|
 |
POINT
Juvenile Defendant Charged With Adult Crimes
Aired March 28, 2002 - 20:30 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.
ANNOUNCER: THE POINT with Anderson Cooper.
Adult crimes and juvenile defendants, when the stakes are high, should a teen be allowed to ignore her attorney's advice?
"Flash Point": adult time.
She was being threatened and ganged-up on by her classmates, so she killed herself. Tonight, her mother's fight for justice.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CINDY WESLEY, MOTHER OF DAWN MARIE WESLEY: For all kids that are being bullied across Canada, this isn't about Dawn Marie anymore. This is for you.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: Plus, how much TV are your teens watching?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's all day long. I know children who get up at 3:00 in the morning and turn on the TV set.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: A new report says more than an hour a day could lead to big trouble.
THE POINT. Now from New York, Anderson Cooper.
ANDERSON COOPER, HOST: Good evening. I'm Anderson Cooper. Thanks for joining us on THE POINT tonight.
Our first story, Heather Opel is looking at a long time in prison, even though she's only 14 years old. She's accused of killing her mother's boss. Prosecutors are playing hardball. Not only are they trying her as an adult, they are threatening to charge her with Aggravated First Degree Murder, which carries a life sentence without parole if she's convicted.
But they're also offering a plea bargain, a 25-year sentence in return for a guilty plea to first degree murder. Heather wants to cop the plea, but her attorney says a 14-year-old isn't competent to make such a decision. What do you think?
"Flash Point": adult time.
Joining us to talk about 14-year-olds and the law, Attorney Geoffrey Fieger in Detroit, and in Miami, retired Judge Ellen Morphonios who's earned the nickname "Maximum Morphonios" during her years on the Florida Circuit Court.
Judge, I want to start off with you. Heather Opel committed a brutal, brutal crime. At the age of 13, her mother offered her a dirt bike if she and some of her friends would beat to death and stab to death her, the mother's employer. Should she be charged as an adult?
ELLEN MORPHONIOS, RETIRED JUDGE: Well, I don't know which one of us you want to answer, so let me Mr. Cooper. I think she should be charged as an adult. She had the capacity mentally to make a thought out decision to get a baseball bat and some of her friends together and go over and kill that poor man.
I don't know what he did, but he couldn't possibly have done anything bad enough to justify that kind of death. I mean, she couldn't just walk in and shoot him, or do something like that. No, she had to beat him to death. I don't know how many of you out there have ever been swatted around a bit, beat a bit, whatever it may be, but let me tell you if you ever have been, you know full well that is no way that you want to die.
COOPER: Judge.
MORPHONIOS: It is a horrible way to die.
COOPER: Geoffrey Fieger, let me bring you in. If Heather is charged as a juvenile, she'll basically serve until the age of 21. Is that enough time to be doing for such a brutal murder?
GEOFFREY FIEGER, ATTORNEY: Well it depends what philosophy you use. If you use the philosophy of Maximum" there then apparently not. If you use the philosophy of enlightened people that children are fundamentally different and have an opportunity to be salvaged in life, then definitely there's a distinct difference.
Having represented the youngest person ever charged with a capital crime in this country, 11-year-old Nathaniel Abraham, I can tell you that an 11-year-old, nor a 14-year-old, can understand the nature of the crimes, the accusations against them, can not assist in their defense, and certainly have no ability to make those types of decisions, although we're charging them as if they did.
COOPER: Well, Geoffrey, should the brutality of the crime be taken into account when trying to decide whether or not someone should be charged as a juvenile or an adult?
FIEGER: No. No. That only happens now because of the politicians who carry political favor because of it. The fact that juveniles commit crimes has always been a reality, but the nature of the crime doesn't make it a right to charge juveniles. Let me give you an example. If I had a 40-year-old defendant who had a mentality of an 11-year-old or a 50-year-old who had the mentality of a 14-year-old, no court would allow that individual to be tried, because they don't have the mental capacity to assist in their defense.
When you have an actual 11-year-old or 14-year-old, who clearly doesn't have the mental capacity to assist in their defense, how we are charging them and trying them as adults is beyond reason, except you have to understand that politicians do this to create political favor and not because of any rational decision. The rest of the civilized world scorns us.
COOPER: Well, Judge Morphonios, let me ask you, as you know Heather is being charged as an adult in this case. Now she has written a letter to prosecutors, basically saying that she wants to cop a plea. She wants to take the 25-year sentence. She wants to plead guilty.
MORPHONIOS: Smart girl.
COOPER: Her lawyer is saying she's 14 years old. She is not capable of making such a decision. She doesn't understand what doing 25 years in jail really means. Is a 14-year-old competent enough to make this kind of a decision in her own legal defense?
MORPHONIOS: Absolutely. I think a 14-year-old in this day and age, you can't look back to past years when 14 year olds were naive.
FIEGER: So, judge, you'd let a 14-year-old contract? You wouldn't let a 14-year-old enter a contract. You wouldn't let them buy liquor and you wouldn't let them drive a car.
MORPHONIOS: I wouldn't let them buy liquor because it's against the law. They're buying it every day, but it's against the law.
FIEGER: Excuse me. You wouldn't let them do any of that, and why would you let a 14-year-old then make a decision like that?
MORPHONIOS: No, I never said I would let her do that because...
COOPER: Well, judge, let me ask you that. Why -- Geoffrey Fieger raises the point, you wouldn't let a 14-year-old write a contract, sign a contract on the dotted line, but you would let them make such an important decision. Why?
MORPHONIOS: Of course, because they know what they're doing. They know exactly what they're doing. She knew enough to be able to stand there and beat that man to death in front of his Alzheimer's afflicted wife, and to leave the wife there of the guy.
FIEGER: Answer the question, Maximus, why would you not let a 14-year-old contract...
MORPHONIOS: Aren't you a dream.
FIEGER: ... but then let a 14-year-old decide that type of decision?
MORPHONIOS: I hate to tell you but I would let a 14-year-old sign a contract.
FIEGER: And then you'd let a 14-year-old drink?
MORPHONIOS: They have the assistance of their attorney.
FIEGER: And own a gun too, right?
COOPER: Well, judge, let me ask you here. There is also an argument...
MORPHONIOS: (UNINTELLIGIBLE), yes.
COOPER: Judge Morphonios, there is an argument that's been made that Heather's mother basically told her to commit this murder, encouraged her to commit this murder and then one of the psychologists...
MORPHONIOS: For a dirt bike.
COOPER: One of the psychologists said that in his experience, this was one of the most dysfunctional families he had ever seen.
MORPHONIOS: I'll bet you.
COOPER: Doesn't that lessen her culpability to some extent?
MORPHONIOS: Not at all. They were all in it together. This is a girl who knew exactly what she was doing. Her friends knew exactly what they were doing. One of them was 18. The 13-year-old I'm not so sure. To me like 14 is kind of a cut-off period.
COOPER: I'm sorry to interrupt. We only have about 30 seconds left.
MORPHONIOS: Oh, I'm sorry.
COOPER: I want to ask you the final question, Geoffrey. A lawyer can ask the court to give her client more time. A lawyer can try to convince her client not to make a decision, but can a lawyer really substitute her own beliefs for her client's decision, even at 14?
FIEGER: No. Unfortunately now the way they set this up, a 14- year-old now is being charged with a crime and the law doesn't provide for a lawyer to substitute its decision, although the 14-year-old couldn't do anything else, couldn't buy a car, couldn't contract, couldn't own a gun, couldn't drive, couldn't own liquor, but a 14- year-old can decide whether it's the right thing or wrong thing to make a plea to 25 years or take the chance of imprisonment. Absurd. Absurd. Absurd.
COOPER: All right. We're going to have to leave it there. Geoffrey Fieger, it's a pleasure to talk to you. Judge Ellen Morphonios, it is always a pleasure to talk to you. We appreciate you both coming down and talking to us tonight. Thank you very much.
MORPHONIOS: Thank you.
COOPER: Well coming up next, a problem that seems to go hand-in- hand with school, but in this case, it led to tragedy, that story coming up.
ANNOUNCER: Next on THE POINT, school bullies drove her daughter to suicide. Now this mom is fighting back.
WESLEY: Please, please learn from her death.
ANNOUNCER: Plus, teens, TV and trouble, a disturbing new report as THE POINT continues.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COOPER: And welcome back to THE POINT. Remember the school bully? Well, it seems like all of us had to put up with one at some time. But before you shrug and say it's, well it's just part of growing up, consider the fate of Dawn Marie Wesley. She won't get to grow up. The 14-year-old was so unnerved by taunts and even a death threat, she hanged herself. That was nearly a year and a half ago.
This week, a Canadian judge found one of Dawn Marie's 16-year-old tormenters guilty of Criminal Harassment. Dawn Marie's mother, Cindy, joins us now from Mission, British Columbia. Thank you very much for being with us, Cindy.
WESLEY: You're welcome.
COOPER: Your daughter was just 14 years old. What drove her to take her own life.
WESLEY: Well, according to her suicide note, she said that if she didn't kill herself that these girls were going to kill her.
COOPER: Now these three girls, who were harassing her, were her friends at one point. Tell us the circumstances around this.
WESLEY: I'm sorry.
COOPER: These three girls who harassed her were at one point her friends. If you could, tell us a little bit of the circumstances what led to this harassment. How did it start? How long did it go on?
WESLEY: From what I know, I've heard through the trial, and my understanding is that it lasted the nine days of her life.
COOPER: And why did they -- why were they harassing her?
WESLEY: Well, the only answer I've been given unfortunately is that she didn't like the way my daughter laughed. It annoyed her.
COOPER: Did you know this was going on at the time? Did you know that your daughter was being bullied by these three young girls? WESLEY: No, I did not.
COOPER: And do you think these three girls meant to -- at one point on the day that your daughter took her life, one of the girls actually threatened to kill your daughter, isn't that right?
WESLEY: Those are the last words my daughter heard. An hour later she was dead.
COOPER: Do you think these girls expected to actually follow through on their threats?
WESLEY: I don't know. I'd have to speculate on that.
COOPER: The court has found one of your daughter's bullies guilty of Criminal Harassment. One of them has been found not guilty. One of them is still -- the trial is still pending. What message do you think this guilty verdict sends to bullies out there?
WESLEY: I think it sends a clear message that bullying is criminal and that you will be held accountable for your actions if you choose to be a bully.
COOPER: When you look back at this horrible, horrible incident, who do you blame? I know you have forgiven one of the young girls, the girl who was found not guilty. But is it just the girls? Is it the schools? Is it the parents of these kids? Is it the kids who knew the bullying was going on and did nothing to stop it?
WESLEY: I think we all need to take ownership of our part. I think all aspects of society are responsible for the bullying that's happening with our children.
COOPER: Do you think adults take too lax an attitude toward bullying? Do you think they see it as well, you know, this is just what kids do? This is just part of growing up?
WESLEY: I've heard that a lot ironically from kids. I hear a lot from the youth around, not just in British Columbia, but across Canada, and that's one thing that pains me is that I hear a lot of these youth that say, when I tell my parents I'm being bullied at school, they go into stories of what, you know, they got bullied when they were younger, and basically kids are being told it's part of growing up, just deal with it.
COOPER: Before this had happened to your daughter, is this something you had ever thought about, this bullying? I mean, did you ever think it was a serious problem?
WESLEY: I was aware of a situation earlier in the previous year by a totally different student that was bullying Dawn Marie, and absolutely the school called me. I went in with the parents from the other child that was bullying. I was very happy with the way it was dealt with by the school. Absolutely.
COOPER: You now have this court ruling. It's the first time in Canada there has been such a ruling. What should be done now? What should be done differently by parents, by kids, by schools?
WESLEY: I think for parents, first of all when your child is a bully, don't make excuses for them. Make them take ownership of what they've done, and make them suffer the consequences, just the way that the bullied victim, I mean he or she is suffering and as long as the parents are going to cover up and try to make excuses for their children, it's going to continue to happen.
The schools, I think, when we have a zero tolerance, we talk about that. We say, oh we have a zero tolerance, but that zero tolerance doesn't seem to be applicable to every child in your school and, you know, situations are always taken where they make changes for maybe one particular student, and I don't think that's fair.
I think if you have a zero tolerance level in your school, then it is zero tolerance regardless of who the child is, regardless of who their parents are and regardless of their social standing in the community.
COOPER: Well, Cindy Wesley, we appreciate you coming in tonight. Your daughter Dawn Marie died in November of 2000. It's just a little bit of time ago, and I know it's very difficult talking about it and I appreciate very much you coming in and sharing part of your story with us tonight. Thank you very much.
WESLEY: Thank you.
COOPER: Coming up next on THE POINT, teens in trouble seems to be the theme of the day. Next, is your TV to blame? THE POINT will be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COOPER: All right, so you're saying to yourself, your child isn't in court, she isn't bullying someone in the schoolyard, they're just quietly watching TV. They're safe, right? Well, maybe not.
A new study suggests teenagers who watch more than one hour of television a day during early adolescence are more likely to be aggressive later on. The study in the new issue of "Science," looked at 14-year-old's viewing habits, then followed up over a period of 17 years.
Now of those who watched TV for less than a hour a day at 14, 5.7 percent were involved in aggressive acts by age 16 to 22. Aggressive acts now are defined as fights, robberies, and assaults.
For those who watched between one and three hours a day, the aggression rate jumps to 22.5 percent later on. And at more than three hours of TV a day, the rate is 28.8 percent.
The study's lead author, Columbia University Psychiatry Professor Jeffrey Johnson joins me now here in New York, and in Washington is Matthew Felling. He is with the Center for Media and Public Affairs, a non-profit, non-partisan research group. Thanks very much for being with us. Jeffrey, I want to start off with you. Your study basically associates aggression with television viewing, and in particular, follows the amount of time spent watching TV and how that relates to later aggression. If you could just describe your study a little bit, and does it prove cause and effect?
JEFFREY JOHNSON, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Well, yes we do think that the findings support a cause effect association, especially because many other studies that have been done over shorter intervals have also suggested a cause-effect relationship, and there have been more than 200 studies that have investigated this kind of issue.
What makes our study different is that we did use a very long follow-up period and, in addition, we examined whether television viewing during early adulthood was associated with a risk for a number of different kinds of serious kinds of aggression over an eight-year follow-up.
COOPER: Now, Jeffrey, couldn't you make the argument that it's not necessarily cause and effect that perhaps in homes where kids are watching tons of TV, maybe there are other factors that are leading to aggression. Maybe they're not being cared for very well. Maybe they lack parental attention.
JOHNSON: Yes, there are many causes of aggression and we would not want to be claiming otherwise. All our findings are showing is that there does appear to be a strong association between extensive television viewing and subsequent risk for aggressive behavior.
COOPER: Maybe I'm a little defensive because I watched like six hours of TV a day growing up, so. But, Matthew, do you buy this study?
MATTHEW FELLING, CENTER FOR MEDIA AND PUBLIC RELATIONS: Well it sounds -- I mean first of all, Jeffrey Johnson, you've done a fantastic job. I was taking a look at the study today. It's extremely thorough and I don't think that anybody is going to argue that TV doesn't have an effect on people's behavior. I mean, Anderson, CNN is supported by advertisers who trust that people are going to believe the commercials that they see and go out and buy.
We all agree on that principle that TV does have some role in people's behavior. But when I went through the nuts and bolts of the study, a quick question. It seems to me you didn't really monitor what TV they watched. It seems to me that THE POINT would be -- fall into the study, just as well as "Walker Texas Ranger" would, or just a news program. Can you explain if you addressed that at all?
JOHNSON: Yes. You make a good point, and that could be seen as a strength or a weakness, depending on how you look at it. This is not the kind of study that gets into a lot of the details, and it would be interesting to do a study that would look at which specific programs bring about the most increases in aggression.
But because we didn't have that kind of detailed information, that forced us to focus on the big picture, and that's...
FELLING: Jeffrey, I mean you did such a good job otherwise. You took into account childhood neglect, family income, neighborhood violence, parental education, psychiatric disorders, and you took all those into effect, but you didn't really -- it didn't seem to matter to you what they were watching. It didn't seem to matter if it was sports or not.
COOPER: Matthew, do you think TV is getting more violent or less violent?
FELLING: Funny you ask that because my group, the Center for Media and Public Affairs, last week in a press conference just released the results of our study, which found that violence was down 29 percent in prime time television over the -- in between 1998 and 2001. We did two different studies and then we compared the results.
We also found that sexual behavior was down considerably as well, 17 percent on network television, which leads me to think that maybe if we were to do this study again, if Jeffrey would try the study again, he might find a decline. Because what we're seeing, the behavior that is triggering the behavior in youth might be on the decline on television as well.
JOHNSON: But you mentioned...
COOPER: I'm sorry.
JOHNSON: You were only referring to aggression -- on networks. Did you look at cable shows?
FELLING: Yes, we looked at premium cable. Violence was actually down 65 percent.
COOPER: OK, I'm sorry. We're going to have to leave it there. We're simply out of time tonight. Jeffrey Johnson, Matthew Felling, I'm very sorry to interrupt. Thank you very much for joining us tonight.
FELLING: No problem, we're research guys.
COOPER: OK, love to have you back another time to finish it up. Thanks very much.
Just time for a quick final point. The other night I poked fun at "Playboy" magazine for the women of Enron to foil their planning. I also made a little joke.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
COOPER: And, of course, I'll be back here tomorrow night unless I get a better offer from "Playgirl."
(END VIDEOTAPE)
COOPER: Well, lo and behold I received this genuine offer from "Playgirl" magazine. Sadly, it didn't come in a brown paper wrapper. When the CNN security guard handed it to me, I must admit he looked at me with suspicion, not jealousy, suspicion.
The letter is from Editor-in-Chief Michele Zip (ph). It reads in part: "We officially invite you to be a Playgirl centerfold." She writes: "You name the time and place, give us a chance to let others see the real you."
Wow, Ms. Zip, I don't even want to see the real me. The last thing America needs to see is my pale skinny little chicken legs running around. Maybe I could pose for "American Poultry." Now that would be an offer. Thanks for the offer "Playgirl." I got to decline. My mom always wanted me to get into magazines, but I don't think this is what she had in mind.
E-mails won't talk me into it, so please confine your comments tonight to our teens and TV and our earlier stories about bullying and the 14-year-old who doesn't want to take her attorney's advice. Our address is thepoint@cnn.com.
Thanks very much for joining us. I'm Anderson Cooper in New York. Up next, Larry King takes us on a tour of the wild and wacky world of "Ripley's Believe it or Not," believe it or not. And you better believe I'll be back here tomorrow night. I'll see you then.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
|
|
|
|
|
