Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Talkback Live

Can Man Insist Woman Carry His Baby to Term?; Who Is at Risk for West Nile Virus?; Should Runnion's Accused Killer Face Death Penalty?

Aired August 05, 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.

OK. Listen. Should a man who helps create a pregnancy have a say in how it ends? A Pennsylvania judge wanted time to think about that after a man tried to stop his former girlfriend from getting an abortion. Her body, their unborn child. How do you choose? Well, a judge did make a decision in that case and we'll see if you agree. I really want to hear from you on this, so go ahead and give me a call at 1-800-310-4CNN or e-mail talkback@cnn.com.

Now let's take a look at what's on the show.

The West Nile virus wings its way across the United States.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I woke up with a probably the worst or very severe chill. I dreamed I fell into a river of ice.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEVILLE: Who is at risk? And short of hiding in your home, what can you do to protect yourself?

Also, can a man insist a woman carry his baby to term? We'll look at whether a father should have something to say about abortion.

And should the accused killer of 5-year-old Samantha Runnion face the death penalty? The DA is expected to announce the decision in about an hour. What would you tell him to do?

OK. Everybody, let's start with a man who wants his ex- girlfriend to carry their baby to term. Originally, a Pennsylvania judge ordered the woman to delay an abortion. He wanted time to decide if the father had any claim to the pregnancy. Well, today the decision was made. CNN national correspondent Bob Franken joins us now.

Now, Bob, I understand the decision was made by a different judge. And what did that judge decide? BOB FRANKEN, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: The judge decided that the injunction that had been issued was to be abandoned, dismissed, that in fact, the lawsuit was dismissed. The lawsuit from the boyfriend John Stachokus against his former girlfriend, Tonya Meyers. He was the father of the 10-week-old fetus that the judge ruled needed to be preserved, that there could be no abortion. This was a decision that was made last week. A temporary restraining order, where the standards are very low. One judge ruled that, in fact, the merits of the case had to be heard before the abortion could proceed. The judge deciding that the plaintiff, father, would suffer irreparable harm if the abortion would go forward.

But arguments were heard, briefs were filed, and today another judge ruled that in fact there was no basis for the lawsuit. The abortion can proceed.

In the meantime, however, there was quite an outcry. There was an appeal to the various levels of the Pennsylvania appellate court system. But before those could be dealt with, there was a ruling by the common pleas judge in Luzerne County, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. The judge said that there was no merits to this lawsuit; the abortion could proceed.

And of course, the debate was over whether in fact the original ruling flew in the face of the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision, which says the woman has the right to choose. Well, now the issue has become moot, at least in this case.

NEVILLE: Now, Bob, of course the debate, though, will continue. Wondering, though, if in this case is it over legally?

FRANKEN: Well, it seems to be over legally. There could be an appeal, but the fact of the matter is that as of today, the woman, Tanya Meyers, can go and have the abortion if she wants to. So it could all become moot.

There is an interesting debate, and that is the role of the father in making these decisions. The Supreme Court has ruled in the lines of many legal analysts that this is purely the woman's right to decide, and the judge ultimately today decided that the father really didn't have standing to file this lawsuit.

NEVILLE: Bob Franken -- I'm sorry, I don't know why I keep messing up your name today, Bob. Trust me, I have got some tough names on this show today, and I get one great one like yours and I flub it. Bob Franken, thank you very much for this update.

Listen, you know, what we normally introduce our guests at this point, but I have somebody who's standing by on the phone right now. I'm going to go ahead and take the phone call. Go ahead, Dawn (ph), where are you calling from?

DAWN: Missouri.

NEVILLE: Go ahead.

DAWN: Do you hear me?

NEVILLE: Go ahead.

DAWN: Yeah, Missouri, I'm calling from Missouri.

I think that a man should have some rights, in the sense that he can choose, because if this woman were to have the child and chose not to abort, then he would be responsible for child support. So why shouldn't he have the right to say this is my child if he has no right when it comes down to I didn't want that child, she should have had that abortion, I don't want to pay child support. You see what I'm saying?

NEVILLE: Yeah, I do see what you're saying. That's an interesting point. We have some people in the audience shaking their head, saying, wow, I hadn't thought about that. I'm assuming that's why you're shaking your head. Come here, Josh, why are you shaking your head? Stand up for me.

JOSH: I was just thinking if the father ahead of time says that he would take care of the child, I want to know without making a judgment one way or the other toward the girl, I would like to know what her response is to him when he says he wants to have the child. I wonder why she then in that case wants to go ahead and go through with it.

NEVILLE: That's a good question. I have some details for you, and we're going to get into it. Right now, what I'd like to do, though, is bring in my guests regarding this story as well, and joining us now are Elizabeth Cavendish. She's the legal director for the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League. Welcome.

ELIZABETH CAVENDISH, ABORTION RIGHTS ATTORNEY: Thank you. It's nice to be here today.

NEVILLE: Good. Thank you. And Kay Schwarzberg, a family law attorney specializing in parents' rights issues. And again, welcome to both of you to the show.

Elizabeth, I'm going to begin with you. Are you surprised that the judge's decision was overturned?

CAVENDISH: No. It was a foregone conclusion that the judge's decision would be overturned. The decisions last week entering injunctions were clearly erroneous, and a gross, egregious violation of the woman's right to privacy, and her rights under the Constitution as articulated in Roe v. Wade.

NEVILLE: Right, so what made this judge think that he could do this in the first place?

CAVENDISH: I have no idea. I wonder whether the anti-choice climate of the country has permeated so deeply that someone could be confused about a woman's legal rights. We are almost at the anniversary, the 30th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, and that right should be secure. It should be part of our constitutional fabric, yet people are still throwing these hurdles in the face of women, and it's just remarkable that a judge in the United States could ignore precedent as badly as happened last week in Pennsylvania.

NEVILLE: Kay, why do you think the judge thinks that he could have -- or thought he could have gotten away with this?

KAY SCHWARZBERG, FAMILY LAW ATTORNEY: Well, that I think the judge wasn't getting away with anything. What he was doing is entering into a temporary injunction, and what he was looking at was the fact that Roe v. Wade did not address the father's liberty interest. Roe v. Wade was really between the doctors and the states, and it addressed certain female issues, but it did not address the father's liberty issue. And that's maybe something that still needs to be resolved.

NEVILLE: Now, Kay, I wasn't sure. Is there room for appeal at this point? I mean, does the guy, the father have any further rights?

SCHWARZBERG: The father probably has further rights, but we are maybe not ready for this right now. We have had 30 years of fathers stepping up to the plate, and I think that we are just getting used to the idea that fathers care and they have procreative rights. They have rights as parents. And when we look at Roe v. Wade, it talks about those kinds of rights. We just haven't addressed them enough yet.

NEVILLE: OK. I'm going to you in a second, but I've got an interesting call on the line here. Chris, who is calling in, says that he went through this very same thing. Chris, tell us your story.

CHRIS: When I was 16, I had...

NEVILLE: And speak up for me, Chris.

CHRIS: ... When I was 16, which was about 12 years ago, I had unprotected sex, and my girlfriend at the time got pregnant. Her parents pushed her for an abortion, and I was totally against it. Me and my family went to the -- all the legal -- all the legal things we could go through and we had -- they just they told us there was no hope. I'm glad to see this stuff is finally coming to light. And I hope it does not get put on the back burner, because there need to be some guidelines for the father of the children out there.

NEVILLE: So, Kay, does this -- Chris, thank you very much for calling in, first of all. And Kay, does this particular situation open up a legal can of worms?

SCHWARZBERG: I don't think it opens up a legal can of worms. I think it asks us to think outside the box. I think we start having to ask ourselves, what are fathers' procreative rights? The rights of a parent include responsibilities -- include the responsibilities, not just the rights. What we are willing to do is we are willing to put men on the hook immediately for support, but we are not talking about what their rights as parents are and where their procreative rights start, and I think that's something we have to start considering. It's a very delicate issue. It's one that we have to have a lot of debate on, and I don't think that this decision is necessarily right. It's up to the attorneys who will handle this to take it as far as they can if they believe that there is a liberty interest that men have with regard to their procreative rights.

NEVILLE: OK, listen, I have Floselle (ph) here from Mississippi who wants to weigh in.

FLOSELLE: She said that her body was hers, but when him and her came together, they made another body, and that means that she's carrying part of his body within her. So he should have the right to say whether he wants his child or not.

NEVILLE: Interesting. Elizabeth, I haven't heard from you in a while. What are your thoughts?

CAVENDISH: Well, what this articulation of fathers' rights is saying is that he should be able to hijack her body for a number of months to grow his child, or his alleged child, and we think that that goes too far. That in the end, the law has to decide who should make the decision. Should it be the woman or the man? And in most instances, a woman and a man will make a decision together. But when they disagree, should people be able to run into court and tie up women's rights and have women's privacy so violated, as occurred in this case.

We think the burdens of pregnancy fall on the woman, and so she should decide about a pregnancy. The rights are different once a baby is born, and then the best interests of the child should control and men should be involved for sure at that stage, legally and morally.

SCHWARZBERG: We seem to want men to be involved, so we are willing to hijack their wallets, but we're not willing to talk about the rights earlier on when it comes to procreation. I certainly don't have the answer, but I certainly think we should start discussing those procreative rights. It's not Dolly, you know, the lamb...

NEVILLE: I'm going to interrupt you, because we're being interrupted, because we have some breaking news that we are going to find out about from Kyra Phillips -- Kyra.

(INTERRUPTED FOR CNN COVERAGE OF BREAKING NEWS)

NEVILLE: OK. Kyra, listen, we here are talking about a case out of Pennsylvania. A man took his former girlfriend to court to try to stop her from having an abortion. Do men have any legal rights in cases like these? This is what we are talking about. Maxine from Florida, what do you say?

MAXINE: Right. I don't agree with it, because, one, it's all good when the guys will say they are going to be there, because I am a single mother and I have a 19-year-old, and his dad said the same thing; he's not there right now. So it's all good for them to say they're going to be there when you need them, but when the child needs them, they are not there. So I think a woman has a right to do whatever she wants to do with her body. It's hers.

NEVILLE: Thank you very much. And, ma'am, would you stand up for me. Ericka (ph).

ERICKA: I don't think a man should ever, not ever have the right to tell a woman what to do with her own body, because he's never going to feel that pain when she has the baby and he's never going to be going through labor and he's never going to know how that feels. So -- and he's also, I mean, some men would be there to take care of the baby, but I still don't think that he should have the right to tell her what to do with her body.

NEVILLE: Thank you very much. Listen, we have a couple of e- mails that just came across. I'd like to go ahead and pop the first one on the screen. From Debbie in Oklahoma, and Debbie says: "I applaud the father for standing up and protecting his unborn child."

And I have got a man here in the audience who wants to speak out. I want to get your view as well, sir.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, I heard one person say the word "responsibility." And I believe there is a legal framework that's called marriage, where you make a commitment and you take care of your spouse. You both take care of each other, and you take care of your baby. And I think when you go making babies without a commitment, you are going to have these problems.

NEVILLE: Let me give you -- thank you, sir, first of all. Hang on. Wait. Come back -- come up here and say -- come on, Maxine.

MAXINE: Suppose you don't want to get married. You're going to force them?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Don't sleep with them.

MAXINE: You never know. You're a young person having sex. You don't know what might happen.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That's responsibility. Don't jump ahead of the game.

MAXINE: You have a lot of young people out there having unprotected sex. This is the real world.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And I say...

MAXINE: I'm a single mother. My son is 19 years old now, and I'm proud of him that he's going to college. His dad said, yes, I'm going to be there. Where is he? And I'm a proud single mother.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm glad you are proud. But I wish you would have said to him, we'll sleep together after you say "I do."

NEVILLE: But honestly -- thank you very much. Listen, honestly, Vick (ph) and Maxine, to both of you, thank you for standing up and expressing your opinions here. And the bottom line is unfortunately a lot of people -- where are you guys -- a lot of people are not abstaining, and that's like a whole other issue here.

But let me give you some information about this particular case, and Elizabeth, I want you to listen to this, because apparently Tanya had filed for protection from abuse order from John the boyfriend. She said he had threatened and harassed her since they broke up on July 22. Again, want to know when you hear something like this, how does that make you feel?

CAVENDISH: Well, it makes it clear to me that the law is correct where it stands now in giving the woman the right to decide. He can talk to her and she can talk to him all they want, but it steps over the line when he abuses her, and I think this type of court filing is a type of abuse in itself. It intrudes on her privacy, and it flies squarely in the face of all the law that says even husbands can't exercise a veto. Not just boyfriends and ex-boyfriends, but even a husband can't exercise a veto, and he was trying to veto her at a very vulnerable time in her decision-making.

NEVILLE: I have Ron from Pennsylvania.

RON: Yes. Thank you. I think your added information is very important to me, because I was going to bring up the psychological issues and the relation factors that may play a role in this case, particularly this line that I saw in the news. Meyers, the mother, is being pressured by her mother to have the procedure.

So my question would be then, is it really the mother's decision to have the abortion, or is it the grandmother's decision -- and that makes a whole lot of difference. So I think we need some more evaluations here.

NEVILLE: And let me add a little bit to that. This is according to the attorney of the boyfriend in this case. They are saying that -- the boyfriend's attorney says that they had names picked out, godparents picked out, but when Tanya's mother expressed concern and said, no, I don't like this guy and I certainly don't want you to have a baby with this guy, that's when abortion came to the forefront. And I guess, Kay, when you hear that, how does that make you feel?

SCHWARZBERG: Well, I worry about our personal protection order system, because on occasion it's abused. I'm certainly not saying that's the case here. I think we always need to look into the facts.

I think what we need to do with this issue is start deciding where our bright lines are. Should we create procreation rights for men when they don't marry, when they do marry, or ever. Those are the questions we need to ask, and we also have to ask whether in fact this was merely a device to gain some advantage in the judicial system, or whether there was really harassment or abuse. And we're not going to know unless we look at the facts.

NEVILLE: And Kay, I would like for you to comment on some of the comments that were made here, that people are saying, listen, you know, there are guys who say I'm going to be there, I'm really going to be there, but ultimately the woman will be there in most cases. SCHWARZBERG: Right now, we have a society in which women have taken on far too many roles. I think we have forgotten that we can't have it all. I think we have forgotten that we can't do everything, that there will always be a loss. I'm not sure sometimes whether we are going to be there as moms, because we sometimes find ourselves busy in the workplace.

But there are many fathers who love their children, who are alienated from them because of the process of divorce and also because of these kinds of things. What we need to do is start setting the standard of how we would like families to exist in our society, and that's part of what this issue is all about.

NEVILLE: OK. I'm going to give Aaron (ph) the last word on this one.

AARON: My question is, one, when are they going to come out of the box, because, basically, I say it's a money problem, because as a woman, they have the district attorney behind them. They don't have to get a lawyer, they don't have to get anything. The man has to go out and fight. He has to spend his money, got to get a lawyer. So I mean, there's a money problem in there, too, about filing these problems. And that's one of the legal problems with this, is money.

NEVILLE: Thanks, Aaron (ph) for standing up for me. I'm out of time here. I want to thank Kay Schwarzberg and Elizabeth Cavendish for joining us here today on TALKBACK LIVE. Great.

Next, we are going to talk about dead birds, mosquitoes and the West Nile virus. Should you be worried?

And later, should the man accused of murdering little Samantha Runnion fails the death penalty? The DA announces his decision later today. You'll tell us what you think about this. TALKBACK LIVE continues in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody. A state of emergency has been declared in Louisiana. California is organizing a chicken brigade. It's all in effort to ward off the West Nile virus, now making tracks across the United States. The virus has been identified in almost every state east of the Rocky Mountains, and while it has yet to move into or kill a single bird in California, that state is using some 2,000 chickens as a kind of front-line warning system for when the West Nile makes it to the West.

Meanwhile, in Louisiana, four people have died this year after being infected with the virus. A state of emergency has been declared there. Mosquito eradication efforts are under way, and people are being told to avoid the bloodsuckers by staying inside from dusk to dawn.

Joining us now is CNN medical correspondent Elizabeth Cohen, and Elizabeth, welcome to TALKBACK LIVE.

ELIZABETH COHEN, CNN MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Thank you.

NEVILLE: Always glad to have you here. First of all, Elizabeth, what exactly is the West Nile virus, and how does it manifest itself?

COHEN: Well, West Nile virus started -- they found the first case in humans in Uganda in 1937. It has been in the United States since 1999.

Let's take a look at what happened, sort of the cycle between animals and humans that brings West Nile virus to us. Mosquitoes get it. They get it from birds. They give it to birds. And it then continues on to the mosquitoes then bite the people, and get them sick.

Now, let's take a look. We also have a map that shows where it has been in the United States. I know the people are curious about that. We have mentioned the four deaths in Louisiana. Since 1999 until the present it's been in animals in those beige states. The states that are in beige is where they found it in animals, and then the dots show states where they have found it in people.

Now, what is interesting is the CDC just had a little sort of press conference today, and they said something that was very interesting. They said more people have been struck with West Nile virus this summer than any other summer since it was first identified in 1999. And Arthel, it's early in the summer. I mean, this is an August, September illness, and already on August 5, there's more human cases than any other summer.

NEVILLE: Did they happen to say why?

COHEN: You know what, they are not really sure. They think it might have to do with the species of mosquitoes that's carrying this -- they are not really sure why. But again, I do have to say, the CDC is very careful not to sort of get people all panicked. We are still talking about four people dead. Four is four too many, but we are still talking about four people dead, not hundreds and hundreds of people dead.

NEVILLE: Understood. But in the meantime, I have some questions here that I think other people want to know answers to, and that is, you know, how does a person know if he or she has been bitten by infected mosquitoes, you know if there are any symptoms?

COHEN: Absolutely. Now, if you are young and in pretty good health, you might not know, because you might get a headache, you might get a fever, you just might not feel great, you might get a rash, but you could attribute that to pretty much anything. So that's the mild form of West Nile virus. And some people are probably sick and don't know it.

Elderly people tend to get the more serious form, which is a very high fever. They can slip into a coma. They can become paralyzed. But you know, if you live in one of these states where West Nile virus is happening and you have one of these mild forms of illness and you are concerned, go to your doctor. I mean, it's worth it. NEVILLE: OK. And what should a person do if he or she is bitten by one of these infected mosquitoes?

COHEN: Well, you wouldn't know if you were bit by an infected mosquito unless you got sick. If you get sick, you can go to your doctor, and while there is no actual treatment for West Nile virus, they can give you what's called supportive care, just to make you feel better, keep your immune system in as good health as possible so that you can fight it off, so it doesn't become more severe.

NEVILLE: And you were saying earlier, you were you pointing out that we were talking about four deaths here. And I guess I also want to know what is a person's chance of being bitten by an infected mosquito.

COHEN: Well, I don't think we know that, but I can tell you what we do know.

NEVILLE: Sure.

COHEN: If you are bitten by an infected mosquito, there's a less than 1 percent chance that you are going to get seriously ill. So, right now, if an infected mosquito bit me, less than a 1 percent chance that you are going to get seriously ill. That number is higher if you are elderly or -- one of the four people who died was only in his 50s.

And people are saying, gosh, that's not old at all. He or she, the CDC now says, had some kind of an underlying illness that made them more vulnerable.

NEVILLE: I have an audience member in the back row.

Sir, I want to hear what your question is.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sure.

I'm from Louisiana and I do work outside. How do I protect myself from the West Nile Virus?

COHEN: That's a great question, because not everyone can stay in from dusk until dawn.

What you can do is, you can wear long clothing to try to cover yourself, and use mosquito repellent. And you can't always do this, but when you can, get rid of pools of standing water. If you -- for example, if your kid leaves a toy outside and water accumulates, thousands of bugs can grow in that water, especially if you live in Louisiana.

NEVILLE: I know.

COHEN: You know.

NEVILLE: And I'm from Louisiana, so I know about mosquitoes. COHEN: Right. So, you really want to get rid of those standing pools of water. Of course, you are not going to get rid of the bayous. They are there. And there's nothing you can do about that.

NEVILLE: We like the bayous.

COHEN: But mosquito repellent, long clothing.

NEVILLE: What those mosquito zappers? Do those help?

COHEN: I don't think that they get everything. The CDC says that those are really the only two things that can really keep you protected. I know there's a ton of different things out there, but those are the only two things that are more or less known.

NEVILLE: And what about mosquito repel with deet? Can you use that on small children?

COHEN: You want it to have deet. With children, you want it to have less than 10 percent deet. You want it to be a slightly weaker kind. And you want to be real careful. You don't want them getting it on their hands or putting it in their eyes. You want to apply it to them. Don't let them apply it to themselves.

NEVILLE: Right. And I understand, for adults, you have to have, what, 35 percent, because anything above that doesn't do any extra

(CROSSTALK)

COHEN: Right. You want to stop at that number.

NEVILLE: I see.

Well, listen, that's definitely something that was on people's minds, so I'm glad you came down to answer some seemingly rather basic questions. But that's what people need to know, the basics on a story like this, before it gets way out of control.

COHEN: Absolutely.

NEVILLE: Elizabeth Cohen, thank you very much.

COHEN: My pleasure.

NEVILLE: Nice to see you.

OK, listen, up next: How would you punish the brutal killer of 5-year-old Samantha Runnion? Should the DA go for the death penalty? We'll check the mood in California right after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody.

Do you think the district attorney will seek the death penalty in the murder of 5-year-old Samantha Runnion? Apparently, all depends on whether the crime fits into a special-circumstances category. The DA is expected to announce some time in the next hour whether suspect Alejandro Avila's alleged crimes meet those standards.

CNN's Thelma Gutierrez joins us now in Santa Ana, California.

And, Thelma, I want to ask you if there are any leaks or advanced word on what the DA might do.

THELMA GUTIERREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Arthel, I can tell you, if the district attorney, Tony Rackauckas, has made a decision, he certainly has not made it public at this point.

We understand, though, that he did meet with Samantha Runnion's mother last Wednesday to discuss the facts of this case and then two days later -- I'm sorry. He met with her on Monday. And then two days later, he met with Alejandro Avila's defense attorney also to take into account what they might have to say. We understand that he spent the weekend mulling over the facts of the case and coming up with a decision.

NEVILLE: And talk about the special-circumstances committee. How does that committee make its decision to determine whether or not there is special circumstances?

GUTIERREZ: Well, Arthel, there is a committee that is made up of five people, including the district attorney. It's made up of the district attorney and four senior prosecutors who have experience in death-penalty cases.

Now, they are going to review the case. They review the evidence. And then they compare it to other death-penalty cases. And then they make a recommendation to the DA. And, of course, we are still waiting for his decision.

NEVILLE: OK, Thelma Gutierrez, thank you very much for that update. And, of course, when the word comes down, we'll take you live right here on CNN.

And joining us now are Matthew Mangino, a district attorney in Pennsylvania, and Jeralyn Merritt, a criminal defense attorney who was one of the principal defense attorneys for Timothy McVeigh.

And I want to welcome both of you to TALKBACK LIVE.

JERALYN MERRITT, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Hi.

MATTHEW MANGINO, PENNSYLVANIA DISTRICT ATTORNEY: It's good to be here.

NEVILLE: Jeralyn, you're up first on this one.

Should Avila get the death penalty?

MERRITT: I don't believe anyone should get the death penalty. I don't believe it's an appropriate punishment. I think life in prison without the possibility of parole is actually a far more severe sentence, in the sense that the offender has to live with the crime every day until they die.

The death penalty is extremely expensive. It costs a few million dollars to prosecute death-penalty case through the appeals, while it only costs about $20,000 to keep someone in prison. And most importantly, it doesn't deter crime. States that don't have the death penalty actually have a lower incidence of violent crime than states that do.

NEVILLE: Matthew, how do you see it?

MANGINO: Well, I believe that this is an appropriate case for the death penalty.

As I understand the law in California, once you have met that threshold of first-degree murder, if there are special circumstances that exist, a jury will then decide whether the death penalty is the appropriate sanction. And the special circumstances here are kidnapping, molestation of a child, anybody under the age of 14 who has sexual contact. Also, this may even fall under the special circumstance of an atrocious crime.

So, certainly, I think that there are special circumstances here that exist and that the death penalty is an appropriate sanction.

NEVILLE: What about Jeralyn's idea that putting him to death is the easy way out for him?

MANGINO: Well, I don't agree with that at all.

Certainly, I think that the death penalty is in fact a deterrent. Although death-penalty opponents have argued for years that it isn't, there are studies -- recently at the University of Houston, Emory University, University of North Carolina -- that have all found that in fact the death penalty is a deterrent.

And if you think about it logically, in this kind of cause-and- effect society that we live in, if we punish people more severely based on the severity of the crime, why wouldn't the death penalty as that ultimate sanction for first-degree murder, premeditated murder, why would that not be a deterrent? It is in fact a deterrent.

MERRITT: Because people do not go out and -- most crimes are committed in the heat of passion or they are committed by people that just are not able to help themselves, such as these sexual offenders, kidnappers, things like that. You think they are really going to say, "Gee, I might get the death penalty if I commit this crime, so I better not do it"? That is not going to deter them.

MANGINO: I certainly think that some criminals do in fact pause and think about the death penalty when they are in the process of committing a crime.

And not only that, when we talk about heat of passion, that's not a fair analysis here, because heat of passion is not the kind of homicide in which someone would get the death penalty. The death penalty is for people who lay in wait, who premeditate, who plan out the murder of an innocent. Those people deserve the death penalty.

MERRITT: How about the fact that it is imposed in this country in a racially discriminatory manner? Why should we have a death penalty at all when we now know that innocent people are being sent to death row and the fact that the majority of the people sentenced to death in this country are minorities?

MANGINO: Again, you are incorrect about that. And race is not a factor.

In fact, the NAACP commissioned a study of the Georgia death penalty and found that race was not an effect in the process with regard to the death penalty. And not only that, if we are going to look at minorities, some people suggest, well, 42 percent of people on death row are black and only represent 13 percent of the population, when in fact 51 percent of the homicides committed in this country are committed by blacks. So we need to be honest about what the facts are when we discuss this.

MERRITT: Well, you are not being honest, because the vast majority of minorities on death row are there for killing a white person. And those cases receive more death-penalty attention than cases where both the victim and the offender are the same race or are minorities.

MANGINO: Again, I don't believe...

NEVILLE: OK, listen, excuse me. I'm going to jump in there, because I have to take a break.

I have got Patrice here in the audience who wants to speak out. I have a caller from Louisiana. That would be Kayla (ph).

Kayla, hang on for me.

After the break, we'll continue talking about this particular story, so don't go anyway -- anywhere. I'm reading these words and I'm not saying what the words say.

You know what? I'm coming back after the break, OK? Don't go anywhere.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody.

We are talking about asking for the death penalty in the Samantha Runnion murder case.

Patrice, what do you say?

PATRICE: Well, I agree with both of the analysts.

On the one hand, I think that he should get the death penalty, because he should be an example to other people who commit this crime. But, on the other hand, I believe that he should go to jail to suffer, like the young lady did.

NEVILLE: Thank you very much.

And we have a call coming in from Louisiana from Kayla.

Kayla, what do you say?

CALLER: I don't believe in the death penalty. But in this case, I do, because he killed a little girl who couldn't defend herself. And I think that's really wrong. I think he should get the death penalty for that, because you shouldn't do things like that. But I understand that both -- I think he should because it was a murder of a little 5-year-old who couldn't defend herself.

NEVILLE: And that touches on an important issue that I was thinking about, too.

Matthew, this is quite an emotional case. Do you think that's going to weigh in on any decisions that will be made?

MANGINO: Well, it shouldn't. And I don't think that it will.

A prosecutor does have to set aside emotion in a situation like this. Certainly, public sentiment, as we can hear by the callers and what people are commenting in the audience, want to see somebody that commits a murder like this to be punished for that murder. But I think that a prosecutor needs to pause for a moment, to and step back, and to set aside emotion and make a decision based on the law.

And I think, in this particular situation, it's not a difficult decision, because the law is clear. It's first-degree murder. The special circumstances, they exist: kidnapping, molestation, a very egregious crime. I think that this is an easy decision.

MERRITT: That may be for whether or not the prosecutor should charge the death penalty. But that isn't a reason by which to convict someone and impose the death penalty.

The heinousness of the crime is but one factor that the jury will be told to consider. They are also going to be told to weigh mitigating factors pertaining to this particular offender. And we don't know enough about Mr. Avila right now to say he should be put to death if he is convicted. We don't know anything about his life, his background, his mental state. We don't know whether he is mentally ill. We don't know whether he suffers from mental retardation.

We don't know what has happened to him in his past. Let's wait and not decide that he should get the death penalty, even should the DA decide today to charge it.

NEVILLE: And, Jeralyn, does it make it more difficult to get a conviction if the death penalty is at issue?

MERRITT: It actually makes it easier, because, in order to serve on a jury in which the death penalty is going to be an option, that jury has to be what we call death qualified. They all have to say during initial examination that they would be willing, in an appropriate case, to impose the death penalty.

So, you do not have any death-penalty opponents on that jury. And it's usually easier to get a conviction for the crime itself with a death-qualified jury than it is a regular jury.

NEVILLE: OK, let me let Todd from Georgia jump in here.

TODD: I have always believed in the punishment aspect. If he did the crime, this horrible, vicious crime, he deserves to die. The hard part is the idea that the deterrent does not work. You wish that, by killing him, it would make other people think about it and not do it. But like everyone says, these people aren't thinking when they do it. They're not saying, "If I do this, I might be killed."

It drives me crazy. We argue about it, because the death penalty should happen. This person should be punished. But it's not working to the effect that people hope it would.

NEVILLE: So, then what do you think? Life in prison is better?

TODD: Considering how bad prison is, yes.

NEVILLE: Better as a deterrent?

TODD: Yes. They suffer more in prison than they do having year after year of appeal, how much it cost for all the appeals. But then, at the same time, it's that balance of, this guy deserves to die. Society should have not have him. He shouldn't be a part of society.

MANGINO: Well, cost should not be a factor. And I think that death-penalty opponents have done a good job of using cost as a tool to fight or oppose the death penalty.

To argue that cost is a factor when death-penalty opponents file frivolous appeals and clog up the appellate court system with appeals with regard to death-penalty cases, it is not really a fair argument to make. I don't think that cost is really a factor. And if you look at life in prison without the possibility of parole, and the health care costs and the geriatric costs and the other costs associated with the maintenance of a prisoner for the rest of their life, those costs will far outweigh any appellate costs that are incurred with regard to the death penalty.

(CROSSTALK)

MERRITT: That is absolutely not true.

NEVILLE: Go ahead, Jeralyn.

MERRITT: The cost of the death penalty through the appellate stage in this country can range anywhere from $2 million to $8 million, were the last statistics that I have seen.

(CROSSTALK)

MANGINO: And you don't think it will cost more than $8 million to house somebody for 50 years?

MERRITT: No, it's $20,000 to 25,000 to keep a person in jail.

MANGINO: For 50 years.

MERRITT: There is absolutely no equivalency in the costs.

MANGINO: That's an outrageous position to take.

With geriatric costs, with medical costs, with the simple maintenance of an inmate for 50 years or 60 years or whatever the span of their life is, those costs will certainly outrun and outlast any costs incurred in appellate review.

MERRITT: They don't. They don't. That's under a million dollars.

NEVILLE: OK, so I'm jumping in there because I have to take a break right now. I have John standing by from Iowa, who wants to jump in. I have several people here in the audience. I have an e-mail coming across. And I have some interesting results from a poll that I want to share with you.

So you want it stay put. TALKBACK LIVE continues after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

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

We are talking about whether the killer of Samantha Runnion deserves to face the death penalty.

And, as promised, I'm going to go to Iowa now, where John is standing by on the phone.

CALLER: Hi. Hello?

NEVILLE: Hello, John. You are on the air.

CALLER: Yes, I'm calling in regards to the female that is addressing people, stating that it only costs $20,000 to keep a prisoner in jail. That is a year. That's not his whole lifetime.

MERRITT: That's right. I said that, $20,000 to $25,000 a year.

CALLER: And, No. 2, this isn't a race issue brought up here. We got totally off track. We were talking about a young gal. This has nothing to do with race.

MERRITT: What about Mr. Avila? He isn't a minority?

CALLER: That doesn't matter. What he did is an outright crime and should be punished by death. And if you feel different, then I think you should read into the picture more. And, to be honest with you, I would be the one to pull the switch on him. NEVILLE: OK, John, listen, thank you very much for calling in. I have an audience comment from Ed.

ED: I'm a Merritt also and I'm not related to Jeralyn.

And I don't like to have people or animals killed, but I believe he deserves the death penalty. DNA proves that he's guilty.

MERRITT: We haven't had a trial yet, though.

NEVILLE: Right, we don't know if he's

(CROSSTALK)

MERRITT: Don't you think we should have a trial, where the evidence comes in in a courtroom?

ED: Sure. We'll go through the trial. And I bet the judge or the DA will give him the death penalty.

NEVILLE: Listen, I'm going to go ahead and punch up a Gallup poll, some results, and share that with you.

The question was: "Should people get the death penalty if convicted of murder?" And 72 percent said yes, 25 percent opposed.

And, Jeralyn, I ask you if that surprises you at all.

MERRITT: It doesn't. It actually is far less today than it was 10 years ago or 20 years ago. And I think a lot of that has to do with the fact that people are seeing that innocent people are being sent to death row. There is actually a movement of the public away from the death penalty now.

NEVILLE: OK, I have got Danielle from Georgia.

DANIELLE: I don't think that it needs to be about race or money at all anymore. He did it. He needs to die. It's as simple as that.

NEVILLE: We are not sure if he did it yet. But I understand what you are saying. I'm certainly not taking up for this guy.

Let me quickly -- Gloria, quickly, what do you have to say? Turn around right there.

GLORIA: If putting him to death today would stop this kind of thing, put him to death. But it's not. There are folk watching this show right now that are contemplating the same type of crime. Trust me. Pray. Protect yourself. Protect your children.

NEVILLE: OK, Matthew Mangino, Jeralyn Merritt, thank you so much for joining me today.

MANGINO: Thank you for having me.

NEVILLE: The Orange County district attorney will be holding a news conference moments from now at 4:00 Eastern to announce whether or not he will seek the death penalty for Alejandro Avila. CNN will, of course, bring you that live.

And tune in to CNN's "CROSSFIRE" tonight at 7:00 p.m. Best- selling author Ann Coulter will guest host on the right, along with "CROSSFIRE" host Paul Begala on the left.

And INSIDE POLITICS is right up next.

I'm Arthel Neville. We'll see you tomorrow.

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