Crowley: Tim Crowley
Vajda: Eszter Vajda
Henry: Johanna Henry
Gell: Alan Gell, Former Death Row Inmate
Hunt: Darryl Hunt, Exonerated Prisoner
Ross: Thomas W. Ross, Former Superior Court Judge
Creech: Rev. Mark Creech, N.C. Christian Action League
Chilton: Mel Chilton, N.C. Victim Assistance Network
Capps: Rep. Russell Capps, [R] Wake County
Eddins: Rep. Rick Eddins, [R] Wake County
Miller: Rep. Paul Miller, [D] Durham County
Stam: Rep. Paul Stam, [R] Wake County
Hackney: Rep. Joe Hackney, [D] Majority Leader
Adams: Rep. Alma Adams, [D] Guilford County
LaRoque: Rep. Stephen LaRoque, [R] Lenoir County
Holliman: Rep. Hugh Holliman, [D] Davidson County
Daughtry: Rep. Leo Daughtry, [R] Johnston County
Gulley: Rep. Jim Gulley, [R] Mecklenburg County
Haire: Rep. Phil Haire, [D] Jackson County
Sutton: Rep. Ron Sutton, [D] Robeson County
Dalton: Sen. Walter Dalton, [D] Rutherford County
Lancaster: Laura Lancaster, Teacher, Durant Middle School
Ostraco: Ken Ostraco, Parent
Hoggard: Lynn Hoggard, Child Nutrition Services, DPI
Davis: Neill Davis, Parent
Arnold: Michael Arnold, Policy Director, Office of the Lt. Gov.
Gunnells: Butch Gunnells, Pres., N.C. Soft Drink Association
Sherrill: Rep. Wilma Sherrill, [R] Buncombe County
Medlin: Angela Medlin, Parent
Hoyle: Sen. David Hoyle, [D] Gaston County
Effron: Seth Effron, State Government Radio
Durhams: Sharif Durhams, Charlotte Observer
Robertson: Gary Robertson, Associated Press
F: Female
M: Male

Vajda: Coming up, two bills made it past a crossover deadline. We will have highlights on a failed ban on smoking in restaurants, raising the minimum wage, and cell phone use while driving. Plus, a bill that pulls some junk food from schools gets a thumb's up. And, the much-anticipated moratorium on the death penalty never makes it to the floor, but it is far from being dead. That and much more next.

[THEME MUSIC]

Voiceover: This program was made possible by contributions to UNC-TV from viewers like you. Thank you.

[THEME MUSIC]

Crowley: Good evening, I'm Tim Crowley.

Vajda: And I'm Eszter Vajda. Thanks so much for joining us. Dozens of bills survived but others failed.

Crowley: The deadline for passing a bill through at least one chamber is up in the general assembly. We have highlights on what laws may impact you, including whether the minimum wage will go up, whether you can smoke in restaurants, or whether you can use a cell phone while driving.

Vajda: But first, one of the most anticipated bills clears committee but never makes it to the floor. The bill squeezed through a House committee along party lines. The crescendo to Wednesday's anticipated vote died quickly as the bill never made it on the calendar. But the bill to halt the death penalty while a study is conducted is far from being dead. Lawmakers may add some money to study the bill so it would remain eligible.

[BEGIN SEGMENT - DEATH PENALTY]

Vajda: Darryl Hunt and Alan Gell spent time in prison for crimes they didn't commit. Gell was sentenced to death row, Hunt life behind bars.

Gell: Just think of for maybe five seconds what it would be like if you were suddenly on death row, convicted of a murder you did not commit, and think of a system that is broken enough that two fifteen-year-old girls can manipulate it and send an innocent man to prison.

Hunt: No one in this room can know how good it is for us to be here.

Vajda: Hunt and Gell say they feel fortunate to be here because if it wasn't for the selfless work of their attorneys and supportive family, they would still be in prison [House 529].

Hunt: There is a problem with the system. The system is broken.

Vajda: A problem that Hunt says needs to be addressed. But until the judicial system is dissected with a fine-tooth comb, he says people in prison should not be put to death.

Hunt: The hardest thing for me to accept from the State of North Carolina about this is that they do not care about the victims. Everyone is victimized, from the person that was being killed to the person, their family.

Vajda: Hunt and Gell are not the only ones who have been exonerated. One former superior court judge says the system has plenty of holes.

Ross: Generally and in most cases I think our system works pretty well, considering the very high volume of cases flowing through the system and the resources available to handle those cases. But I also know that the system is not perfect. Mistakes are made.

Vajda: But not everyone agrees there should be pause in the process. The Reverend Mark Creech cites and example of Texas and what he calls a failed attempt at a moratorium in 1996.

Creech: As a result of the execution hiatus, the state appeared to have spared few, if any, condemned prisoners while the citizens of Texas experienced an added loss of 90 innocent lives to homicide over and above what would have been expected had the executions not been suspended.

Vajda: Creech says politicians have the heavy burden of deciding between the right of the accused and the right of the victim.

Creech: Politicians contemplating moratoriums may wish to consider the possibility that a seemingly innocuous moratorium on executions could very well come at a very heavy cost.

Vajda: He says it is a heavy cost that is paid years after a crime, while the case and the family are dragged through the system. One victim advocate says revoking the death penalty would further victimize families.

Chilton: Victims go through years of struggling with the experience that they have gone through. This moratorium will not be the answer. It is ultimately just an excuse to further try to stop the death penalty.

Vajda: The issue sparked debate among lawmakers.

Capps: Certainly everybody wants to be sure that no innocent victim is executed. None of us wants that. But I at least wish we had the same sort of zeal on the part of people who are concerned about the most innocent people of all, the innocent children in the womb who are murdered every day with nobody defending them. And we don't want a moratorium on that.

F: The system is not fair. One of the greatest American ideals, I think, is that we have this fairness that everybody be treated equally under the law. We are not doing that with our justice system.

Eddins: I do believe the system is working. It is not working for the victims. There are too many victims. We need a moratorium on the criminals who are going out and just going out on our citizens and causing more murder, more problems.

Miller: You seem to have no issue or problems about being representative in our prison system, including being on death row. I think that, to me, having 10% black men as the population of North Carolina where 66% are-represent the prison system-to me seems to be somewhat skewed.

Stam: Go ahead and execute all the white men on death row to get those averages up so we can be fair on that. And as someone suggested, if is the race of the victim, well, we should go ahead and execute those victims who are of that disadvantaged race who execute the criminal.

Hackney: If our system has produced innocent people getting convicted, and some of them reaching death row, what are we going to do about it? What are we as legislators going to do about it?

Vajda: While representatives narrowly passed the bill through committee, it never made it to the floor of the House. Why? Sponsors claim they are a few votes short of what is needed for passage. But that doesn't mean the bill is dead. According to the bill, the study commission would be made up of fifteen members, including five senators appointed by the president pro-temp, five representatives appointed by the speaker, and five members of the public appointed by the governor. A commission is required to consult with representatives of victims and law enforcement. The bill has been referred to the appropriations committee for consideration.

[BEGIN SEGMENT - MINIMUM WAGE]

Crowley: A bill attempting to raise the minimum wage did not receive the minimum votes needed for passage this week and was killed [House 330]. The proposal would have raised the minimum wage by one dollar to $6.15 per hour. Supporters say the state's working poor often have to work several minimum wage jobs to make ends meet. But critics argue that it would hurt local businesses and could mean some job losses.

Adams: Minimum wage employees working 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, earn $10,700 a year. That is $5,000 below the poverty level.

LaRoque: Employers buy labor. And when they are faced with mandatory wage hikes they can either pay higher wages for the same skills or they can do like the rest of us and try to get more for their money. That means finding workers who offer the skills to justify new wages. Other employers bypass hiring these better-educated teenagers and simply eliminate entry-level jobs.

Crowley: The original measure would have raised the minimum wage to $8.50, but the bill sponsor lowered the amount to try and get enough votes for passage.

[BEGIN SEGMENT - SMOKING BAN]

Crowley: The State House has snuffed out an attempt to place stricter regulations on restaurants when it comes to smoking sections [House 76]. The debate pitted health concerns against business owners' rights. The original version of the bill would have placed an outright ban on smoking in restaurants, but the newer version would have required more gradual changes.

Holliman: Section III establishes that a smoking area must be separate and apart from the main dining area; this prevents nonsmokers from being exposed to second-hand smoke by making the non-smoking areas truly smoke-free rather than just divided by small partitions.

Crowley: The bill's sponsor cited studies about the health effects of second-hand smoke and noted that 14 other states have banned smoking in restaurants, bars, workplaces, or some combination of them. But critics of the proposal say businesses and especially small businesses would suffer economic consequences.

Daughtry: To require them to have a completely enclosed place, separate and apart from the remainder of the restaurant for people to smoke would be expensive and burdensome and they think unnecessary. This bill will hurt also small restaurants, like where I live we have things like the Pilot House and others where you have 10 and 12 people in there, and you will have those people having to have a separate and distinct area for smokers when they only have 10 or 12 seats in the restaurant.

Crowley: The bill was defeated in the House by a narrow margin of 62 to 58. In other legislation, the Senate finalized a bill to ban smoking in prisons. The measure would give prisoners some help with quitting. That bill still needs approval by the House.

[BEGIN SEGMENT - BILLS]

Vajda: A measure to ban cell phones while driving has been disconnected [House 1104]. The original proposal would have banned using cell phones in cars but would have allowed hands-free equipment. A compromised bill didn't pass a judiciary committee either. The revised measure would have banned school bus drivers and persons under 18 from using a mobile phone while driving except in emergency cases. It also would have prohibited local governments from passing ordinances regulating the use of cell phones. While the measure seemed to have more support than in other years, it still failed in committee.

The North Carolina House once again put the brakes on a left-turn-on-red bill [House 1026]. This time instead of a measure allowing left-turn-on-red statewide, it would have only made left-turns-at-red legal at four intersections in Raleigh, the ones surrounding the legislative building. But opponents made light of this legislation.

Gulley: There is no place, there is no other place in North Carolina, that left-turn-on-red would get as much exposure to legislators as these four intersections. It is our hope that this legislation will act as a pilot program to allow left turns statewide.

Haire: A lot of people think that we go in circles around here, and if this bill passed would this not sort of verify that we are going around in circles?

Vajda: The left-turn-on-red legislation got the same result it has in previous years. It did not yield enough votes to get the green light.

Crowley: The House approved legislation this week allowing the North Carolina Turnpike Authority to study and build up to nine toll road projects across the state [House 253]. Under current law the Authority is limited to building three toll roads. The Authority already agreed earlier this year to study proposals for a bridge across the Cape Fear River in Wilmington, a parkway between the Charlotte airport and Gastonia, the Monroe connector between the U.S. 74 bypass and Interstate 485, and a road from the Durham freeway to I-540. The bill also appears to assist efforts to resume plans for a toll bridge across Currituck Sound. The measure to up the number of projects was approved overwhelmingly and sent to the Senate.

Vajda: The State House approved a bill this week that could determine how often a driver has to renew their license [House 267]. The bill would give eight-year licenses to drivers between 18 and 37. Now the license term is five years. Drivers could also renew their licenses on the internet for an additional five years.

Sutton: You can only renew for one time at a time. In other words, for one five-year period then you have to go back in to the DMV office, get a license, and then you can, after that period of time you can renew once again for a five-year period.

Vajda: Critics of the measure wanted to increase the age limit to 55 instead of 37, but the amendment failed. Supporters say the measure would eliminate lines at the DMV offices. Under this bill, licenses and permits would be generated at a centralized location and mailed out, eliminating the need for card-making machines at all offices. The Senate and the governor still have to approve the measure before it becomes law.

Crowley: The House has agreed unanimously to increase penalties for drivers who don't slow down or move over for emergency vehicles [House 288]. Motorists who fail to move to another lane when approaching a stopped emergency vehicle on a multi-lane road or fail to slow down while on a two-lane road would be guilty of a traffic infraction. The infraction would be punishable by a $250 fine; the current punishment is up to a $25 fine plus court costs. The proposed punishments could be raised to a felony offense if a first responder is seriously injured or dies. The Senate still has to approve the measure.

Vajda: Senators are trying to crack down on access of alcohol for minors. In a bill approved by the Senate, the driver's license of an adult could be revoked if they furnish alcohol to a minor [Senate 217]. Bill supporters say it mirrors the punishment some young people get.

Dalton: If a minor drinks under age, they lose their driver's license but the adult does not. This bill makes it, gives parity there and says there would be a revocation of a license.

Vajda: Under the measure offenders could have their license revoked for a year. Notification of the new law would have to be posted at ABC stores. If the House and the governor approve the bill, it would go into affect in December.

[BEGIN SEGMENT - SCHOOL NUTRITION]

Vajda: Well, it is a petition for nutrition in North Carolina schools. Two bills passed the Senate and House; one setting nutrition standards for school cafeterias and the other regulating the selections in school vending machines.

Crowley: Johanna Henry joins us now. Johanna, unlike similar bills in other states, these have had little opposition.

Henry: Tim and Eszter, it is part of my job to find the opposition, the dissenting voice on every issue. But in this case there really wasn't one. With the exception of some kids addicted to sugar and caffeine, these bills had support across the board.

M: I see you drinking one percent; is that because you think you are fat? Because you are not. You could be drinking whole if you wanted to.

Henry: From the movie screen to local teens, school lunch is about socialization first, favorite foods second and nutrition a very distant third for the kids. P.E. teacher Laura Lancaster knows the food pyramid according to teens. She spent 12 years teaching high school and six years here at Durant Road Middle School in Raleigh. She says high schoolers often use lunch money for non-cafeteria food.

Lancaster: Most kids would opt to get a soda, you know, to get a honey bun, to get a bag of chips; those things were sold outside of the cafeteria and what we had was a courtyard.

Henry: Here at Durant Road Middle School, for two dollars the kids have a choice of one entrée, today in this line meatball subs or turkey sticks, and up to three fruits and vegetables. But the cafeteria staff here says that kids rarely take all the fruits and vegetables they pay for.

Ostraco: We can't always be there to help them choose the best option at lunch when they are in line because we are not there with them having healthier alternatives. It makes sense.

Henry: For example, most of the kids today choose pizza, and for their vegetable mashed potatoes. Pizza and potatoes, potatoes and pizza, very few opted for the more balanced pizza and English peas. Milk is included with the meal and lots of kids picked up a carton, mainly chocolate. But just as many paid extra for the high calorie and sugar-loaded SoBe energy drink.

Hoggard: Children may not always have the knowledge and skills to make the best choices.

Henry: Lynn Hoggard is a registered dietician and heads the Department of Public Instruction's Child Nutrition Services. She says this problem started in the early '80s when the federal government cut child nutrition funding by nearly $2 billion.

Hoggard: In that period of time, schools literally scrambled to keep the cafeteria doors open. In doing so, they began to offer extra items from the school lunch. So if you had vegetable soup that day, a student could purchase an extra portion of vegetable soup. Well that became successful and it kept the cafeteria doors open. But then the notion came, well, if children will buy additional soup, maybe they will buy an additional sandwich, an additional cookie, and before long it spread to the sale of any product that we see in the consumer marketplace these days.

Henry: Items in the cafeteria line that make up the federally reimbursed school lunch must meet certain nutritional standards. But a la carte items, cupcakes, drinks, sandwiches, don't have to meet any nutrition standards at all. So the general assembly is funding several pilot programs to find ways to get kids eating healthier foods. For example, remember the popular pizza and potatoes? Both okay foods, maybe just not together. One program is exploring the option of bundling, that is, pairing an entrée with the sides that balance it.

Hoggard: We are going to take it a step at a time, test the waters, make sure that we are providing foods and beverages that are healthful for students but that students will select as well.

Davis: I think we need it. We need it. We have a lot of obesity and we really need our grandchildren, our nieces, our daughters and sons, we need all of them to have nutrition.

Ostraco: We don't send them to school with money to use vending machines because we don't like the options that are available.

Henry: Ken Ostraco is talking about the soda and snack machines in schools. They are the subject of a second child nutrition bill.

Arnold: We are going to move from the top high 40s in the country to the top five or eight states in the country.

Henry: Under the direction of Lieutenant Governor Beverly Perdue, Michael Arnold put together a diverse team to go where many other states have failed, find a way to keep kids from purchasing pop or choosing chips from vending machines instead of healthy food from the lunch line.

Arnold: Roughly 95% or so of the legislation introduced across the country over the past five years has failed. And the reason for that is they've really gone out and attacked families for how they were raising their children or attacked schools for what they were serving or attacked the industry, when in reality, in North Carolina, we brought these stakeholders together and forced them to be a part of this process.

Henry: They came up with a set of specific requirements, including no soft drinks sold during breakfast or lunch. No soft drinks in elementary schools. No sugared, carbonated soft drinks in middle schools. In high school, only 50% of the choices can be sugared, carbonated soft drinks. And all soda machines must offer bottled water as one of the choices. In school snack machines, 75% of the choices must be 200 calories or less and snack machines are prohibited from elementary schools.

Gunnells: I couldn't have predicted when the study started over a year ago where my industry would come out. I am proud of it and these bottlers for what they decided to do. It was their decision.

Henry: Butch Gunnells represents North Carolina Soft Drink Distributors and Bottlers. The soft drink industry has gone to war with health advocates over similar legislation in other states. But the North Carolina association has been involved in crafting these recommendations from the beginning and Gunnells says they are satisfied with the bill even though they realize there may be a small drop in sales initially.

Gunnells: There has been a lot of gray area in the law and a lot of not certain-there is a lot of ambiguity in the law. My folks want to know what the law is and want to follow it, number one. And number two, I just feel like we've developed a good working relationship to where we can really work through issues and not immediately get polarized on one side or another.

Henry: So, everyone is working together on this one. And, to be fair, some of the kids are on board with the better to munch lunch. Some bring a sack lunch, a handful choose the veggies and milk, and this student seems to really enjoy his salad. Those involved stress this is just the first step, more changes are needed and local school districts can and are encouraged to set even stricter standards for their own schools. Back to you.

Crowley: Thanks, Johanna. A House committee wants the state to make certain only legal residents of North Carolina are getting public assistance benefits [House 1474]. The measure would require applicants for public assistance to prove citizenship or lawful presence in the United States. Other states like Virginia have passed similar legislation in attempts to limit the impact on state budgets.

Sherrill: I don't think we can pass this bill fast enough in North Carolina. I think we all know that what shortfalls we are facing in our budget this year and that's just going to grow as a result of this kind of action.

Crowley: The bill does include exceptions for emergency medical services, disasters and immunizations among others. The measure got tied up on the House floor and hasn't received a final approval.

Vajda: Two North Carolina moms are on a crusade to get mercury out of vaccines [House 1364]. Angela Medlin and Amy Carson say their sons developed neurological disabilities because of a preservative used in shots called thimerosal. Studies show mercury can cause mental retardation, autism, blindness, and other neurological diseases. They say the Center for Disease Control and the National Academy of Sciences has warned against the dangers of mercury. The bill would allow the purchase of mercury-free vaccines and force healthcare practitioners and public health departments to inform parents if the shots contain the element. These moms wonder why it wasn't done earlier.

Medlin: There are over 100 symptoms of neurological disorders like autism, speech delay and ADHD that mirror symptoms of mercury poisoning; that just sent a chill up my spine. It was horrible because I had been searching for a long time. What happened, my son was typically developing and then things just slowly fell apart; it was like pieces of his development were turned off.

Vajda: The moms say the answer they got from the State Public Health Department is that the vaccines only contain trace amounts of mercury and are not harmful. The bill sits in a House health committee.

Crowley: A number of public records laws passed through the House and Senate this week. The House overwhelmingly approved a bill to exempt autopsy photos from public records, laws to guard against them being posted on the internet or published in newspapers [House 1543]. The measure passed the House two years ago but the Senate didn't take it up. There is no word on what the Senate will do with it this year.

In the Senate lawmakers unanimously approved two bills that would change the state's public records laws to conceal personal information of university donors and to delay access to strategies of government lawyers. A group representing some media organizations opposed the measure.

Meanwhile the Senate also approved a bill that would require the state to release non-confidential documents related to economic development within 15 days of the announced deal or document request [Senate 393].

Hoyle: I know I have folks back home that feel pretty strongly that the state has been too aggressive and doesn't need to deal in this world but I think the reality of the fact is that we have to. And sort of what compounds the problem is that when the press has a difficult time getting hold of the records so that they can properly report it and people get most of their information either fortunately or unfortunately from the newspapers.

Crowley: The original bill would have required the release of more information once the site location was announced. The House still must approve the idea before it becomes law.

Vajda: Several controversial bills ended up missing the crossover deadline and will be ineligible for the rest of the two-year session. One of those was the Defense of Marriage Act, which proposed a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriages in the state. There is already a law but supporters wanted something stronger. Another bill would have given some illegal immigrants in-state tuition at universities. Only adding money to the bills would salvage them.

[BEGIN SEGMENT - DEATH PENALTY]

Crowley: A moratorium on the death penalty brings out strong sentiments from both sides of the issue. A bill to halt the process while the study is being done barely passed the House committee. Eszter sits down with two lawmakers with strong convictions.

Vajda: Representative Paul Stam, Representative Paul Miller, thanks so much for being here. Representative Miller let me start out with you. This bill calls for a moratorium while a study is being conducted. Why not continue with the process of the death penalty and do the study at the same time?

Miller: I guess when people ask me that question the first thought that comes into my mind is very simply this, if we have a flawed system, why should we continue to execute people? The worst thing that could happen for proponents of the death penalty is to execute an innocent person who has been misplaced on death row. And I think that a pause is necessary in a life and death situation. You can't really get back someone's time in terms of someone being falsely prosecuted, accused, and then convicted, but you can mitigate it by releasing them from prison if in fact it is found to be so. However, if in fact that person is put to death, there is no mitigation; it is done, it's over. So, for proponents of the death penalty, I think the best thing to do is to pause to make sure that we've got it right.

Vajda: Representative Stam, Alan Gell and Darryl Hunt are two men that testified in committee. Both spent many years in prison for crimes they didn't commit. There have been many other cases across the country where there have been people exonerated because they were found not guilty. If those people were put to death, isn't the state committing murder in of itself?

Stam: Well, of course they weren't put to death and we have an extensive review process that for each person sentenced to death lasts usually between 8 to 15 years, and the testimony before the committee is sometimes more than 20 years. So, there are 47 judges that look at each case during the entire appeals process. So, we have many steps along the way to catch error and there just are no credible claims of an innocent person being executed in North Carolina since the reinstitution of the death penalty in the modern era.

Vajda: So Representative Stam, do you believe that North Carolina is doing enough to make sure that innocent people are not being put into jail?

Stam: Well, actually I think we can still do more. The chief justice has an Actual Innocent Commission proposal which I think in broad parameters is a real good proposal. But the approximately eight people who would be affected by the moratorium directly, the eight people who are likely to be executed during the next two years, more or less, just, they are not innocent. And we were prepared in debate, one of our members, to go over the facts of each of their crimes and to explain to the people who, you know, who we would be protecting by this moratorium.

Vajda: Representative Miller, do you think enough is being done to make sure that innocent people are not being put into jail?

Miller: Well, obviously not, as you pointed out, Alan Gell and Darryl Hunt were falsely convicted. They went through the system. And it was almost virtually by luck that they were actually released. And we have no idea what has occurred in the past. In the case of one of the individuals, if the person who actually committed the crime had passed away before they could do some final DNA testing, he would still be in jail today. So the fact is that we are not doing enough and as a matter of fact I felt that what we are trying to achieve as a justice system that is equal for everyone. One of the things that concerns me about our current justice system here in North Carolina, for instance, is that black men make up about 10% of the population of North Carolina while 60% of those incarcerated are also black men. So, for me that raises a red flag that where we seem to have problems about getting employment, be it computer programmers, be it CEOs, doctors, lawyers, or even elected officials, but we are overly represented in the prison system here. So to me that raises a red flag as to whether or not this system is truly equal and justice is being executed the same for everyone. So I am very concerned and I think that the moratorium is a way to examine the most severe crime, which is murder, to make sure that that is being executed correctly, however that is just a small part of a very broad problem.

Stam: Well, a general statement about what races are in prison, of course, doesn't answer the question about the moratorium. Of those who have actually been executed in North Carolina, 35 people, 64% of them have been white. Now I don't particularly, I don't treat this on a racial basis, I don't feel any particular affinity to white people who have been sentenced to death for murder; I think they ought to be executed regardless of their race. But it is not true that the people who have been executed have been disproportionately African American.

Miller: However, it is true that the people on death row are disproportionately African American.

Stam: Well, I would not agree with that. It may be disproportionate to the number of people in the population, but the question is, is it disproportionate to the number of people who have committed capital murder? And when they get to the end of the process, after 8 to 15 years, sometimes 20 years, it is 64% white who are being executed.

Miller: And I would say that, as I mentioned previously, 60% African American being in the whole system of incarceration in North Carolina and also similar statistics for those on death row, indicate to me that we need to look this over. In fact, they may not have anything to do with race; it may not have anything to do with economic background. However, I think that that jury is still out. The fact that we have prosecuted, convicted, and put in prison people who already have been proven to be innocent should indicate in fact that something is wrong with the system. And the only thing we are looking for is equal justice and not to execute an innocent person.

Vajda: Representative Stam, why not have a study?

Stam: Well, I don't mind the study at all. The question is whether you suspend executions during that two years, and there are two main reasons why you wouldn't want to do that. One, there is no moratorium on the suffering of the families of the victims during those two years; they've got to endure this process. It is bad enough that the crime happened to their family member and that it is going to last 8 to 15 to 20 years, but then you are going to now, by this, tack on another couple of years. But probably more importantly is that while it is remotely but highly unlikely possible that anybody would be saved from the death penalty by the moratorium study eventually, it is probable to a high degree of likelihood that dozens or perhaps a hundred or more people, innocent people, will be murdered because of the two-year moratorium and the lack of deterrents effect. That is the approximate magnitude that studies have found of people, excess numbers of murders during moratorium period.

Vajda: Representative Miller, let me ask you about some of the studies that have been done. For example, Texas, where Reverend Mark Creech cited a study that in 1996 Texas had a moratorium and in fact crime rates went up, murders went up. And that in fact the death penalty serves as a deterrent to crime. Is that something you agree with?

Miller: No, not at all. I think that just because the crime rate went up at this time that a moratorium took place in Texas has very little to do with whether or not it serves as a deterrent. I am sure that if you interview most criminals who commit crimes, whatever level of criminality it is, I would find, I think you would find that the deterrents or penalties was not a factor in their committing the crimes, I think it was just a matter of their intent in the first place. I think probably they probably had no idea about the penalties until after their conviction. I think that a person that is for the death penalty and for execution should embrace the moratorium. One reason they should embrace it is in England one of the reasons why the death penalty was abolished was because, a strong reason, was because a man was convicted falsely of murder and executed. And the most interesting part is the chief witness for the prosecution of that man was the actual killer. So, if anything like that happens in North Carolina or probably anywhere in the U.S., the support for the death penalty will wane greatly. So those who in fact support the death penalty should probably embrace the moratorium to ensure without a doubt that we are executing the right people. The people who get executed innocently are not some kind of collateral damage. I think just because you have most of them that are executed for a crime that they did should not be a reason to continue it because the thing, the exception is where you should be worried about, innocent people being executed because the whole point of the death penalty is null and void once you execute an innocent person.

Stam: The study that you mentioned was done at the University of Houston and showed a significant, a large increase in murders after a moratorium went into effect, and then a large decrease immediately after it went out of effect when people, the pent up number of executions began to happen. And I don't think you can discount the lives of those people who likely will be murdered because of the moratorium. Now, I understand that you cannot usually point to one particular person who will or will not be deterred in every case, but we have had cases, I've read the transcripts of the court records, where people in prison for life have murdered other inmates, and certainly if they had been executed that murder wouldn't have happened. And I agree with Representative Miller that criminals don't in general calculate, you know, is this a 20-year sentence or a 15-year sentence, or 12 and a half? But I think the death penalty is quite a bit different, that does get into their consciousness where they can see the connection between killing someone and being killed.

Vajda: So you believe it does deter crime?

Stam: I'm sure it does. It is hard to quantify, but I'm sure it deters some murders, certainly not all.

Vajda: Representative Miller, a victim advocate testified in the committee and she said that, and you've touched upon this a little bit, that families have gone through an immense, excruciating time during the trial and by putting a moratorium on the death penalty that would further victimize them. What is your response to that?

Miller: My response is the last thing any person would want, including the families of victims of crime, is the wrong person to be convicted, executed. What we are trying to do is make sure we have an equal justice system, and there is no way I can understand the pain or suffering a family goes through who has been a victim of murder. But I also believe that it is also a very terrible thing to execute the wrong person for a crime they did not commit.

Vajda: Representative Stam, how does your religion play into your decision to support the death penalty?

Stam: Well, I try to think about that. You know, my faith from the teaching of the Bible is that it is actually immoral not to execute murders. But I try to think, suppose I had no faith at all, would I still be in favor of it? And I sure would; so, just because of the facts and what it does to a society when you depreciate the value of human life. So it is hard for me to tell you how much is one and how much is the other when they are congruent.

Vajda: Representative Miller, same question.

Miller: Well, I try to, you know, separate my role as a legislator from my faith. But I think that most people, what they are looking for out of any system, whether it is their parents disciplining them as a child or whether it is the State of North Carolina or the U.S. Government, is a system that is fair and just. And I think that America is a Christian-based state that was founded essentially out of Protestants moving away from areas that did not favor them and into the U.S. from all kinds of parts of the world. And it began other religions, too, but I think most religions would believe murder is wrong. And I also believe murder is wrong, but I also believe that execution of the innocent is equally as wrong and I think that we have to ensure we have an equal system and a just system and we can save arguments about how to handle penalties for another time, but for right now what we want is a just, fair, equal system and it is obvious that that does not always apply.

Stam: All I can say on that is I thoroughly agree that executing an innocent person is a bad thing and should not happen, and that is also taught in our Christian faith. But I just don't think a moratorium, you know, is the answer at all.

Vajda: Representative Miller, what needs to be done to gain votes on the House floor to get this bill through?

Miller: Well, I think that question probably deserves a higher pay grade than what I can handle right now. However, I am sure that proponents of the moratorium are vigorously working on a bipartisan support in order to pass this legislation.

Vajda: Okay. Representative Paul Stam, Representative Paul Miller, thanks so much for being here.

Stam: Thank you.

Miller: Thank you.

Crowley: The bill now heads to a House appropriations committee.

Vajda: It was indeed a busy week for lawmakers and those who covered them. Tim sits down with members of the Capital Press Corps to get their take on crossover.

[BEGIN ANALYSIS SEGMENT]

Crowley: Seth Effron with State Government Radio, Sharif Durhams with the Charlotte Observer, Gary Robertson with the Associated Press, thanks for joining us on this crossover week. It has been a busy, busy week but even Marc Basnight said it was the easiest crossover for lawmakers that he can remember in his short time. Seth, let's start with you. The high profile issue coming into this week was the moratorium on the death penalty and the study of that. It passed out of committee but then stalled; what happened with that?

Effron: Well, it is one of the interesting things, that bill in the House didn't have enough steam when it got to the floor to get across and get passed and I think that House Speaker Black figured that that could be used later on, either to give particularly members of the black caucus the opportunity to see if they could build more support, but also interestingly it can become a pawn for a lot of other issues where either Speaker Black or someone needs support. And there are a lot of twists and turns that this could have. It could remain as a separate bill and come up if they can get support and all of that, but one of the things to look out for is it might get tucked into the budget bill. It has got a study in it so they could say, "Well this is a study bill, those traditionally do go into the budget bill." But the interesting thing will be the moratorium part of it which calls for a two-year suspension of capital punishment. But critical to getting support for the budget, particularly some of the revenue items and some of the other cuts is going to be support of the black caucus. So this may be a way to cut a deal that way.

Crowley: We did see it get out of committee, though, pretty narrow vote. Sharif, what did you learn about kind of the pros and cons of this argument this week?

Durhams: Well, I think it is funny there was this head of steam for, you know, we had to pass it this week and then suddenly, oh, we discover we don't have to pass it this week because there is money attached to it. We discovered that as soon as we knew that there weren't enough votes for it. But, you know, definitely you have a lot of law and order type people, some Republicans but also some Democrats, who believe that our system is fine and there has been a lot of evidence of that. The fact that some of these cases have been overturned later they say is evidence that the system works now and that we are not going to execute anyone who didn't commit the crime. On the other side you have people who say, "Well, we do need to study it; there have been problems in other states, there have been problems here, and if you are going to study it, you don't want to be executing people while you are studying it."

Crowley: What kind of arm twisting, Gary, do you think went on between the committee and by the time it got to the floor?

Robertson: Well, Speaker Black said that he just does what he usually does, is just lay out his arguments and, you know, before the caucus and I believe he spoke about it Tuesday afternoon, I believe, in the caucus. Arm twisting? I think there were some fence sitters that got some attention from Representative Hackney who is the primary sponsor of the bill and some of his lieutenants, but you know, I think while clearly most Democrats would vote for it and most Republicans would vote against it, I don't think it was particularly necessarily a party-caucus vote or anything like that. It was really, I really sense that in many ways people needed to just vote their conscious and unfortunately for the supporters there about maybe eight, nine, ten Democrats who just can't go along with it.

Crowley: We saw Governor Easley weighing in before the week's start and once he heard it was going to come up again this week. Do you think that had any play into some of the decision-making this week, Seth?

Effron: I think some of it did. It gave those Democrats that were clearly opposed to the legislation some cover in that versus abandoning say the Democratic caucus in that sense it helped them out. The other thing is I think that opponents to this bill feel that it is one of those camel's-nose-under-the-tent things for people who want to abolish the death penalty; they feel that the real motivation is to stop the death penalty and then work on abolishing it all together so that people who support the death penalty obviously see this as an inching toward that and oppose it that way as well.

Robertson: And we saw folks like Alan Gell, who was on death row for six years before he was acquitted actively lobbying there this week. I mean, what an amazing turn of events his life has taken, now he is here at the legislature trying to persuade people he's never met before to have an execution moratorium. And he has said, you know, he kind of takes the attitude that I am opposed to the death penalty because look what happened to me when the state decided to carry it out on me. And it is a pretty persuasive argument when you have somebody in front of you who nearly was wrongly executed.

Effron: Yeah, the reality is it is the one punishment that, if carried out, you can't come back and say, "Gee, we made a mistake and we will compensate you." There is nothing that can be done and I think for a lot of opponents of the death penalty that is one of the strong arguments as well.

Crowley: Have any of you gotten a feeling if, for some reason this does pass the House and passes the Senate, if Easley, Governor Easley, will veto this particular measure?

Durhams: He has definitely been kind of cagey on it. Saying that he doesn't see there is any reason to halt things. Attorney General Roy Cooper also says the same thing and Governor Easley used to be the attorney general, so their job is to kind of prosecute these cases and defend them when they are appealed. But he hasn't flat-out said I am going to veto it. So that gives him a little wiggle room, especially since the public, not with a large majority but with a majority, says we should halt these things and study them. I also think that the case of Speaker Black is kind of interesting. He is a death penalty supporter and he used to oppose having a moratorium and he says that the arguments over the past few years, the Gell case and things like that, have changed his mind; it is time to halt this kind of thing, even though he believes that for the worst of the worst you should go ahead and execute them.

Effron: Governor Easley is also a former district attorney and prosecutor. I think that it would take a lot of persuading for him not to veto that bill if it comes to him as a separate bill. And again that is part of the idea that may turn out later on is that if it is folded in with other legislation, either in the budget or with another package of bills, that it will be more difficult for the governor to veto it if he gets it in that form.

Crowley: Would he veto the budget if it comes that way, then? He said he's never done it before, he always threatens.

Effron: Yeah, if it is the only provision in there I don't think it is a slam dunk that he will. It is not a slam dunk that he won't because there may be other things there that he is concerned about but I think it would be more difficult.

Crowley: What is interesting is would he veto, if that is in there and the lottery is in there, if he would veto the budget since he is a big lottery supporter?

Effron: Well, I think you answered the question by asking it. It would be a tough choice, wouldn't it?

Robertson: It would be amazing if that occurred.

Crowley: All right, let's move on. There has been a lot of other stuff that happened during crossover week. Gary, let's start with you on this; first time in my recollection that Alma Adams has actually gotten a vote on the House floor for a minimum wage bill. She has brought it up year after year but couldn't quite convince enough lawmakers to go along with it.

Robertson: Well, she had plenty of opportunities during, you know, a seven or eight hour period, probably longer than that on Wednesday; they had a House Commerce Committee meeting, made some arguments that fell, I think the vote was 18 to 16 and 9:00 rolls around and they decide to have another House committee meeting, Commerce Committee meeting, and lo and behold it passed 19 to 17. I know there were some new faces, I believe, in the Commerce Committee. That hadn't been there earlier in the day and then they went back on the floor at around 11:00 and had another, had a debate on it and it fell I believe by about 14 votes. But yes, the very fact that she said yesterday that the very fact that there was a vote on it was a sign that the idea has at least risen up a bit so that people would consider it. It is interesting how that came about. I think it might come to, the reason that it was revised may have something to do with some of the things that Seth talked about, about somebody in the legislative black caucus, an influential member who really wanted to see this legislation pass and it could be. You can't rule out that Speaker Black pushed that again to try to curry favor with her in future legislation.

Effron: I think often times, particularly on a bill like that where you are really not sure how many votes are for or against it on the floor, there can be a strong appeal made for, "Let's just get this to the floor, let's get it out, let's have the debate." The unfortunate thing and a sense about that is it is an important piece of legislation, and there was a good, healthy debate on the floor, but it was late at night, it got short-shrift in a lot of the news coverage because of that, but there was a lot of very interesting and informed debate that went on about it and I think that Representative Adams needs to be, and probably has expressed gratification just for the opportunity to give that legislation a hearing on the floor and a full debate.

Crowley: Did it seem, Sharif, that issues like the minimum wage we see also the smoking ban in restaurants, we've tried, we saw some compromise legislation come out but ultimately some of those, what we refer to as "sexier issues," didn't seem to get through the house.

Durhams: Well, that's a little bit of the nature of the body. The more exciting the legislation might seem, then the more kind of on the edge it is and therefore less likely to pass. But there were a lot of things that were talked about, such as a smoking ban on statewide, a smoking ban particularly for Mecklenburg County where my readers are from, that either got bottled up in committee or was pushed and compromise was attempted but it just didn't garner the votes. There was an attempt to do that smoking ban statewide that was changed to, "Let's put restrictions on smoking in restaurants" and even that couldn't get the votes to pass in this tobacco state.

Crowley: Let's start with you on this question, Seth. What do you think the most significant piece of legislation passing during this crossover week to come out?

Effron: Well, one of the things is, I don't know if this is the most significant but to me the most interesting and uncovered was a bill in the Senate that, or in the House, that is going to create agricultural, sort of agricultural commerce districts. It is one of those things as we talk about protecting the farmer and a lot of that came up in the, even the smoking ban legislation. This is something that will allow farm districts to create sort of enterprise areas where not only can they produce goods that are sold to market, they can put their markets right on the farm and things like that. So there is a very interesting concept that didn't get a lot of attention but maybe something that helps, particularly there is a lot of talk about reinvigorating rural parts of this state and that sort of thing. And this would be a case where, for example, a dairy could have a retail outlet right there on the farm, people could go there versus having to find an outlet in a market. A hog farm or a cattle farm could sell meats and that sort of thing. So I thought that was one of the things that was maybe not the biggest issue but one of the most interesting that didn't get a lot of attention.

Crowley: Sharif, how about you? The most significant thing to pass during crossover?

Durhams: Well, one that that is interesting to our business is a piece of legislation that passed that would restrict autopsy photos as being part of the public record. There has been a push on this before. And it is not that newspapers and TV stations want to print autopsy photos, but they do want to be able to take them to other doctors and have them examine them to see if there is any, you know, foul play in a case or something that the state medical examiners do not find when they are doing an autopsy. And that passed through one chamber so it could still be considered.

Crowley: Gary, same question.

Robertson: Well, one thing that may not have gotten as much coverage was some legislation that passed the House that would further expand the number of toll roads we have in our state. Currently we only have the authority to issue three, create three, and none of them have been developed yet but they are already expanding it to nine. It makes you wonder, you know, do we really want that many toll roads or the potential to do that without even seeing if one worked. And it also helped revive a little bit a long-proposed bridge that would connect mainland Currituck County to the northern Outer Banks.

Crowley: How about, let's go around the table again, Seth, not necessarily the bills that failed but the most significant piece of legislation that had to meet crossover deadline that didn't end up coming up?

Durhams: I think that one of the things was the bill that got a lot of attention early on dealing with tuition and illegal immigrants in the universities, providing them in-state tuition. It got a lot of attention, big action on all of the conservative radio talk shows, and even Rush Limbaugh got involved, that went nowhere. I think that probably because it became so controversial and it was just a very difficult piece of legislation to explain. My guess is that particularly El Pueblo, the largest advocacy organization for Hispanics, is pretty disappointed about that. It will be interesting to see how that comes back up and in what form, either during the short session or in coming sessions.

Crowley: Sharif?

Durhams: I would say also something that got interest early anyway was the gay marriage amendment that would ban same-sex marriage in the state constitution. It was already illegal under state law but it was a big push at the beginning of the session to say, "Let's have a constitutional amendment; this is coming up in other states." It doesn't seem like there are any active cases that a judge would add same-sex marriage in North Carolina, but there is definitely a lot of interest among conservatives as Seth was saying about his piece of legislation.

Crowley: Gary, the most significant thing left on the table?

Robertson: Well, while I think they could find a way to exempt it from crossover, medical malpractice is something, you know, there is some bipartisan support. It really hasn't kicked up a notch like it did, let's say earlier this decade, but there has been some interest to reform that and that really has gone nowhere. And there are some Blue Cross Blue Shield bills that probably will end up in studies.

Crowley: Okay. Gary Robertson with the Associated Press, Seth Effron with State Government Radio, Sharif Durhams with the Charlotte Observer, thanks for joining us this week.

All: Thank you.

Vajda: If you have any comments on any of the stories we aired or have issues you want to cover, you want us to cover that is, call our comment line at 919-549-7830 or email us at legweek@unctv.org.

Crowley: It was a busy crossover week and now House budget writers will get to work crafting their spending plan. House leaders say they would like a proposed budget within two weeks. That is going to do it for our show tonight. Make sure you tune in next week for the latest news from the general assembly. I'm Tim Crowley.

Vajda: And I'm Eszter Vajda. Have a terrific weekend everyone.

Voiceover: Funding for this program is made possible by UNC-TV members.