as much sympathy and as much eloquence the stories of countless victims of the murders that you have observed?
Reid:
It probably would; of course, you don't get an opportunity to do that often. I did in this case and in other cases; and surprisingly, the family of this aged woman did not want that boy to die. They went to the Board of Pardon and Paroles and pleaded for his life.
Nelson:
My point is that there are for the hundreds of executions that you have witnessed, there are, of course, hundreds of tragic stories of innocent people whose lives were taken by the murderers who were executed. Let me pursue a little bit the question of deterrence. Let's approach it from a fundamental common sense point of view. Would you say that a ten-year sentence for armed robbery, setting aside capital offenses for a moment, a ten-year sentence for armed robbery is a greater deterrent to armed robbery than a ten-day sentence?
Reid:
I don't think that's true.
Nelson:
I see. Let me take it the next step. Supposing we didn't punish robbery at all. Would you say that the number of robberies would go up, or do you think it would stay the same or go down?
Reid:
I don't know, but I think we should punish people who are involved in any type of crime, regardless of what it is.
Nelson:
Why should we do that? Why should we do that? We should we punish the people who are involved?
Reid:
Because society needs that protection.
Nelson:
And how does it protect society—the punishment, that is?
Reid:
Punishment by making it possible to assess the type of punishment that is equal in all cases, that it fits the crime and the person.
Nelson:
Your implication is that if there is a protection afforded to society by punishment, then punishment must be some kind of deterrent; otherwise, it would offer no protection, isn't that true?
Reid:
It probably is a deterrent in some cases.
Nelson:
Good. Fine. If punishment is a deterrent, does it not follow, also, that the more severe the punishment, the greater the deterrent effect?
Nelson:
I see. I go back again then—you would say that the number of robberies would not increase if we make it a ten-year penalty verses if we make it a ten-minute stay in jail.
Reid:
I think we need to work at it from the other side of the fence. We need law enforcement.
Nelson:
Mr. Reid, give me this side of the fence. I'm working out of here. Then we will try the other side. I'm trying to get from you, obviously, and with some difficulty, an acknowledgment of the fact that punishment does indeed act as a protection for society, if you will, as a deterrent to future crimes, which is, in effect, the embodiment of that protection. And I think we recognize—you, yourself, said that we should have punishment which is somehow fitting for the crime and equal in all cases. If we're going to have punishments that fit the crime, doesn't that imply that if there are going to be more severe crimes, you would want to mete out more severe punishments?
Reid:
I think you're right at that. The punishment should be made to fit the crime; but I still do not think that capital punishment deters anybody.
Nelson:
I'm not quite there in the fence yet. Let's take it, then, along the continuum. If it is true that more severe penalties are meted out when warranted by more serious crimes, doesn't it follow that capital punishment, which is the most severe penalty, I think we would have agreement there, is the most severe penalty, does it not follow that it would be the greatest deterrent because of the severity of the punishment.
Nelson:
Well, I don't understand why it is-
Reid:
The figures don't prove it.
Nelson:
I don't understand why it is that you would accept the notion of increasing punishment, meaning greater deterrence or greater protection, which is the punishment fitting the crime. Why you would accept that in other instances and yet when we get to the most severe point on the continuum, all of a sudden, you say, "No, I won't apply it there." Isn't that inconsistent?
Reid:
I don't believe the, that the state of Texas, or any state for that matter, has any more right to take a life than the person who takes a life.
Nelson:
But you're no longer talking now, Mr. Reid, about deterrence. And before we get to the morality or the question of morality, let's continue with the argument of deterrence. You said that you interviewed the people on Death Row, and it was your opinion that they were not deterred. I think that's a tautology. By definition they weren't deterred. You were interviewing the ones who committed the crime. But could you go out and interview the people who didn't commit the crime because they were deterred? How can you find those in society?
Reid:
I'm afraid that would be a job for a great many people. It would be almost impossible for us to learn those—, who those people are.
Nelson:
Would you admit that there are some?
Reid:
I'm, I'm sure there are.
Nelson:
But if there are some, that means that those people who were deterred from committing the crime of murder, saved the lives of innocent people who would have been killed through that commission of the murder crime. Isn't that true?
Reid:
Probably, but we're going to have that situation as long as there are people.
Nelson:
Let me now get to the question of morality that you raised before. I appreciate the sentiment that you offered in terms of sparing human life, but what is the moral suasion with regard to the innocent human lives who would be saved if there is even a small amount of deterrence in terms of capital punishment? Isn't there in a balancing test, if you have to apply it, isn't there a moral commitment that this society, that any civilized society must make on behalf of those potential future innocent victims?
Dukakis:
This will have to be a brief response, Mr. Reid.
Reid:
We don't know that to be a fact.
Dukakis:
On that note, I'll have to interrupt. Thank you very much, Mr. Reid. Nice to have you with us.
For those of you who may have joined us late, our question tonight is: Should states actually carry out the death penalty in the case of certain crimes? Advocate Avi Nelson has presented one witness, Arthur Shuman, who has argued that the death penalty is a deterrent, that it's necessary, that it's important, and that it's an important part of our criminal justice system. Advocate Margaret Marshall has presented Don Reid, who has argued just as strongly that it is not a deterrent and that it is in effect an immoral punishment.
Now, we're going to continue our debate. We're going to go back to Miss Marshall, and she's going to present her next witness.
Marshall:
I call Alan Dershowitz.
Dukakis:
Welcome to The Advocates, Mr. Dershowitz. Nice to have you with us.
Marshall:
Mr. Dershowitz, the violent crime rate may be tapering off or reducing. But there are violent crimes. I'm concerned about that; you're concerned about that. Do we execute people because they murder?
Dershowitz:
No, we execute people because they murder certain kinds of people. We execute black people because they murder whites. We don't execute white people because they murder blacks. We execute because people will not cooperate with the government and become finks and support the government side of the story. We execute people because they're poor. We execute people because they're ugly. The nature of the crime itself is one of the least relevant factors; and if you want to see some data to support it, they're quite startling.
Marshall:
Could you give us some of that data?
Dershowitz:
These are not 18th century figures. This is 1973 through 1977 in the state—
Marshall:
In other words, this is—
Dershowitz:
–today. This is today.
Marshall:
This is the new death penalty we're talking about.
Dershowitz:
Right. In the state of Florida, when a black person killed a white person, he had a 17 percent likelihood of getting the death penalty, when a white person killed a black person, 0 percent. For felony murder, it was even more striking – 30 percent if a black person killed a white person; again, 0 percent when a white killed a black. In Texas, the same—eight percent if it was black against white, 0 percent, white verses black. Felony murder, 14 percent to 0. Alabama—23 percent if you were black and you killed a white; 0 percent if you were white and you killed black. We cannot tolerate this kind of equality in this country today. It is just like the black codes of 1840, when we had separate statutes punishing blacks for killing whites and whites for punishing blacks. This is the reality of America in 1979 with the death penalty.
Marshall:
You've mentioned some of the other factors in addition to racial considerations. What do you think is the most significant factor as to whether somebody faces the death penalty?
Dershowitz:
Very easy—whether he gets a good lawyer or not. If he has a good lawyer who will plea bargain with the authorities, who will walk in and investigate the case carefully and will make an excellent defense and will make it hard for the government to get a conviction, the government will come in with hat in hand and say, "Please accept 20 years and plead guilty," and he'll get off with 20 years or much less. That's the most significant factor.
Marshall:
I don't want to set you up for this question as a good lawyer, but have you been involved in plea bargaining?
Dershowitz:
Oh sure. Any good lawyer is, and I've seen several cases where people have been guilty of first degree murder and have walked away with the courthouse, had gotten away with no time or a very short time, depending on the nature of the lawyer involved in the case.
Marshall:
And these are the people that the prosecution is pretty sure, in fact, committed the homicide.
Dershowitz:
Well, of course, because they've told the prosecution they've committed the homicide, and they've told the prosecution who's committed it with them. I mean the Spenkelink case is a perfect example.
Marshall:
What do you mean by that?
Dershowitz:
There was the race to the courthouse. Two people killed one person. One person got to the prosecutor first and said, "I'll tell, I'll tell. Do me a favor and get me off." He tells. He walks away, gets nothing; and Spenkelink fries.
Marshall:
Mr. Dershowitz, in addition to the inequalities in the system, isn't the Supreme Court now saying that in fact you can have a quite strict standard that juries will follow so we won't get this kind of inequality? What's your response to that?
Dershowitz:
The Supreme Court says there are strict standards. But just look at the standards of whether the person acted unreasonably, whether he's likely to commit murder again. The standards to any good lawyer, a prosecutor or defense attorney, are nonsense. They mean nothing.
Marshall:
What do you mean by that?
Dershowitz:
They bear no relationship to which persons will die and which will be saved. They're just simple verbalisms for the court to look at. The reality is you will die if you kill the wrong victim. You will die if you hire the wrong lawyer. You will die if you refuse to cooperate with the government. That's not written into the statute, but that's the reality today in 1979.
Marshall:
What do you think about Mr. Shuman's position as, "Yes, there is a little bit of racial discrimination; but the way to solve that is not to stop killing people who shouldn't be killed, but to solve the racial problems of the country." What's your response to that?
Dershowitz:
Well, I'm delighted. Let's solve the racial problems, and let's have a moratorium until we do. And then 20 or 30 years from now when we've solved the problems, let's come back; and let's debate the issue on terms of equality and moral equivalency. And let's see whether Mr. Shuman favors the death penalty when it's his people, his children, his relatives, members of his race that are subject to the death penalty. It's easy for us to favor the death penalty for them. And that's what the situation is today; but when it would be us favoring the death penalty for us, I suggest the moral equation in this country would differ significantly.
Marshall:
Well, speaking about the us and us, what did you think about Mr. Shuman's damning indictment of the South while the North goes free?
Dershowitz:
Well, let's look at Ohio. Ohio is no better. If a black killed a white in Ohio, 21 percent likelihood he'd be executed. If a white killed a black in Ohio in 1974 to 1977, 0 again. Ohio is no better than any of the states in the South when it comes to this problem.
Marshall:
And do you believe that that is applicable to other Northern states, or is Ohio now some kind of aberration?
Dershowitz:
It is not as applicable. I don't think Massachusetts or Pennsylvania would have exactly the same problem. But the issue isn't whether we should restore the death penalty in Massachusetts or Pennsylvania. It's whether we should restore it nationally, and the vast majority of people who will be executed in this country if we restore the death penalty will be executed in precisely the states which have the worst racial problems.
Dukakis:
All right. Let me break in at this point. That's something to get your teeth into Mr. Nelson. You're on.
Nelson:
Thank you. Mr. Dershowitz, let's—, let me probe how far you'll go with the elimination of the death penalty. Can you conceive of a situation, a crime, a criminal who should be executed with capital punishment? For example, take the extreme case in Adolf Eichmann. Would you say that he should have been subjected to capital punishment?
Dershowitz:
I wrote a letter to the president of Israel calling for the non-execution of Adolf Eichmann, so for me that was not a hypothetical issue. I was against the execution of Adolf Eichmann. I can, however, conceive of a situation again where we had a country which was racially neutral, which could apply it fairly, and in which you could demonstrate to me hypothetically that by killing one guilty person, you could save the lives of ten innocent people, I'm then prepared to debate that issue. It becomes a hard issue. I am not a doctrinaire opponent of capital punishment for all societies under all circumstances at all times.
Nelson:
Well, I'm curious—to follow up a little bit on the Eichmann case, since it is a case that you had involvement with, I mean here is a man who committed mass murder under the most monstrous circumstances imaginable; and it seems to me that there has to be a time when society expresses moral outrage at that position. There seems to be something just very, very wrong when a man like Eichmann would remain alive, as he would have if your wishes were met, when his victims have literally been turned into lamp shades. I think that when society fails to make that statement, it makes a travesty of every other moral statement that that society tries to make.
Dershowitz:
If society needs the death penalty to express our collective outrage at Adolf Eichmann, we really are in trouble. We don't need the law to tell us how outraged we were. I certainly don't. The outrage should come from within, not from outside-
Nelson:
I find it hard to believe, Mr. Dershowitz, that you are suggesting that Eichmann should live while his victims end up in the situation that they did-
Dershowitz:
You can't pull a cheap trick like that on me—
Nelson:
—and if you think—
Dershowitz:
I'm not suggesting that they should have been killed. Of course, if I could do anything to—
Nelson:
You are suggesting that Eichmann should not have been killed.
Dershowitz:
That's right, but don't put me in the other part of the equation that I'm also suggesting that his victims should have been killed. No.
Nelson:
The victims were killed beforehand.
Dershowitz:
Can't help that.
Nelson:
And I'm suggesting that what you are saying is that Eichmann should remain alive; and somehow, I think that there are words such as "justice" and "retribution" which society has to emphasize with, in this particular case, the symbolic execution of the man who perpetrated this kind of monstrous, anti-civilized deed. We have a disagreement. I'm simply stating in response to you that I find it hard to believe because your reputation has preceded you that you don’t recognize the need for this moral statement.
Dershowitz:
Well, I recognize a need for a moral statement; and Adolf Eichmann should be subjected to the most serious penalty society has available to it; the most serious penalty—
Nelson:
That is execution.
Dershowitz:
—available to society, a moral society, is a penalty short of the death penalty. And Israel, in my mind, would have shown itself to be a far more moral society had it said, "We are going to give you the most serious penalty we as human beings are capable of inflicting—a penalty less than you inflicted on your victims,—
Dershowitz:
—life imprisonment."
Nelson:
—the most serious penalty that a society or an individual, or a group of individuals can inflict is execution.
Dershowitz:
Nonsense. How about torture? Would you torture him?
Nelson:
I contend that the ultimate—
Dershowitz:
Would you have killed his children?
Nelson:
I contend that the ultimate—
Dershowitz:
He killed people's children; how about that?
Nelson:
I contend that the ultimate penalty is death.
Dershowitz:
You're wrong. Why is that so?
Dershowitz:
Why is that more ultimate than killing his children?
Nelson:
Let me go—. You raised a, you raised a point—
Dershowitz:
That's not answering my question.
Dukakis:
Gentlemen—. Gentlemen—. Gentlemen, I'm sorry. I can't understand this debate if you talk at the same time. Mr. Nelson, would you ask a question? Mr. Dershowitz, would you try to answer it.
Nelson:
You'll have to excuse the witness. He's a professor of law, and he's used to having it the other way around. You raised the interesting point earlier about the question of deterrence. Let's take a look at it. Let's look at it from a philosophical point of view. Either capital punishment is a deterrent or it's not. If it's not a deterrent and we execute murderers, what have we done? We have run the slight risk that we may execute an innocent person, although by anybody's standards, the probability of that is remote and small. Let's go to the other side, if capital punishment is a deterrent and we don't execute, what has happened? We have now allowed by our non-deterrent policy for there to be additional murders in society, and we have cost the lives of untold numbers of innocent people; and it seems to me, therefore, that the risk for society is much greater if we—
Dershowitz:
Mr. Nelson, everything you've just said–
Nelson:
—if we follow your policy.
Dershowitz:
Everything you've just said is equally applicable to torture. What if I could demonstrate to you that torture deters? Then, for every person that we do not torture, we have taken an innocent life. And later I say I could prove to you that killing the children of killers, remember that was a biblical precept, killing the children of killers would deter even more for every person. But we have limits, Mr. Nelson.
Nelson:
Why don't you answer this question? Then I'll get to yours.
Dershowitz:
We have limits, and one of the limits is thou shalt not kill; and that's a limit that we should stick to in this society.
Nelson:
Mr. Dershowitz, let me take them in—. You didn't answer the question.
Dershowitz:
I think I did.
Nelson:
But thou shalt not kill, the prescription in the bible, is thou shalt not murder, that is the taking of an innocent human life. And execution is not the taking of an innocent human life. But I would say to you in terms of your reference to torture, we do not have an epidemic of torture going on in the United States. We have an epidemic of murder. And I would say to you also that if you could show to me that there was indeed a likelihood of a deterrence, a reduction in the amount of violence by following a prescription which offends my sensibilities, then even if I were squeamish about it, I would say there is an argument to be made.
Dukakis:
Mr. Nelson, I'm sorry. I have to interrupt. Let's have one response.
Dershowitz:
I knew that's the implication that you would come out in favor of torture. In the end, your position leads you–
Nelson:
Answer the question whether you would come out in favor of deterrence.
Dershowitz:
–to coming out in favor of torture.
Dukakis:
All right. Gentlemen, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, gentlemen. I've got to interrupt. We're going to go back to Miss Marshall for an additional question or two.
Marshall:
Mr. Dershowitz, are you in favor of torture?
Dershowitz:
I am not in favor of torture.
Marshall:
Let's focus if we can for a minute on the category of people that Mr. Nelson and his witnesses seem most concerned about. Do you think that by opposing the death penalty that you are somehow being callous towards the victims?
Dershowitz:
No. In fact, historically, those people who have opposed the death penalty have had the most concern for the victims. The man, for example, who I worked for a long time ago, Justice Arthur Goldberg, who was the staunchest proponent of the abolition of the death penalty, was also the staunchest proponent of aiding victims and helping victims. And for the most part, people who were in favor of retaining capital punishment had historically shown the least concern for the victims in terms of victim compensation programs.
Marshall:
And I get back to one of my earlier questions. Do you think that by having the death penalty we will stop the increase of violent crimes that has ostensively been going on?
Dershowitz:
The day after the execution in Utah last year, there were two murders in the very city in which that execution, the very state in which that execution occurred. I have seen no evidence that there is any relationship between the executions and a reduction in the crime of murder.
Dukakis:
Mr. Dershowitz, thank you for being with us. We're going to turn now, we're going to turn now back to Mr. Nelson; and he will present his second and final witness. Mr. Nelson—
Nelson:
I call Senator Dale Volker.
Dukakis:
Welcome to The Advocates, Senator Volker. Nice to have you with us.
Volker:
Thank you. Thank you. It's good to be here.
Nelson:
Senator, before we get to some of the testimony that I know you're interested in, let's dispense with some of the arguments that have been raised before. For example, there has been much made about studies of adjacent states, ones that did have the capital punishment statute on the books and one that did not adjacent to it. Is this convincing to you?
Volker:
First of all, we've done a thorough study of all the studies on the death penalty; and what we find is two things: one, almost all the studies that were done on deterrence were done by anti-death penalty people who really did studies in an attempt to find that there was going to be no deterrence. And they ignored some of the demographic evidence. And what they did is most of the studies relate to the period from 1965 on, when in almost all the states involved, in fact, if I'm not mistaken, all the states involved, there was no death penalty anyway. There may have been a death penalty on the books in several of the states, but no death penalty was ever carried out; and it was well known that there was really no death penalty at all.
Nelson:
I think we should—. That's right. We should point out that as renowned an authority as Professor James Q. Wilson of Harvard points out that these studies really do not prove anything.
Nelson:
Now, let's get to the case of the Spenkelink execution. Now, Mr. Dershowitz has given some description of that. Would you agree with his categorization?
Volker:
I think one of the things we should do is most of us should stop commenting on the Spenkelink case until we check it out a little bit. And I won't go into any great description of it; but I would say this—that both Spenkelink and his supposed accomplice were tried; the accomplice was found acquitted, found not guilty; Spenkelink testified, was found guilty, and, of course, was executed.
Nelson:
Senator, you have introduced a bill into New York which would bring back the death penalty in the state of New York—
Nelson:
—if it were enacted. Now, does your bill answer some of the challenges that have been made earlier about the questions of inequities?
Volker:
We have tried to address all the challenges dealing with inequities. We drafted a statute which involves a two-tier jury system. First you find the defendant either guilty or innocent of the crime of murder. Secondly, you determine whether the defendant should receive the death penalty or a life term. There are all sorts of protections built into the bill; and it's interesting that people talk in terms of the fact that nationwide, these massive problems have occurred. The facts are that only in a few states do we have solid proof that there were some problems, and I'd be the first one to admit it. And my bill in New York and the bills that I've drafted were directly intended to meet many of those objections to provide a fair and just means of providing the death penalty.
Nelson:
So, you are not persuaded by the fact that there are inequities, that somehow the remedy for that is to eliminate all punishment. If we found inequities with robbery, somehow we should have, according to Mr. Dershowitz, a moratorium on sentencing for robberies over the next 20 years.
Volker:
Well, I think following Mr. Dershowitz's system, we would not only ground all the DC-10s, we would ground every plane in the whole United States, because there's inequities in those planes.
Nelson:
Speaking of the problems of minorities, what about minority sentiment? It's long been presumed, I think, that blacks in the United States are overwhelmingly opposed to capital punishment. Is that your experience?
Volker:
The most significant change, I would think, in the sentiment of the people of this country, and particularly in New York, where we have done extensive studies and where all the legislatives in minority areas admit that minorities now decisively favor the death penalty. And the reason they do is, is because who's getting killed? Who, more than any other group, is getting killed today? And the answer is minorities. And that's, incidentally, one of the reasons why a lot of minorities are on Death Row, because who's killing minorities? Who's killing minorities? Minorities—that's who's killing minorities. Their own people are killing them, just as whites are killing whites.
Nelson:
Senator, there's been a decrease in the murder rate recently over the last couple of years from 1976 on. Does this affect your thinking on the matter?
Volker:
The general belief among many people who are in, working on criminal justice matters is that it is an indication of the fact that society is getting fed up with the tremendous killings in the streets and that we are moving in the direction of restoring not only the death penalty, but restoring tough sentences in society. And the general feeling is that what the tailing-off of the tremendous increase in murder and other crimes indicates is that the criminal in the street is beginning to understand that.
Dukakis:
Senator Volker, I'm going to interrupt at this point. Mr. Nelson will be back to ask you a few more questions, but Miss Marshall has some questions for you.
Marshall:
Senator Volker, let me pick up on a couple of statements you've just made towards the end.
Marshall:
You talked about minorities killing minorities. The fact of the matter is, sir, that the people on Death Row awaiting execution in Florida, Georgia, Texas, are not the blacks who kill blacks. In fact, the probability of being on Death Row if you were a black who killed a black, is very, very small. And how do you explain that?
Volker:
Let me explain New York because we did a study on New York –
Marshall:
I’m talking about Florida, Georgia, and Texas.
Volker:
Well, well, I think your figures, by the way, are not quite correct –
Marshall:
I think they are correct –
Volker:
– because I think if you look at Florida – Florida’s not the best state in the world to take, but look at Texas; and I think if you look at Texas, you’ll find out that the amount of people on Death Row who killed blacks, black killing blacks, is pretty well on the same ratio as white killing whites.
Marshall:
The probability of being executed or being sentenced to death if you were a black killing a black in Texas is .007.
Volker:
That's not what I said. Well, wait a minute now. That– What do you— How do you base the probability?
Volker:
The probability is who's on Death Row. I'm not talking about probabilities. I'm saying blacks, whites, who's on Death Row?
Marshall:
There were two—. There were more than two and a half thousand blacks killed by blacks.
Marshall:
Two of them are on Death Row in Texas today. And I'm suggesting to you that the fact that they are blacks on Death Row has nothing to do with the fact that they've been killing blacks—
Volker:
Do you want the reason as to why that is? Because the death penalty statute was declared unconstitutional several years ago, and most of those people aren't even covered under the new statute.
Marshall:
No, sir. These are people who are only covered under the new statute.
Volker:
I don't believe that’s correct.
Marshall:
Well, sir, these are figures provided by that state and its own official records, and—
Volker:
I don't — I don't believe, first of all, there aren't that many murders in Texas over the last year since the new statute was, was put into effect; and I think you'll find out that that's incorrect.
Marshall:
This is from '76, sir; and these are figures from '76 and '77.
Volker:
Do you mean to tell me that only two people are on Death Row in Texas?
Marshall:
That's right. That is correct, sir.
Volker:
Well, I have news for you—there's two people about to be executed-
Marshall:
No—. No, there are not two people—
Volker:
—in Texas now, so maybe it's the only two people that are there.
Marshall:
There are not— There are not only two people on Death Row, sir. You've missed the point entirely. The only two pe—, there are only two blacks on Death Row who killed blacks. That's my point, sir. Let me point out to the audience why I keep focusing on Florida, Georgia, and Texas. It's not because I am somehow disparaging of the Southern states. That happens to be where 60 percent of the people currently on Death Row are located. Does that disturb you in any way that there are some states which are just far more likely to impose the death penalty?
Volker:
Well, in the first place, it did disturb me a great deal when the new death penalty decision came down; and I think that if you look at the statutes in those states now, they are immensely improved over the old statutes in those states which, frankly, Georgia, if you look at the Georgia cases, you'll find out Georgia is in almost all the old death penalty cases where there are challenges. And I would like to point out that the new statute is very similar to many of the northern states' statutes, and many of the statutes that are now not only considered constitutional, but by most criminal justice people, are statutes that will bring fairness back into the system.
Marshall:
Senator Volker, I agree with you that the statutes have changed. What I've suggested to you is that the figures that I have given and the clear demonstration that there is still racial disparity in sentencing to death occurs pursuant to those statutes, and that's the problem that I have, sir, if we could just wipe out the past history and give juries nicely worded new statutes. By the way, one of the factors, one of the factors that Texas juries have to consider in their two-tiered system—they, too, like New York—
Marshall:
—have a two-tiered system—one of the factors they have to consider is whether or not the accused would be likely to commit the offense again. How many people do you think can determine whether or not the person is likely to commit the offense again?
Marshall:
Do you know how many psychiatrists can't answer that question?
Volker:
I think that's an excellent question for the highest court in Texas. Texas also has an appeal statute similar, not quite as strong as the one that we have in New York. Incidentally, I would just like to tell you that in New York State—
Volker:
—since 1930, 71 percent of the people executed have been white; and only 23 percent have been black.
Marshall:
Sir, do you know what the— That's 30 percent minorities. Do you know what the percentage in New York between 1930 and 1945 was approximately of blacks? If you don't know, let me tell you that the—
Volker:
First of all, I'm not talking about '30 to '45-
Volker:
—and I'd like to—. Let me, let me finish.
Marshall:
Let me, let me just suggest something. In that period of time, I happened to check it out because I knew that was one of your favorite figures—
Marshall:
The black population was 5 percent.
Marshall:
It's now eked up to about 15 percent. It is still—
Volker:
Do you know how many blacks killed blacks during that time?
Marshall:
Yes, sir; and they were not sentenced to death.
Volker:
I'm sorry that they were. I—
Marshall:
Proportionately they were not sentenced to death.
Volker:
—would like to tell you that the proportion of blacks sentenced to death for killing blacks is approximately the same as it is for killing whites.
Marshall:
Senator Volker, let's take—
Dukakis:
I'm sorry. I'm sorry, Miss Marshall. I have to interrupt at this point. We're going to go back to Mr. Nelson for an additional question or two.
Nelson:
Senator, there seems to be a preoccupation with the southern states and the handful that are mentioned, I think we should point out that there are 45 other states to which these arguments apparently are not applied. Now, your bill has been designed in the state of New York, anyway, to take care of some of these inequities, isn't that true?
Volker:
That's exactly true. The bill was designed to deal exactly with some of the inequities that have been discussed here tonight. In fact, we have probably the most liberal council provision in the whole United States in the bill; it provides unlimited money for a defendant, sets up standards, minimum standards that must be followed by any attorney that represents a capital defendant.
Nelson:
Senator, let's get back to fundamentals. We've gotten snowed here with statistics and counter-statistics. A fundamental question: Do you think, now you were, before you were a Senator, you were a police officer, a law enforcement official, do you think that the imposition of the death penalty will have an effect on the murder rate? Will it indeed deter crime?
Volker:
I think it's easy for many of us who have not dealt with the people in the streets and who have dealt with the victims of crime and also the defendants on a basis of in the streets. It's easy for us to talk. One of the things that I've often said is, "We, we, who support the death penalty, should not have to support the idea of deterrence"; because somebody has to prove to me why 685 people were murdered in New York in 1965, where last year 1,802 people were murdered. And there's a lot of people that are having a lot of difficulty explaining that tremendous increase.
Volker:
Nationwide, it's been even higher in many places.
Nelson:
That's a lot more cogent than adjacent states' studies.
Volker:
Absolutely. And I think that's the key question. The key question is, that even per hundred thousand, per population, for what it is, the murder rate has risen steadily in this country.
Dukakis:
Senator, thank you very much for being with us and for joining us on The Advocates. At this point we go to our closing arguments from each advocate. We'll begin with Mr. Nelson; and he has one minute. Mr. Nelson—
Nelson:
No punishment deters men from committing crimes like death. That thesis is awkward to try to prove because in itself, it's more obvious than any proof that can be brought to bear to support it. But with any other punishment, there is hope. Death in its finality therein lies its deterrence. This is a message that is well understood by the criminal community. And it's understood by the people. The American people, 85 percent, are in favor of capital punishment; because we understand what it means to live in fear. And we also understand the common sense approach to handling this problem. The first order of business of any government is to provide domestic tranquility, to guarantee security for us as we live in our homes and in our communities. Unfortunately, our government has fallen short in this area. We need to have capital punishment enacted and death sentences to be carried out so that we can make a statement in behalf of those innocent people and those potential future victims. This is long overdue in American society.
Dukakis:
Thank you, Mr. Nelson. Miss Marshall, you too, have one minute.
Marshall:
Our ancestors punished criminals by stoning them, disemboweling them. Today we execute more neatly. It's just as barbaric. The question is not whether murderers should be punished, but how. We must punish the most severe crime with the most severe penalty, but we must do it justly. Executions can never be just. Of the thousands of murders that are committed each year, only a very few of those people are sentenced to death. And all too often it is because they are poor; they are black; they are male. Very few women get executed, despite the fact that they contribute to a large number of the homicides. They are male; and all too often, it's simply because they don't have any information with which to barter for their lives from the prosecution. Britain, Sweden, Holland, Canada —country after civilized country – has rejected the death penalty. More than a century ago, we were the last western country to end slavery. May we not hold that distinction for the death penalty.
Dukakis:
Thank you, Miss Marshall. Now we turn to you, our audience. What do you think? Should your state carry out the death sentence in certain crimes? Send us your vote, your "Yes" or "No" vote with your comments on a postcard and mail it to The Advocates, Box 1979, Boston, 02134.
On April 29, The Advocates debated the question: "Should we cut back veterans' preference for state and federal jobs to provide more opportunity for women?" Our audience responded this way: 36 percent said "Yes"; 64 percent said "No."
On May 6, The Advocates debated the question: "Should Puerto Rico be a state, a commonwealth, or an independent nation?" Our audience responded this way: 77 percent were for statehood; 17 percent for the commonwealth status; 6 percent for independence; I should point out, however, that a considerable amount of the mail we received on Puerto Rico stemmed from an organized vote—especially the statehood vote.
On May 13, The Advocates debated the question: "Should we stop construction of all nuclear power plants?" And our audience responded this way: 55 percent said "Yes," and 45 percent said "No."
We hope you will join us next week. Our thanks to Mr. Nelson, Miss Marshall, to our very distinguished witnesses for a very lively debate, and to our host, the Kennedy School of Government here at Harvard University. Thank you and good night.