Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Talkback Live

Should Executions be Shown Publicly?

Aired May 03, 2001 - 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.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: At this time, the condemned has been secured in the chair.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you wish to make a last statement prior to your legal execution?

ROOSEVELT GREEN, JR., KIDNAPPED, RAPED AND MURDERED 18-YEAR-OLD CLERK: I love the Lord and I hope that you all love him, too.

WILLIAM B. TUCKER, STABBED 19-YEAR-OLD PREGNANT NEWLYWED: I take full responsibility for the crime I committed.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The hood is being placed on at this time.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Keep your hope alive.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: With all the witnesses present, we will proceed to the court-ordered execution.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Farewell, my brothers. Take care. I love you all.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Carry out the word of the court.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BOBBIE BATTISTA, HOST: They're being called the death chamber tapes, an almost play-by-play of 23 men put to death by electrocution. What can we learn from hearing a convicted man's last words? Do you want to hear them? Should anyone?

Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. There has been a lot of talk lately about whether or not Tim McVeigh's execution should be broadcast to the public. Well, this week, the executions of 23 men in Georgia's electric chair made their way to the national airwaves.

With more on this story now, here's Randy Travis of CNN affiliate WAGA.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: At this time, the condemned has been secured in the chair. He is not moving. He's just sitting there very passively staring out at the witnesses.

RANDY TRAVIS, WAGA REPORTER (voice-over): Twenty-three times the state of Georgia has sent a convicted killer to this room to end his life in this chair. Each time, for the sake of history, the state of Georgia made sure a tape recorder was rolling.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is a recording of the execution of Ivan Ray Stanley, EF103603.

TONY TURPIN, FORMER JACKSON WARDEN: It is not an easy task. It's probably the most difficult task that you could ask a correctional staff to perform.

TRAVIS: Listen to these 71 tapes, and you begin to understand. Every state-ordered electrocution since 1983, from the first one, John Eldon Smith, to the last, David Cargill, never-heard-before moments of men and women going by the book carrying out the ultimate punishment.

(on-camera): For each execution, the warden's executive assistant would be standing right about here, in the equipment room behind the execution chamber, watching through this window. He'd be on the phone in constant contact with officials back in Atlanta providing a running commentary of the prisoner's final hours.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He didn't give us any problem, didn't say anything. You know, he'd come on out, sit down and he's awfully nervous.

TURPIN: You know what the task is, you know what the outcome is going to be.

TRAVIS (voice-over): Tony Turpin was the warden at Jackson for the last three executions.

TURPIN: You know that the crime that was committed put that person in the situation that they're in, and you deal with what comes.

TRAVIS: The tapes also include the final words from each condemned man, sometimes recorded while they sat waiting in the holding cell next door, others from the chair itself.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The warden is asking the condemned if he would like to make a statement. The condemned spits toward the warden.

TRAVIS: But some do talk, often with an odd mixture of resignation and relief.

VAN R. SOLOMON, SHOT COBB COUNTY CLERK FOUR TIMES: Yes, I'd like to say I'd like to give my blessing to all the people that seeked to save my life. I'd like to curse everyone that seeked to take my life. Farewell.

GREEN: I love the Lord, and I hope that you all love him, too, and that God takes me into this kingdom. And goodbye, mother.

JOHN YOUNG, BEAT TO DEATH THREE ELDERLY PEOPLE: And I can only say that I am not sorry that I'm leaving this world.

TUCKER: I take full responsibility for the crime I committed, and I'm willing to pay the price exacted this day.

JEROME BOWDEN, BEAT WOMAN TO DEATH WITH BARREL OF PELLET GUN: I am Jerome Bowden, and I would just like to state that my execution is about to be carried out. And I would like to thank the people of this institution for taking such good care of me in the way that they did. And I hope that by my execution being carried out, that it will bring some light to this thing that is wrong.

TURPIN: And he's also offered the opportunity to receive a prayer.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Into your hands I commend my soul.

TURPIN: A team of officers secure the condemned inmate in the chair.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The perspiration has been wiped again from the condemned's forehead and the hood is being placed on at this time.

TURPIN: And then you exit the chamber and the procedures begin.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Commissioner?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is there any further word?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No further word. Carry out the word of the court.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Very well. On my count of three, the first step: one, two, three. The execution is now in progress. He made one jerk when the voltage initially entered his body.

TRAVIS (on-camera): What do you want people to come away with after listening to those tapes?

TURPIN: I think the most important thing is that this is the law of the state; it's the law of the state, it's -- and we carry out that law.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: At 12:37 hours this date, the condemned was pronounced dead.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BATTISTA: Joining us now is the man who originally got those tapes. Michael Mear is an anti-death penalty attorney who heads the multi-county public defender's program in the state of Georgia. Also with us is David Isay, a radio documentary producer at WNYC radio in New York. David produced Public Radio's special report on the execution tapes.

And Michael, let me start with you. Interestingly enough, you've been in possession of these tapes for quite some time and they have aired before on radio and television in the state of Georgia. Why did you secure these tapes and why are they coming to light now?

MICHAEL MEARS, GEORGIA PUBLIC DEFENDER: We obtained the tapes as part of a challenge to the constitutionality of the electric chair. We had asked a particular judge in a case to give us an opportunity to present evidence as to why we felt that the electric chair is cruel and unusual and that it involves torture of an individual prior to death.

During the course of preparing for those hearings, we obtained documents from the Department of Corrections, which led us to believe that there were tapes in existence. We went back to the Department of Corrections and found the tapes, actually got 43 different cassette tapes. At that time, it was 22 executions. And we got the tapes, went through them very meticulously, and then we used them in that hearing and have used them in subsequent hearings since that time.

BATTISTA: And David, how did these tapes make their way to you?

DAVID ISAY, DOCUMENTARY RADIO PRODUCER: Well, I've been working on the death penalty issue doing documentaries about the death penalty for a while, and one of the things that's been -- that I've realized is that the death chamber is completely shrouded in secrecy.

We did a documentary last year in Texas where we tried to get as close as we could into the execution chamber by having the people who carry out the executions describe what happens in the execution chamber. And that was as close as I thought we'd ever get to witnessing an execution, to having a document of an execution.

The last photograph of an execution that we know of is a 1936 photograph of Rainey Bethea who was hung in Owensboro, Kentucky. It was a public hanging; 20,000 people came. Since then, it's been complete darkness, silence: no films, no videos, no photos, no audio.

And I read in a newspaper article about a month ago a mention of audio tapes in this case that Mr. Mears had bought, and I was -- I thought it was a misprint. I couldn't believe it. And I called Mr. Mears, and indeed, these tapes existed and here they are.

BATTISTA: Well, maybe the American people for the most part want it shrouded in secrecy. Did you guys wrestle with the decision up there as to whether to air these? I mean, why did you decide it was important?

ISAY: Well, I think this is an issue that's being debated, and this is part of the information that the American public needs in order to make an informed decision about the debate. I mean, this is a state-sponsored act that is done in the name of the American people, and people should know what's being done. This is not a pro-death penalty or anti-death penalty statement; it just is what it is: the only document I believe that will ever exist of executions in the United States.

BATTISTA: Mike, why were state prison officials even making these tapes?

MEARS: Well, I believe they began to make the tapes probably for the best of reasons. They wanted to make sure that there was a record of carrying out the execution in accordance with their protocols. And I certainly don't ascribe any ill motives to the Department of Correction employees who started the taping, but once they started taping the executions, they could then go back and erase those parts that they didn't like, so the tapes have accumulated.

Incidentally, it's my understanding that as a result of disclosure of these tapes and our being able to obtain them, the state's no longer going to audio tape any executions.

BATTISTA: Yeah, that is interesting. They told us that, you know, they don't have a problem with them being made public, that anybody can have copies of them if they want, but now they're changing the policy.

MEARS: That's now what they said in 1997. We had to fight them to get those tapes in 1997. They were very reluctant to give them. I understand that's the position they're taking now.

BATTISTA: David, when you first listened to these tapes, what struck you about them?

ISAY: Well, first of all, I was amazed that they existed at all. What struck me was listening to the voices of these men and women who carry out these executions and just -- you just think about the fact that these good Departments of Corrections employees, good people, are asked to carry out this profound act and what it is to ask them to do this. It's really a profound thing and it's disturbing. It's very -- the tapes are very dispassionate, they're very matter of fact. It's kind of like listening to a NASA mission control launch and it's...

BATTISTA: Not that we would expect them to be anything different though, did we?

ISAY: ... painful to listen to. It made me concerned about the well being of the people who have to carry out these things.

BATTISTA: Yeah, as I was going to say, I'm not sure we would expect them to be any different. You weren't really expecting to hear emotion, you know.

ISAY: I'm not getting anything.

BATTISTA: Are you losing audio, David? OK, we'll try to fix that for you and come back to you in just a minute.

Mike, you mentioned that you are going after the electric chair in the state of Georgia. I thought the electric chair had been thrown out in the state. I thought we had gone to lethal injection. What seems to be the hold up? MEARS: Well, that's the common conception that the electric chair has been replaced by lethal injection. That's not the case in Georgia. The Georgia general assembly members passed a law that created the use of lethal injection but only for people who have committed crimes prior -- excuse me, after May the 1 of the year 2000. We currently have 134 people on death row, probably another 80 trials in the pipeline, all of whom, if they're sentenced to death, would be sentenced to die by the electric chair. It's a strange piece of legislation that creates two different groups of people in the way that they're going to be executed: lethal injection for crimes committed after May 1 of 2000, the electric chair for crimes committed prior to May 1 of 2000. Only the wisdom of the Georgia general assembly can explain that one.

BATTISTA: David, can you hear me again?

ISAY: Yes.

BATTISTA: You can. OK, just quickly before we let you go, did the Timothy McVeigh execution have any bearing on the decision to air these tapes at all for you?

ISAY: We got these tape four weeks ago, and we felt it important to get them on as quickly a possible, to have them on as far away from the McVeigh execution as possible. We felt like there was a holy space for the victims, for everybody involved as you get into the week of the execution. So we got this on as quickly a humanly possible two weeks before the McVeigh execution. And hopefully, it will inform the public debate.

BATTISTA: All right, David Isay, thank you very much for joining us. We've got to take a quick break here.

ISAY: Thank you.

BATTISTA: As we do, should the media air these tapes? Go online and vote now at cnn.com/TALKBACK, AOL keyword: CNN. While you're there, check out my personal note and read your e-mails in our new "You Said It" section. We'll be back after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Commish?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It appears, and the doctors agree with me, that he's still breathing. He wants to check him and then go through it again or just go ahead and go through it again.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Check him and then go through it again. Definitely check him. Don't vary from the checklist. Have them check it.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. I can't find it. Are we going to do it again?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It doesn't say so.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It remains on.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Time is 12:26 and 30 seconds.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Commissioner?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The doctor verified that he is still alive.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Repeat the execution.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Very well.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BATTISTA: We were just listening to the -- that was the transcript from the execution of a gentleman that was not successfully executed the first time, so they had to go back and do it again, right, Mike?

MEARS: That's correct. The initial surges of electricity -- they go in three cycles. The first surge is approximately 1,800 volts. That's for about five or six seconds. Then there is a second surge of about 700 volts. Then there's a third surge for 200 volts. The theory is that the first 1,800 volts is to render the person unconscious while the other succeeding surges of electricity kill the person.

First of all, Alpha Otis Stephens wasn't killed initially by any of the three cycles. He wasn't even rendered unconscious by the initial cycle. And so he was tortured for about 2 1/2 to three minutes, and then the whole cycling process had to start over again.

The problem with -- one of the problems with the Georgia electric chair is that once it starts the cycles of electricity going into the body, it can't be stopped and it cannot be restarted for five minutes until it has finished the first cycle. So Alpha Otis Stephens and one other person that we know of sat in that electric chair with a leather mask over their face with their jaw held shut with a leather strap. You've heard people say, well, you never hear any screaming, you never hear anything. They can't. Their mouth is closed with these very tight leather strips, and there's a leather mask over their face. Alpha Otis Stephens was tortured to death before he finally died.

BATTISTA: Joining our conversation now is Nancy Grace, a Court TV anchor and a former assistant district attorney for Fulton County, Georgia.

Nancy, nice to see.

NANCY GRACE, COURT TV ANCHOR: Hi, Bobbie.

BATTISTA: Let me ask you something: When you were a prosecutor down here, did you ever have an issue or a problem with sentencing someone to death -- well, of course, a jury did it -- but, I mean, to the Georgia electric chair?

GRACE: No, I did not. And also, hello to Michael. We worked on many cases together, always on opposite sides of the fence, of course.

MEARS: How are you doing? Good to see you.

GRACE: No, I did not have a problem handling these types of cases in that this is an issue you present to the jury. The state does not implement the death penalty or order the death penalty. This is a decision, Bobbie, that is reached by a jury who has heard facts that they find so heinous as to warrant the death penalty. For instance, one of the gentleman whose tapes have been released buried a man alive and let him die that way. Talk about torture. And I'm not saying eye for eye, torture for torture. I do not agree with torturing a person to death. Unfortunately, for a long period of time, the only mode of execution was the electric chair. With the advent of lethal injection, I would hope that we modernize.

BATTISTA: Have you ever seen an execution yourself?

GRACE: No, I have not. I have only seen crime scenes where victims were executed.

BATTISTA: You think these tapes should be released or is this more than we need to know or hear?

GRACE: Well, I tell you, Bobbie, I thought about it a lot, especially in light of the McVeigh issue as to whether or not people should view the McVeigh execution. Bobbie, I firmly believe that your last moments on this earth are private between you and your creator. I do not think it should be made public.

Now in this case, I'm glad the tapes, the audio tapes were actually aired in that I see: A, these people were tortured to an extent as Michael has pointed out. I agree with him on that. But B, that the jail authorities, the prison staff were very professional in the sense that they went by the book in the way they administered this very difficult task.

I also think that the reason electrocutions, executions are not private is because we don't want to lapse into a Gestapo state where people are tortured and beaten and mocked and ridiculed before death. That's not what the death penalty is about.

MEARS: The airing of these tapes is one way to deter that type of conduct, and airing these types clearly would deter the botched execution that's have taken place here in Georgia.

GRACE: I agree, Michael. MEARS: And Nancy Grace and I agree on some things, we disagree on other things. One of the things I disagree with Nancy Grace about is the state does seek the death penalty. The state does impose the death penalty. The decision to seek the death penalty is made by the elected district attorney in whatever county the crime occurred.

GRACE: That's right, Michael, but a jury makes the ultimate decision. We give a jury a choice. Only in cases that are deemed, as you know, as a death penalty expert, so heinous, so horrible such as McVeigh -- 168 dead women and children. Those are the type of cases where the death penalty is warranted.

MEARS: In 1998, there were almost 400 murder cases in the Atlanta metropolitan area. There were only three death penalties cases sought out of those almost 400 murders. Why were those cases different from the ones that were sought out for the death penalty different? It's subjective with the district attorney.

BATTISTA: Well, that is one of the problems I think folks have with the death penalty: inconsistency of how it is administered.

MEARS: Absolutely. It's political.

GRACE: Well, Bobbie and Michael, the cases themselves are inconsistent. Michael, I believe you're familiar with the case there in Atlanta where a man burned infants in their baby bassinets to death by fire, two infants. Yes, that is a proper death penalty case. That's different than a robbery gone wrong where a man shoots the gun at the spur of the moment. There's a different type of intent and it is punished differently.

MEARS: But district attorneys all over the state of Georgia put people on trial in death penalty cases for the armed robbery gone bad. That's the problem. The problem is it's too subjective and it's too political. There are some really good district attorneys in the state of Georgia, and Nancy Grace knows some of these people who really labor and worry about which cases should be the death penalty.

BATTISTA: I've got to go to break. Let me get the audience in quickly before we do, Mike, and then we'll come back to that.

Ronnie, go ahead.

RONNIE: I agree with Nancy that a jury placed the accused in that position for a crime that he committed. It is only fair that that crime is sought out, is completed and that the execution is completed and we witness it that it's done. It's that simple.

BATTISTA: All right, we'll be back in just a moment.

ANNOUNCER: Texas executed a record 40 inmates last year. Yesterday, the state Senate voted to allow juries to sentence a defendant to life in prison without parole, an option not currently available.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

YOUNG: I'd like to say that I know that I've been given some injustice. And though you may tear my heart, but in reality, it's the heart of God you tear, because all of you are playing God with people's lives. And though we are -- we make mistakes, that's only because we are human. But then you shouldn't try to judge those who make mistakes and play God in their lives and say whether they should live or die.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BATTISTA: E-mails coming into us. Frank from New York says, "These tapes allowing us to hear people dispassionately killing other people may serve to show how the administration of capital punishment demeans us as human being. Perhaps the viewing of an execution would drive that message home.

Karen in Idaho says, "Executions are legal and they should be administered by the proper authorities and witnessed by designated witnesses. It should not be taped. Shame on CNN for playing this tape over and over all morning as public entertainment.

I don't think this is entertaining anyone. I'll just make that little editorial comment.

But Nancy, a televised execution. There has been a lot of talk about that since the McVeigh execution date was set. Is that what's coming next?

GRACE: Bobbie, I'm afraid so. And I am against that. Again, I think -- and I think Michael will agree with me as long as we have the death penalty in this country and there is a majority support for that in certain circumstances, they should not be closed or secret proceedings. I think that they should be public in the sense that they are. Victims, representatives, the defendant's family or lawyer representatives, and representatives of the state to make sure it's carried out in an efficient manner and as less torturous as possible. Not secretive but certainly not published as the e-mailer wrote in to you, Bobbie, for entertainment. I think that that is an abomination.

MEARS: I'll will probably be voted out of the criminal defense lawyer association but I'll have to say I agree with Nancy Grace on that.

GRACE: Oh, you are in trouble now.

BATTISTA: Let me take a phone call. Jeff in Georgia.

Go ahead, Jeff.

CALLER: Yes, I'd like to say that I agree with the death penalty. And I feel like that repeated offenders ought to have to watch the tape. And probably -- I don't see anything wrong with even watching the execution because I believe it will stop so much crime that's going on today. That's how I feel about it. BATTISTA: You look at it as deterrent.

CALLER: Right.

BATTISTA: All right, thanks, Jeff.

Bill in the audience, you have a problem with these tapes being aired.

BILL: I think it becomes a form of public entertainment. And I think this is one type of entertainment that we just don't need. It's almost going back to the middle ages when there were hangings in the public square for everybody's edification. And I don't think we need that.

GRACE: Yeah, I think he's right, Bobbie.

BATTISTA: I thought -- let's go up here to Bob in the audience. Bob brings up a point of this being an issue that we vote on, so to speak.

BOB: I believe that we do. We're a society that we support certain public officials and public policy, that this is something that we support. I think it's also something that we must see the end consequences of that support, whether that support is in a vote or writing an editorial in a newspaper by closing our eyes to it. I don't think it's entertainment. I've got to give this society and this country a lot more credit than that, because I think we all take it much more seriously than just entertainment.

BATTISTA: Now Mike, you're fighting the electric chair in Georgia but you say that next, you're going to take on lethal injection. And I'm curious as to what you're going to base that on. Isn't that a little bit harder to portray as cruel and unusual?

MEARS: Well, you start from our assumption that the death penalty, under any circumstances, is wrong, that it violates the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Lethal injection has just as many problems in its administration as does the electric chair. It's not quite as dramatic as the electric chair in the way it brings about death, but there are a lot of problems.

First of all, who is going to administer these drugs? Who is going to make sure the drug is in the proper dosage? Doctors are not supposed to be killing people. They take an oath not to do that. So you have non-doctors mixing these drugs and administering these drugs. That's a real issue that's going to have to be dealt with. The medical profession should be up in arms at the states that are using lethal injection.

GRACE: Michael Mears, Michael Mears...

MEARS: Yes, Nancy Grace?

GRACE: If you are so against executions, you should ask your clients to stop the murdering, OK, number one. But number two, when we listen to these tapes, it's not pretty. It's a horrible picture. And there is something horrible and dramatic about the electric chair, and these tapes bring that to view. But we've got to remember, behind every one of these executions, there's an innocent victim that died at least as horribly as these people, who at least die in dignity.

MEARS: Absolutely, Nancy Grace. But what we're talking about is about us. What do we as citizens do to other people? What kind of values do we have about human life? It's not about my clients' values about human life. That's an issue that has to be dealt with as far as their punishment. But to kill someone in the name of the state reflects on us. We are the only -- quote -- "civilized" nation in the world that still executes citizens. That's an abomination.

BATTISTA: I've got to take another break here. When we come back we'll delve a little further into whether the media should be airing these tapes. We'll be back.

(voice-over): Virginia executed 82 inmates, second only to Texas, with 246, since the Supreme Court ruled capital punishment is constitutional in 1976. Governor James Gilmore approved a new right for death row inmates yesterday, allowing them much wider access to DNA testing after their cases were closed.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BATTISTA: Twenty-three percent of respondents to a CNN/"USA Today"/Gallup Poll said they would watch Timothy McVeigh's execution on television. Twenty-one percent said they would watch only if a family member was a victim. And 52 percent said they would not watch at all.

More e-mails here. Thomas from New York says: "Every execution is a state-ordered homicide. Because this is a democracy, we are each partially responsible for every execution that takes place. It is necessary that the American public knows what it's doing."

Joan in Arizona: "It's just another case of America's growing voyeurism and coarseness. The public can understand the seriousness of capital punishment without these tapes ever being heard. It is disgraceful that NPR and other networks are playing these."

Joining us now is Barbara Cochran, president of the Radio Television News Director Association, and Robert Blecker, law professor at New York Law School. He is also working on a new book called, "Who Deserves to Die?" In June, he witnessed the execution of Benny Demps.

And, Robert, let me start with you first: Tell us about the execution that you witnessed.

ROBERT BLECKER, AUTHOR, "WHO DESERVES TO DIE?": In some ways it was very typical. It was not an electrocution, it was a lethal injection. It was the execution of a man who, in my view, unquestionably deserved to die. The witnesses to the execution really didn't see what happened during the execution. What was more valuable for me was to be able to go behind the scenes and see the rehearsal to the execution, because when you actually witness an execution, you just see a person strapped in a gurney, brought out before you very, much like he's in a hospital bed, swathed in white.

And you can barely see, or not see at all, a line that goes from his wrist. And you don't see where it goes into, but it goes into a one-way mirror, behind which is the execution chamber.

So from the perspective of the witnesses -- while it was reported as a botched execution -- but it was not botched, and we can go into that later -- but the media -- some media live by distorting the death penalty and the effects on the condemned.

But in any case, what they saw was a man who very peacefully died after claiming that he had been butchered. What they didn't see, of course, and didn't know because of the execution process, in my view, is wrongly presented to the witnesses and if televised -- and I think it should be televised -- ought to be presented in such a way that we understand the full context. What they didn't see, of course, nor remember, was the pain and suffering that Benny Demps had inflicted on his victims.

But my emotion as I witness him die, I must tell you, was not one of full satisfaction. At one level, it was closure; it was someone who did deserve to die, and was dying. But at another level, in my view, it was a death that we would wish on us, on our loved ones. It was painless, his eyes flickered. First he was given his grand exit with his last statement, which everyone got to witness, and including his claim that he was butchered. And they -- he had the last word. And in my view the people -- and it's not the -- everybody says "The state, the state." Remember who the state is: The state's the people.

BATTISTA: Robert...

BLECKER: It ain't done in the people's name.

BATTISTA: Barbara, Robert obviously feels like these executions should be aired and the tapes that we've been listening should be aired. How do you feel about that?

BARBARA COCHRAN, RADIO AND TELEVISION NEWS DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION: Well, our organization represents about 3,200 electronic journalists and particularly the people who are the decision makers, who have to decide what to put on that air, what to put in their newscasts. And it's obviously a very sensitive issue for all of our members. So, at our March meeting of our board of directors we had a big discussion about the issue. We have 25 news directors who sit on the board of directors, and while they all said that this is a public matter, that there should be access for journalists on behalf of the public to executions, none of them would have shown the video or would make it available.

And we, as an organization, could go into court and seek to overturn the federal rules that prevent this showing of an execution. We have not done so. No news organization has done so, and I don't believe it will happen.

BATTISTA: So you're saying that television, basically, would draw the line at video, but it's OK to air the audio?

COCHRAN: Well again, this is not -- the tapes that we're hearing are of a previous event; they're something that happened before. And these tapes were made by the government. They are -- they were made by a public institution. I think it's legitimate to show -- to put these tapes on the air.

BATTISTA: Robert, we -- there doesn't seem to be agreement here about what effect airing or televising executions would have on the American public.

BLECKER: That's right. There is a curious disagreement, which is why we're strange bedfellows. That is, for example, the American Civil Liberties Union, and such a noted liberal as Lawrence Tribe have actually supported televising executions. I believe, because they believe, that if the American public were to witness it, it would rise up in revulsion and say abolish it.

Some of us advocate televising executions because it is being done in the name of people, and also, I think that if we saw the execution we would rise up and resist it, not because it wasn't deserved, but because it was a death that was, in fact, too painless, and in a sense, too abstract. We were talking before about emotion. Now, of course, the audio tapes will not show emotion. The corrections officers were aware they were be taped. It was being prepared for -- to defend against future litigation.

But I think emotion is appropriate in the law. Now when we televise the executions, and I think we will some day, and I think it's a good thing, it should at our control. That to say, this is a very solemn ritual, and it shouldn't be a staged event for Timothy McVeigh's or anyone else's benefit. I would not televise his last words and I would precede the execution by videotapes of the havoc that he reeked, of the victims last birthday party, of interviews with the victim's families.

And I would -- after the execution's over, I would continue those videotapes so that we would never forget. It's all about remembering, for me, as a (UNINTELLIGIBLE). It's all about the past.

BATTISTA: On the other hand, with the way television is going these days and the popularity of reality television, and the coarseness factor going up, how long do you think, Barbara, it would take before the American public would just be rather blaze about it, considering that the mode that is most often used is lethal injection which is really rather quiet and really not much to watch?

COCHRAN: Well, it's hard to say how people would react if they saw that over time. I mean, I don't think that people would be become blase about seeing this happen, but I also think Robert make a very good point when he talks about the context of the coverage. And I think that's what news people are struggle with right now is, even with these tapes that we are hearing today, how do you put it in right context? How do you not sensationalize, not cheapen the experience, but put it into a context that provokes thought, that provokes debate, as you are doing on this program, but that doesn't desensitize people to what the issues are.

BATTISTA: I've got to take a quick break again. We'll be back in just a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN AUDIO TAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Randy (ph), Hugh, the execution is in progress. There was one large jerk when the initial voltage entered his body. He is sitting upright at this time, no movement, and very little movement from any of the witnesses. He seems to be relaxing somewhat in the chair, but very little. There's no movement hardly, that can be detected at all. The first and second phase of the execution is completed. We are now into the third phase of the execution.

(END AUDIO TAPE)

BATTISTA: Let me go to the audience and our law student, Rhett (ph).

RHETT: Well, I had to take exception to what Mr. Mears said a while ago about the cruel and unusual punishment provision and the thing was the original intent certainly there were executions back then. George Washington was responsible for executions, and I think it has to be looked at in the context of, it's in the Constitution because they were coming from regimes in which people could be held liable to capital offense for political disagreements with the government. And it doesn't really speak to murderers, rapists, kidnapers and the type of punishments that those people would face.

MEARS: Well, I think that the U.S. Supreme Court as well as most people who follow the development of the constitutional issues in this area, would tell you that the Constitution is an evolving document. That we as a society are governed by evolving standards of decency. We must move beyond the time when pick-pocketing was a capital offense, and when armed robbery was a capital offense.

All of those things were prevalent when our Constitution was being written. The Constitution guides us in the way we protect each other from the state. And this evolving standards of decency argument is something that the U.S. Supreme Court has adopted and applied. At least three of the sitting supreme court justices now have agreed -- there's a case before the Supreme Court right now dealing with whether or not we can legally execute mentally retarded individuals. That was not an issue under the original intent doctrine, but it is now an issue because we have applied an evolving standards of decency concept to our constitution.

I, for one, feel that the use of the death penalty by the state is still an archaic way that the state treats its citizens. Every civilized nation in the world practically, except United States, has abolished the death penalty.

BATTISTA: Those evolving standards of decency, Mike, we would like to think they apply to television but that's clearly highly debatable. Do you think, though, that executions should be televised?

MEARS: No, I do not. I think that, for a lot of different reasons, and it has nothing to do with media or the need of the public to know, the taking of a human being's life should not be made a voyeuristic event. And that's not a slam at the media. It simply means that the taking of a human life is such a sacred thing. Killing people is not something we should do lightly. One of problems with these audio tapes that are now being played is that it shows how lightly the state takes the task of killing human beings.

BATTISTA: Let me get Robert back in here.

BLECKER: A few things. If Mike's argument proves anything, it proves too much. Historically it's unquestionable that the United States Constitution contemplated the death penalty. Of course it never commanded it. The first Congress, who was most responsible, enacted a series of laws and include forgery among those that take the death penalty. And of course we reject that. The evolving standards of decency, as a test, was propounded by the by the United States Supreme Court in 1958. But the problem with that is that if you really adhere to it strictly, if evolving standards of decency are going to govern whether or not we may execute, then if public opinion should turn suddenly in favor of the death penalty, then those abolitionists who adhere to the standard would have to concede that.

Now that evolving standards of decency support the death penalty almost unanimously, we may reinstitute it. So ultimately, public opinion is a very difficult thing on which to hang it.

Now, the statement about: We're the only civilized nation -- of course, then I suppose he means that Japan is not civilized and India is not civilized. But the usual way of stating it is we're the only Democratic nation that has the death penalty. The fact is, we are the only democracy that is acting like a democracy.

When the death penalty was outlawed in Europe, it was outlawed over the objections of the majority of the people. A majority of Canadians still support it; a majority of the English still support it; a majority of the French still support it. It's that the governments acted like elites and disregarded the attitudes of their people. And they did not act, and we alone are acting like a democracy.

MEARS: Professor, the majority of the people in the 1960s favored segregation. I hope you don't believe that we should go back to that type of Democratic rule.

BLECKER: That's my very point, which is that public opinion, nor involving standards of decency -- because they can involve in two directions, don't forget, a direction you don't like, as well as one you do. Evolving standards of decency and public opinion is not the issue. The issue is: Are there some people who deserve to die, and do we have an obligation to execute them? Nancy and I both hold yes, you hold no. We both agree there is a moral factor in the matter, and we both disagree as to what that fact is. MEARS: Obviously we do. The question is not whether someone deserves to die. It's whether the state has a right, under the evolving standards of decency, to apply its power to take human lives. I, for one, think that the Constitution contemplates an evolving standard of decency that continues to rise but doesn't recede.

GRACE: Well, Michael, does that mean you also disagree with all the juries that have handed down the death penalty? Are they at fault, too? Do you take on the ordinary citizens that say: "Yes, your act is so heinous you're going to the death penalty"?

BATTISTA: I have to make that a rhetorical question, Nancy, because I have to take a quick break. I'm sorry. We'll be back in just a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BATTISTA: We don't have much time left, so let me -- Barbara, last question to you. Regardless of what the radio and television directors association might be discussing now, do you think the day is coming, as Robert believes, that we will see televised executions?

COCHRAN: We very well may. The climate may develop where the public will support the idea that this is the public's business and that they have a right to see it.

BATTISTA: Thanks to all of my guests for being with us today. Appreciate all of your insight into this, and your time as well. And to our guests at home for watching, thank you.

We'll be back tomorrow with "Free-for-All Friday." Don't miss it. 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