Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Crossfire

How Should Sex be Discussed in America's Classrooms?; Should Cameras be Allowed in Blake Trial?

Aired April 23, 2002 - 19:30   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.
CROSSFIRE, on the left, James Carville and Paul Begala. On the right, Robert Novak and Tucker Carlson. In the CROSSFIRE tonight: The subject is sex the question is, how should it be discussed in America's classrooms? Dr. Ruth joins our debate.

Lights, cameras, justice? As TV turns its cameras on the Robert Blake murder case, we look at what impact the glare of publicity has on high-profile trials.

Lone star lefty and the bow tie brawler tangle over the issues. Ahead on CROSSFIRE. From the George Washington University, Paul Begala and Tucker Carlson.

PAUL BEGALA, CO-HOST: Good evening and welcome to CROSSFIRE. We're coming to you live from the George Washington University in beautiful downtown Washington, D.C. Tonight's line up, cameras in the courtroom of the latest Hollywood murder case. Should the American people be denied the chance to become transfixed to the TV screen during the Robert Blake trial, the way we were during O.J. Supporters say taxpayers foot the bill for the trial, they ought to be open to the public, including public cameras. Naysayers say cameras lead to a media circus, robbing defendants of their right to a fair trial.

We'll cross-examine two expert guests on that later in the CROSSFIRE. But first, sex. That was the hot topic on Capitol Hill today, a pretty racy one for a place usually only gets steamed up by debating choloforcarbon (ph) emissions.

A House subcommittee held hearings today on whether $50 million of your money should be spent on programs that teach students only abstinence, rather than programs that combine abstinence with instruction on various forms of birth control. Now, studies indicate that 70 percent of young people have had sex by the time they turn 18. Why do I get the feeling I missed out on something on my prom?

Does signing a true love waits abstinence pledge card really work? Or is it better to tell kids everything they need to know about sex, but are afraid to ask. That is our first topic tonight in the CROSSFIRE.

Tucker, this seems like a no-brainer, that we ought to be able to tell our kids what not to do in a back seat of a car. TUCKER CARLSON, CO-HOST: Let me just say I'm sorry about your prom, Paul, but not surprised. I think we can tell our kids what to do in the back seat of the car. The question is, who tells them? You as a parent, me as a parent or some federal bureaucrat who gets to impose his crackpot views about sex on my kids. No, I'm totally against it.

I don't tell other people's children what sort of religion to believe in. I don't tell them what sort of prophylactics to use.

BEGALA: Sex, while important, is certainly not religion. It's not a separation between sex and state, thank God. We ought to have qualified teachers.

CARLSON: Well maybe there ought to be. Speaking of teachers, we have two tonight. Let's welcome them. Joining us from New York, famed sex therapist, Dr. Ruth Westheimer. With us here in Washington, Sandy Rios, who is the president of concerned women for America. Here they are.

(APPLAUSE)

Dr. Ruth, thanks for joining us. And what about that, what Paul and I were just talking about. Why should someone who is not the parent of my child get to tell my child his or her opinions about something as private and personal and significant as sex? Isn't that my job? Aren't I the only person who ought to get to lecture my kids about sex?

DR. RUTH WESTHEIMER: OK, first of all, I don't think that it should be the school's only. I think it has to be a combination of the parents, the schools, the churches, the synagogues, everybody together. First of all, that word abstinence, you on CROSSFIRE, cross it out.

Don't even mention it because what we have to say is for some people, depending on their religious values, they are going to say we'll wait. Let's use the word wait. But for other people, we have to continue to be able to teach about relationships, about love, about companionship and about contraception.

CARLSON: But isn't that...

WESTHEIMER: And I think -- I think that the government, I don't care if it's left or right, and I only care about the education. The government should stay out of it.

CARLSON: Well, then you make my point for me Dr. Ruth that some people think their children ought to wait until they are married. Some recommend the IUD over condoms to their kids. They have different views on it. And so when the government -- so why should the government be involved at all? Why shouldn't the whole business be left up to parents? And if parents choose, say, their spiritual counselor, but why are schools involved at all?

WESTHEIMER: Now, look, I don't want schools or you on CROSSFIRE not even to George Washington University students, to give out condoms. It's not your function. Your function on television, left and right, is to educate. Is to say for some people the right thing is to wait, and for other people, everybody has to be sexually literate. Everybody has to know about sexually transmitted disease, about preparing for a wonderful sex life for the rest of their lives. And not to kind of drag it in, not into the (UNINTELLIGIBLE) and not into politics. It doesn't belong there.

BEGALA: Sorry to interrupt. I do want to bring Sandy Rios in here. Sandy, thank you for joining us. I want to the show you a picture from my university. I went to the University of Texas at Austin. And there's this beautiful fountain there at the center of campus. Called Littlefield Fountain. If you look closer, you see that these are horses there at the bottom. And there are bronze men who ride those horses, there they are right there. And legend has it, the University is only about 120 years old, that when a virgin graduates from the University of Texas, they'll get up and fly around the campus. And they took a spin when I graduated, but nobody else.

Isn't there a lot of hypocrisy here? Aren't people trying to tell young people to do what they themselves did not do?

SANDY RIOS, PRESIDENT, CONCERNED WOMEN FOR AMERICA: Yes, I think that that's the essence of the problem, Paul. My generation did not control themselves. And our children are reaping the benefits of that, with 50% broken marriages.

We have really left a very sad legacy for our kids, because we did not control ourselves. But I reject the notion that it isn't possible. It was possible for us, it's just that no one told us how to do it. I have seen with my own children, that if you teach them properly and you give them the reasons, they can abstain and they are better for it.

BEGALA: But the only thing you seem to want to teach is abstinence. And this is the difference, here's Dr. Ruth's manual, "Human Sexuality: A Psychological Perspective," this is packed with information, maybe a little more frank than young kids would need.

This is your strategy: We show them a stop sign. We just say, we are going to keep you in the dark, be ignorant about human sexuality. But just don't do it. Isn't it better to give kids the facts?

RIOS: Well, let's look at the evidence, when I was growing up we had a certain amount of sex education. But trust me, very small. And, you know, I hardly -- I could count on one hand the number of girls that I knew that got pregnant. And we knew very little about sex until we got to college. And now we know everything about sex and teen pregnancy is exponential. So you tell me what's better.

BEGALA: Well, in point of fact, teen pregnancy is down. It was up...

RIOS: Yes, because of abstinence programs.

BEGALA: Now, actually, it was up if you look at the '86 to '91 period, which was the Reagan-Bush era. It went up 24 percent. If you look at the Clinton years, it went down 22 percent.

RIOS: Well, in '96 Clinton signed the welfare reform act. Which funded abstinence, Paul.

BEGALA: It had some of that, but it had mostly abstinence plus. Not abstinence only, an enormous difference.

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: People looked at him, and said I don't want to get into that, I am being abstinent.

Dr. Ruth...

WESTHEIMER: May I say something?

CARLSON: Yes, go ahead.

WESTHEIMER: OK, I don't say that Sandy should now tell everybody go out and do it, certainly not. I am saying we in this great country of ours has the best scientifically validated data about human sexual functioning that has ever been available. We have to say to young people, learn, then use it when it fits your values, when it fits your religious beliefs, but I, as an educator, have an obligation to talk to you about those things. And you know what? In this country, it is working.

We have less unintended pregnancies. If we now go and say abstinence, we are going to have more back seat sex because it's forbidden. We are --

(CROSSTALK)

RIOS: Dr. Ruth, can I ask her a question? Dr. Ruth, I'm serious about something. When you were growing up, did you have all the details about sex when you were in school? Did you learn all of this before you were 18?

WESTHEIMER: I couldn't hear that.

RIOS: Did you -- when you were in school, did you have all of this detailed sexual information before you were 18? And the second part to the question is were a lot of your friends pregnant? Did they somehow not have as good as sex by the time they were 21 because they didn't know all the details? I don't believe that.

WESTHEIMER: First of all, the one thing we have to put on the table is that people who educate with humor, with proper respect for (UNINTELLIGIBLE) and values, we today are better off than we were ever.

RIOS: I don't think so. Dr. Ruth, we have more sexually transmitted diseases than we have ever had.

(CROSSTALK) It is, actually, one out of four teenagers that is sexually active has been infected by an STD. And these cannot be cured. We are not better off sexually.

CARLSON: May I ask you a question, Dr. Ruth, very quickly. Do you think that it's -- we can all agree because to some extent we do impose our values on children. That's what it means to be a parent, obviously. Can we agree can a 14-year-old should, under no circumstances, have sex? I think we can probably agree on that. Then why not tell a 14-year-old, under no circumstances, have sex?

WESTHEIMER: I agree with you that I will say to young people, don't just do it because there is pressure. Wait for the first sexual experience until you love him, until you love her because you will never forget that first sexual experience. Make sure you are protected. But to say there is now going to be a discussion, we have so many other problems...

RIOS: Dr. Ruth, can I ask you a question?

WESTHEIMER: Wait. We have so many other problems. So I don't want...

RIOS: Yes, we do. When you tell a 14-year-old child to not have sex until they find that perfect person and enjoy it mutually, then what do you say when that same child comes to your office in deep, dark depression because that relationship has broken up because sex is very powerful. And when a child is suicidal or depressed because it has broken up, what do you say then, how much fun it was?

WESTHEIMER: I have to say to you that we can't here and say that we have to now legislate those feelings. What we have to say is when that young person decides, not you and not me, when that young -- I'm not talking about a 14-year-old.

I'm old-fashioned. I'm a square. I'm saying about an older or young adult or an older teenager, then we have an obligation to make the information available, to make contraception available and not to go on scare techniques. Scare techniques do not work, not even on CROSSFIRE.

CARLSON: Well, and we specialize in scare tactics here, Dr. Ruth, as you know well. We're going to take a quick break. Have no fear, we'll be back in a moment with more steamy sex talk.

And then, our "Quote of the Day." Here's the first hint: She's the most powerful person in the federal government you may not recognize and now she's leaving. We'll be back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. We are back, as usual, with more sex. The issue: teaching abstinence in schools. Is it the best approach? Is it even working? Our guests tonight, sex therapist Dr. Ruth Westheimer and Sandy Rios, president of Concerned Women for America. BEGALA: Sandy Rios, I want to read you a comment from someone who is not a liberal and not a Democrat, Colin Powell, a man who before he became secretary of state after leaving the military, ran a foundation that cared for troubled youth. Here's what Colin Powell had to say about sex education. It's up on the screen here: "It's important that the whole international community come together, speak candidly about it, forget about taboos, forget about conservative ideas with respect to what you should tell young people about. It's the lives of young people that are put at risk by unsafe sex. And, therefore, protect yourself."

Colin Powell on MTV...

WESTHEIMER: I love that man!

BEGALA: ... to America's youth. He was right, wasn't he?

WESTHEIMER: I want to...

BEGALA: I do too, Dr. Ruth. I do too, Dr. Ruth.

(CROSSTALK)

RIOS: Colin Powell is very good with the protection that he knows. But when it comes to sex, he is badly misinformed. Safe sex is not possible with condoms...

WESTHEIMER: Sandy, don't you say that.

RIOS: Condoms does not prevent many of the STDs, hardly any of them. And our kids, the kids sitting in this audience, are at risk for -- there are...

CARLSON: Dr. Ruth...

WESTHEIMER: Sandy, I wish I was there.

(CROSSTALK)

BEGALA: I do too. I would give anything if you were here, but I've got to ask you to let Sandy finish first, Doctor. Go ahead, Sandy.

RIOS: I respect Colin Powell, but I have to tell you about this subject, he is very badly uninformed. STDs are growing exponentially. A lot of the kids probably sitting out here are people who have herpes, papilloma virus, many of the things...

BEGALA: We have in fact a plastic sheet between us and -- you don't need to worry.

RIOS: But you know what I'm talking about. One out of four of sexually active young people has a sexually transmitted disease, and there is not a cure.

WESTHEIMER: First of all, we are not sure. These are scare techniques. I need to see...

RIOS: No, it's not. Dr. Ruth, they are...

WESTHEIMER: ... scientifically validated data.

RIOS: No. I'm sorry. You're wrong about this.

CARLSON: Actually, Dr. Ruth, I think I have that. I have scientifically validated data.

(CROSSTALK)

WESTHEIMER: I want you say to those young people to be careful...

RIOS: Dr. Ruth, in the congressional hearings today, all of this evidence was entered. This is not make believe.

CARLSON: Well, actually, if I could come at you from the point of view of science for a moment, Dr. Ruth. The National Institutes of Health calculated that 15 percent -- that condoms, in addition to being slimy and smelly, also prevent the transmission of 15 percent of AIDS cases. They are not full-proof. Isn't it like telling a smoker to switch to light cigarettes? It doesn't keep you from getting sick.

WESTHEIMER: We are going to have contraceptive failures. We are going to have problems. That's why we need to educate because those students and the ones in high school have to know that this is a fantastic wonderful subject matter to discuss, even on your program. But when to be sexually active, everybody has to decide. And Colin Powell knows that scare techniques, even from World War II, don't work. They just don't...

CARLSON: But, Dr. Ruth, I mean, if it's true that condoms don't prevent AIDS, at least in 15 percent of the cases, why is it a scare tactic to tell children that?

RIOS: I want to hear the answer to this.

WESTHEIMER: Because what we need to do is to say more education. We need to say relationship. Two young people...

RIOS: I have a question for you.

WESTHEIMER: Wait, I want to finish my sentence. Two young people...

RIOS: Do you know who was really big on education?

WESTHEIMER: ... have to have a relationship and then to decide if they are going to be sexually active.

RIOS: Dr. Ruth, do you know that human papilloma virus is responsible for 99 percent of cervical cancers? Nearly 4,000 women a year die of cervical cancer, and that's because they get STDs because condoms do not protect from this. This is what's happening. And you call that a scare tactic. I call it wise. I want my daughter to know that. Don't you?

WESTHEIMER: You should tell your daughter to listen to your values. I have no problem with that. But you should not say on a fantastic CNN program that we can now...

RIOS: No. They can just hear your values on CNN.

WESTHEIMER: Wait, no. I am not saying somebody shouldn't wait. I'm saying that we have to educate, that everybody has to make that decision.

BEGALA: Dr. Ruth Westheimer, I want to thank you so much for joining us. I'm sorry to cut you off, Dr. Ruth, but we are out of time. Sandy Rios, thank you very much as well for joining us.

RIOS: Thank you, Paul.

BEGALA: Both of you did a terrific job.

And coming up next on CROSSFIRE, this man is trying a new career as a playwright. And, surprise, surprise, he's getting rave reviews at home. Details in the CROSSFIRE "News Alert."

And our "Quote of the Day." Here hint No. 2: She worked for her boss since his days as governor. Now she's returning to her roots. Back with the answer in a minute.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Welcome back. And now for the full story, the rest of the story. Look no further than the CROSSFIRE "News Alert."

In Providence, Rhode Island, Mayor Vincent "Buddy" Cianci went on trial today on federal bribery charges. Observers noted the striking similarities between Cianci's case and that of Congressman Jim Traficant, the other 60th politician accused and recently convicted of corruption.

Both men have cultivated eccentric images. Traficant wears polyester clothing. Cianci sells his own pasta sauce. Both men were accused of abusing their power and both of them had done it before, or at least accused of doing it. In the early 1980's, Traficant stood trial for bribery, Cianci for beating his wife's boyfriend with a fireplace log and burning him with a cigarette. Perhaps most significant, both Traficant and Cianci have unusual hair. Each has been accused of wearing a toupee. Coincidence or an example of follicular profiling by the U.S. attorney's office? The jury will decide.

BEGALA: In a break with her usually restrained public image, Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britain plans to lead a nationwide sing- along of the Beatles hit "All You Need is Love." The royal songfest is part of the festivities marking the queen's Golden Jubilee, 50 years on the British throne.

On June 3, musicians in 21 cities throughout the United Kingdom will take their cue from Her Majesty for the event, which will be broadcast live by the BBC. Then, if all goes according to plan, Her Majesty will lead her empire in singing the Lennon/McCartney classic. Of course, Great Britain has a rich history of singing queens. For example, Boy George.

CARLSON: Memo to protesters: Paul Begala said that, I did not.

Strong man, mass murderer or charter member of the axis of evil and now noted playwright. Add a new title to Saddam Hussein's growing list. The Iraqi dictator's second novel, a romantic drama titled "Zabiba (ph) and the King" has been adapted for the Baghdad stage. Iraq's ministry of culture has called the play, not surprisingly, quote, "the biggest production ever." The plot has been described as a love story with at least one rape. It opens Friday. Attendance is expected to be outstanding, mostly because it's required.

BEGALA: The mother of all plays.

Time now for the CROSSFIRE "Quote of the Day." She says her power job at the White House has been the thrill of a lifetime, but White House counselor Karen Hughes, one of the president's closest confidants, is calling it quits and returning to her beloved home state of Texas with her husband and her young son.

Explaining why she's doing it, Hughes said, our "Quote of the Day", quote, "I guess we were a little homesick." Tucker, being from Texas and knowing Karen, I have to say I understand that fully. Everybody in Washington is abuzz about ulterior motives. The truth is, she loves her kid. It's a killer job. And I don't support her policies, but I'm grateful she served her country.

CARLSON: Well, then good for her. My only hope -- and it's really a prayer -- is that she's replaced with someone who leaks. We need more people talking to the press in the administration and I hope her successor does.

BEGALA: She was wonderfully loyal. I give her a lot of credit. Karen, come on CROSSFIRE now that you're free from Bush.

Coming up next, a deadly collision in California. The CNN news desk will have that in our CNN "News Alert."

And cameras in the court. Should we let them roll during the Robert Blake trial, or keep them out to keep things under control? That will be the debate with guests in the CROSSFIRE when we return in a minute.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BEGALA: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE.

Cameras in the courtroom, an American right or an American injustice? The already much hyped murder trial of actor Robert Blake could be coming to a TV set near you, but not if Blake's attorney has his way. Harland Braun is asking the judge to keep the cameras out. Why shouldn't we be able to watch every second of this and other trials? And will the Robert Blake trial be just another cheap remake of an earlier hit that starred O.J. Simpson, Johnny Cochran and Mark Furhman? We're going to toss these issues to guests.

Please welcome former federal prosecutor John Sale. He joins us from Miami. And joining us from New York, our new CNN legal analyst, Jeffrey Toobin. Gentlemen, thank you very much.

CARLSON: Jeffrey Toobin, thanks for joining us. Welcome to CNN.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Great to be with you.

CARLSON: Excellent, thank you. Harland Braun made, I thought, a good point today. Probably the only believable thing he'll say for some time. But here's what he said. Arguing against cameras in the courtroom in which this trial's going to unfold, he said "normal people don't want to go into court and be embarrassed on TV."

It's a valid point. Why should witnesses in this case, why should anybody in this case have to go on television if they don't want to?

TOOBIN: Tucker, I don't think you got the memo. See, you're supposed to be a conservative. You're supposed to believe that it's the public's government, not the -- it doesn't belong to government bureaucrats.

What you're suggesting is that some bureaucrat...

CARLSON: Oh, I believe that.

TOOBIN: ...a judge, should be able to decide who gets to hear what goes on in his own courtroom. That's not the judge's courtroom. It's our courtroom. And we deserve to see everything that goes on there.

CARLSON: I must say that was a pretty good impression of a conservative argument, Jeffrey Toobin...

TOOBIN: Oh, OK.

CARLSON: ...but no dice for you on two counts. One, we already can find out what happens in the courtroom, because we can read about it in the paper. Reporters are allowed in. But point two, and I think more to the point, there are a lot of things that we pay for, the public pay for, that we don't get to see unfold on television. Criminal investigations among them.

What takes place in the operating room of a public hospital included. And there are reasons that those things aren't televised. And one of those reasons is protect the privacy of the people involved. Why is this any different?

TOOBIN: Well, because this is, as you point out, a public proceeding. So you're suggesting that there should be a requirement that only an inferior technology be used, that denies people the right to see exactly what's going on. I'm a writer too. I think we do a great job, by and large. But there is no substitute, especially in today's day and age, for seeing what goes on itself. And I think most of the reason that cameras are kept out are to protect judges from embarrassment, and lawyers trying to advance a strategic interest.

But keep in mind something about what Harland Braun means when he says cameras should be kept out. If cameras are out, the only person appearing on the news talking about this case will be Harland Braun. He will control how this works, instead of getting the courtroom.

CARLSON: No, we'll have (INTELLIGIBLE) -- the second cousin on the show.

BEGALA: Let me turn to you first. Thank you for joining us. But let me pick and ask you to respond to the point that Jeffrey was making about why discriminate? Why let the pencil press in and not TV cameras? You know, Justice Brandeis famously said that sunshine was the best disinfectant. And cameras are really just sunshine, right?

JON SALE, FMR. FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: What's a trial all about? I mean, a trial is about a fair proceeding for both sides without unnecessary distractions. What could be more of a distraction?

Who can -- I know Jeffrey made a very good try, but who could deny that every participant in a trial will not be influenced by the fact that, oh, big deal, three or four people are watching me. I mean give me a break. I mean, we're all affected by the fact that we're on television. We're going to be thinking about how are we looking, how are we dressed? Is my tie on right?

This is not something that should be on the table when a life and death case is at issue. What's involved in that case? Come on, the Blake case, sex, rock 'n' roll, murder. That's what -- it's entertainment, but this is justice.

TOOBIN: I've covered a lot of trials that have been televised. And some have been televised and some haven't. And I have yet to see anyone prove that anyone has been affected in some way that materially affects the trial. I mean, it's simply a myth.

CARLSON: Oh, I must say that you must have missed a fascinating study done between 1991 and 1994 on federal courts. There's an experiment, something of an experiment, allowing cameras into some courtrooms.

And at the end, 60 percent of judges reported that having cameras in the courtroom affected the behavior of the attorneys, made them more theatrical, made them much more likely to make political statements, for instance, in the courtroom, and so affected presumably the outcome of the trials. Cameras made a real difference.

TOOBIN: The comment I've yet -- to see a trial of judges that -- Did somebody ever see a case called O.J. Simpson?

CARLSON: Hold on just one minute. Mr. Sale... TOOBIN: I knew we would get to that sooner or later, yes.

SALE: I've had judges over and over again say to me, I'm not going to have another O.J. Simpson trial. I mean, this has affected the public's perception of our justice system. What a circus that was.

TOOBIN: Well that's right because Judge Lance Ito did a terrible job keeping control of that courtroom. And 60 percent of judges in that study that Tucker just cited, they don't want to be embarrassed themselves. But I don't think it's up to them to decide whether their behavior, men and women, who were -- who have life tenure, should be entitled to decide whether we see how they do their jobs. It shouldn't be up to them. It should be up to us. It should be up to the people to decide whether we see what goes on in our name.

CARLSON: But then why, I mean, why have judges at all? If you're going to take -- let's assume that your power to the people argument is right. I mean, what is the -- I mean, the role of the judges, I understand it, is to maintain order in the courtroom, and if, among others, and if his ability to do his job or his behavior as Judge Ito's was is influenced by cameras, doesn't that throw off kilter the entire proceeding?

TOOBIN: No, you're suggesting that because Judge Ito did a bad job, which I certainly believe he did...

CARLSON: I'm suggesting cameras made him do a worse job.

TOOBIN: You know, I think he's responsible to deal with a high- profile case. And you have to manage all sorts of things. You can do it well or you can do it badly. You know, I covered the Diallo trial in upstate -- in Albany, where four white cops were charged with murdering a black citizen here in the Bronx.

That was an extremely politically charged case. And it was televised. And not only did the judge do a superb job, the fact that the public got to see what a difficult case that was, and how the police officers struggled with the decision. Even though you might disagree with the jury's verdict, one of the reasons I think that the city reacted so calmly to that verdict is they saw the evidence for themselves. They could see for themselves that the jury really probably made the right decision. That was only possible because that trial was televised. And I think that was a tremendous public service that was done.

(CROSSTALK)

BEGALA: Mr. Sale, isn't it true that the reason for not having fought the right to a public trial into the Constitution is because they wanted to make sure that the trials belonged, not to the participants, not even to the judges or the accused or the prosecutors, but to we, the people. So why not let the people in?

SALE: You have -- the Constitution makes -- gives us a right to a public trial. Reporters not only can attend the trial, they get a preference. They usually can get the front row.

And the comment that only Mr. Braun will be able to report on the case, every TV show at night from -- during primetime will have every legal expert in the world talking about the case. When Tucker made a comment earlier, a humorous comment, comparing Congressman Traficant and the mayor of Providence and whether or not they're wearing a toupee, and that was very humorous in that context, if you have cameras and turn this into a circus, those are the things that people will be talking about. Those are the things that everyone will be talking about, instead of let's seek some justice. Let's not play Hollywood. Let's have a trial. Why in federal court, where we have the most distinguished proceedings, are there no cameras permitted? Because...

CARLSON: That's one of the questions we're going to get to, Mr. Sale. When we return in just a moment, Jeffrey Toobin, we'll be right back.

When CROSSFIRE does return, we'll bring our guests back to the stand and demand the truth and nothing but the truth on the issue of cameras in the court. And later, "round 6," 2.5 minutes of pure debate. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Welcome back.

Should cameras be permitted in the courtroom? Should every courtroom become an ant farm? That's our debate tonight. Our guests, former federal prosecutor Jon Sale and the new CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin.

BEGALA: Mr. Sale, before we took our break, you mentioned our august federal courts. And I have to admire you for not cracking a smile, sitting there in Miami, Florida, where actually the state courts did quite a fine job in the 2000 election. And it was the U.S. Supreme Court that botched it.

If there's -- I think there should be cameras in the federal courts, and especially the Supreme Court. Surely you believe that these august judges can control their courtrooms in a way that maybe Lance Ito can't, don't you?

SALE: You can't design a rule, according to whether one judge is better than another, one is stronger than another. Let's face it. You know, we're talking about being honest. Televising trials is a bonanza for journalists. It's a bonanza for the lawyer.

I would love to have a case televised because it's good for me. It's not good for my client. It's not good for the system. It's not good for the prosecution. The case should be tried in the courtroom. The reporters should be allowed in, as they are. The public should be allowed in. And justice should be done. It should not be a circus. That's all.

CARLSON: No, but I sort of agree with your argument. As someone employed by a television network, I'm all for it. But part of the problem I have here is aesthetic. And I wonder if you have the same problem.

If this trial is televised, we're going to have -- it'll be a bigger circus even than it would be. So you're going to have everyone from the O.J. case, every blood relative of Bonny Lee Bakley's going to be on television talking about her. All of Robert Blake's B-movie pals will be out. It's going to be never ending. It is going to be ugly. Should we just stop this madness before it starts?

TOOBIN: You know, what you're arguing against is against the free market of ideas. You know, if people want to watch something, they should be able to watch it. There -- are you proposing a rule that you should only be able to broadcast boring cases?

CARLSON: Well, you're not saying that their idea's embedded in this case. This is a case about a B-movie star who did or did not off his wife outside a Italian restaurant in Sherman Oaks. There are no ideas in the case.

TOOBIN: Right. Well, this is a story, this case, that the media wants to cover. The media is a bunch of private businesses. And they want to do their job here. Why should the government interfere with that? What value is being protected by denying this public proceeding from being seen by the public?

SALE: Justice.

BEGALA: Mr. Sale, in fact, 47 of our states, at some form or fashion, allow cameras in the courtroom. One of the ones that doesn't is Mississippi. Do you think you get a fairer trial in Mississippi than say Michigan?

SALE: No, the answer is maybe you do, but I don't want to take the chance. What we shouldn't -- this is a balancing. What you should not do is close the proceedings. And anytime the proceedings are closed, the media rushes in to contest that. And I support that. The proceedings should be open to the public, but they should be conducted with dignity.

BEGALA: But not too open thought, not so...

(CROSSTALK)

SALE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) entertainment. This is justice.

BEGALA: But no, it's opening a pencil press. It's opened a Tucker Carlson and Jeffrey Toobin, and that's for them, but what about the rest of us? It's our courtroom, isn't it?

SALE: You can write about it and you can come out at every break and go on live camera and tell the public just what happened. But you won't have the witnesses and the participants worrying about how is this playing on TV at primetime? They'll be able to be themselves and just worry about the normal stresses of testifying. TOOBIN: But this myth that people are changed and their testimony is changed by being televised has never been tested anywhere. And it is simply a -- I think, a fig leaf for people advancing strategic interests, whether it's lawyers who want to help their clients or judges who want to protect themselves from public scrutiny. This idea that is stated as a fact that witnesses are changed somehow is second nature. It's never been proved.

CARLSON: Jeffrey, you work in -- no, let's just apply the commonsense test here. You work in television. You have for a while. You know that people are different on camera than they are off. That's just a fact. You've been around it. You know and other people are very aware of the fact that other people are watching them.

TOOBIN: But you're drawing a distinction between someone sitting in television studio, as I am right now, and someone sitting in a courtroom with a tiny little unobtrusive camera in the back, which is what it is. Yes, it's nerve-racking to testify as a witness in a trial. But the fact that there is little camera, an unobstrusive camera in the back...

CARLSON: Size does not matter in this case. I mean, the fact is it's a camera. That's the point.

TOOBIN: You know, Dr. Ruth laughed. So I don't know if you want to get into that issue.

SALE: This is not like with Sam Sheppard. And I'm suggesting that that there are big cameras in there selling popcorn in the courthouse. What I'm saying is a human being is under enough stress testifying. And if they walk up there and they know there's five million people watching, who can deny that that doesn't have a tremendous impact upon them, their nervousness, their psyche and everything else?

BEGALA: That's going to have to be the last word. I want to thank Jon Sale, former federal prosecutor and ace criminal attorney in Miami and Jeffrey Toobin, the esteemed new legal analyst for CNN. And I for one could not be happier.

Coming up later on CROSSFIRE, you get to turn the tables on us in our "fireback" segment. The question is, are you up to the task? But straight ahead "Round 6," no guests, no gloves, no bulls, just Carlson and I.

(COMMERICAL BREAK)

BEGALA: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE.

The Washington whispers column of "U.S. News and World Report" this week has the following tidbit. "The GOP whisper campaign to boycott CNN's Crossfire has become official policy. Top leaders have told members not to go on the show because they feel co-hosts James Carville and Paul Begala are unfair to them and their views."

Well, I have a message for the nameless, gutless whimperers out there. Quit whining. Unlike some other shows, we here at CROSSFIRE actually present both sides of the issue. Every single night, we welcome the leading lights of the Republican right on to battle against their ideological foes. Carville and I make no apologies for being tough, nor do Tucker and Bo. That's what makes this show is different.

Look, if you want namby-pamby one-sided arguments go to Fox. But if you're tough enough and you're smart enough to go toe-to-toe with people who actually know how to debate, welcome to CNN. Welcome to the new CROSSFIRE.

CARLSON: See Paul, this argument is totally funny. First of all, we know just from our bookings that this is not real. We have Republicans on every night.

But I think more to the point, there's only one Republican ever, I know of, who is afraid of you and James. And that was Jim Jeffords of Vermont. And he already switched parties.

But even if it were true, it was something more dignified than what Democrats did lately. Tom Daschle and Dick Gephardt wrote letters to cable executives, saying put us on more. It's unfair that you don't. In other words, pay attention to me, please. You must.

If a three-year-old did that, it would be embarrassing. And then, after that, Tom Daschle gets up and starts complaining that reporters didn't pay enough attention to the Democratic version of the Farm bill. Can you imagine?

BEGALA: Well, I will tell you this. Tom Daschle had the spine to sit right here on our first night of the new CROSSFIRE with a live audience, and take the best and worst that you and Novak had to dish out.

CARLSON: As have many Republicans, but what Democrats...

BEGALA: Yes, they have. That's true.

CARLSON: ..don't understand is the press doesn't cover things according generally, at least, according to its biases, but according to who's interested. John McCain ran an interesting campaign. That's why reporters covered him. Tom Daschle and the Farm bill are not interesting. Most Democrats are not interesting. Their ideas are repetitive. Ooh, the rich of bad. How many times do you hear that?

BEGALA: Oh, as opposed to the Republicans? The right are right. We're in infallible.

CARLSON: Well, that would be interesting if somebody said that out loud. I would watch that the rich -- all power to the rich. That would be an interesting show. Democrats are very, very boring. That's why they're not getting the coverage they think they need.

BEGALA: It turns out, we have the best of both worlds. A guy called me from "The New York Post" who's covering this and said that somebody on the Hill has actually accused me of planting this story because he thinks he's right. Our bookings are up there.

CARLSON: Did you plant this?

BEGALA: Actually, I did not. I wish I were that smart. If I had...

CARLSON: I think you're diabolical enough.

BEGALA: Never, no.

CARLSON: Coming up next, your chance to fire back at us. And boy do you. We'll be back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BEGALA: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. We call this segment "fireback" because cleverly enough, we allow you to fire back at us.

So first the viewers at home and then here in our studio audience. Let's go to the electronic mailbag. By the miracle of high technology, John Shoemaker of Rowlett, Texas writes, "The real reason that many Republicans now refuse to appear on CROSSFIRE is purely medical. Not being immune from rabies, they fear being so close to Begala or Carville." Well, John Shoemaker, you may be entirely right. I'd have more respect for that defense than the whining or whimpering we're getting.

CARLSON: You know, Paul, the real problem is just the flex of foam that wind up on my face after. That's the danger.

BEGALA: You know, most guests find that strange -- they don't mind a little slobber.

CARLSON: They do. Julia Rezelman from Merrit Island, Florida writes, "Your new format is both interesting and informative -- not to mention a lot of fun! When I have to miss a program, I always tape it to watch later. This is exciting television at its best. Keep up the good work!"

Paul, I've always wondered what CROSSFIRE would be like in the morning. Can you imagine taping, watching at 8:00 a.m.?

BEGALA: I tell you what, they get the old heart racing, huh?

CARLSON: I dare you to try.

BEGALA: No, I don't think so. I like it where it is. "Paul, you and James have made CROSSFIRE worth watching again. (and regretfully, I have to admit even Tucker & Bob have been quite entertaining as well...even though they are wrong more often than not)," says George Valeri of Nashua, New Hampshire, a key swing state. Nashua, New Hampshire, it was a big Senate race.

CARLSON: You know what, this is how it starts. First they find you entertaining. Ultimately, they find you right.

OK, and from Joe from North Dakota. "Tucker, you wear the tie with as much prestige as Pee Wee Herman does."

BEGALA: Oh, ouch.

CARLSON: Well, Joe, that's an excellent point. But I have to say, first of all, you don't see me in a raincoat. Second, if you had to choose one of us to sit next to in a movie theater, I think you'd be better off with me.

BEGALA: Ooh.

CARLSON: Sir, you have a question?

DANIEL CORBIN: Hi, I'm Daniel Corbin from Washington, D.C. My question is for Paul. Where do you draw the line? How soon until we're going to start televising executions?

BEGALA: That's -- as somebody who opposes executions actually, that might be a bad thing. People might see the consequences of their public policy decisions. Other people who oppose the death penalty would be oppose it because the way we execute people now is actually not as visually horrifying as the old method.

CARLSON: So to make the world -- to make society less coarse, we ought to make television more coarse? That is a really counterintuitive point, Paul, but I will think about that.

BEGALA: Many people do think that if we had to actually confront the consequences of what we do...

CARLSON: I agree with you. You have a question?

MIKE YAKIN: My name's Mike Yakin. I'm from Sacratumber (ph), New York. My question's for Tucker. It's on the sex education topic. Research today shows that kids are maturing a lot earlier. Nine and 10 for girls, about 12 for guys. And yet, the average age of marriage keeps going up. It's about 27 today. So isn't the moral high ground to don't have sex until married not based any what on reality?

CARLSON: Well, I think as you know, that the maturation rates refer to physical maturation and has to do with better nutrition than people had, say, in the Middle Ages. And I don't think that 14-year olds are ready for sex. Even Dr. Ruth agreed. And when Dr. Ruth agrees, you know it's right.

BEGALA: From the left, I'm Paul Begala. Good-night for CROSSFIRE.

CARLSON: And from the right, not at all the left, I'm Tucker Carlson. Join us again tomorrow night for yet another edition of CROSSFIRE. 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