What Is a Just Punishment for Lionel Tate?
ANNOUNCER: THE POINT WITH GRETA VAN SUSTEREN. Johnnie Cochran's getting into the act.</s>JOHNNIE COCHRAN, ATTORNEY: We've got to appeal to the governor there to take a look at this and take a look at the system. I think it's broken.</s>ANNOUNCER: Al Sharpton's already there.</s>REV. AL SHARPTON, NATIONAL ACTION NETWORK: There's no way we're going to sit by and tolerate this.</s>ANNOUNCER: And they're all waiting for the governor. Tonight: The Florida teenager sentenced to life without parole and the increasing pressure for a lighter sentence.</s>PROTESTERS: Free Lionel Tate!</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Free Lionel Tate!</s>PROTESTERS: Free Lionel Tate!</s>ANNOUNCER:  THE POINT: Crime and unjust punishment? Washington's heavyweights rumble over money and politics: In this corner, John McCain; in this corner, President Bush and some leading Republicans.</s>THE POINT: Now, from Washington, Greta Van Susteren.</s>VAN SUSTEREN: Do you remember this face? He is 14-year-old Lionel Tate. We last saw him about a week and a half ago when he was sentenced to life without parole for killing a 6-year-old playmate when he was 12. Tate's mother and his attorneys had turned down a plea bargain that would have meant three years in the juvenile justice system. So he was tried as an adult, convicted, and thanks to Florida's get-tough laws, the judge had no choice other than life without parole. Tonight's "Flashpoint": crime and just punishment, or unjust punishment? Lionel Tate's sentence has upset a lot of people, including attorney Johnnie Cochran. Last night, Cochran told me he's going to Florida to get involved. (</s>BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "THE POINT WITH GRETA VAN SUSTEREN") COCHRAN: I'm going to try to help this young man get some form of clemency, because I think that's a dysfunctional system, where a 12-year-old -- now 14 -- gets life in prison without parole. I mean, that's a frightening set of circumstances. Not to condone what took place, but you know, a child of 12 years old should -- there's some redeeming value in this child, with no record, obviously, at this point. So I think that the, we've got to appeal to the governor there to take a look this and take a look at this system. I think it's broken.</s>VAN SUSTEREN: Governor Jeb Bush is hearing from a lot of people who think Florida's system is broken. Let's get an update from CNN's Mark Potter in Miami. Mark, what's the latest?</s>MARK POTTER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Greta, first to talk about Lionel himself, he's now in a maximum security facility for juveniles. He was moved there last week from an adult facility, and he will be there indefinitely until the legal system decides what more to do with him. And that's where we go next. We are in the next phase, the appeal phase, and that appears to be a two-track process. The attorneys say that they will probably file a notice of appeal and their intent to appeal this case. That would go to the Fourth District Court of Appeals in West Palm Beach, Florida, probably next week. And as you mentioned at the outset, there is also an effort here to seek clemency from the governor, Jeb Bush. And that's a process that will get under way shortly. The next scheduled clemency hearing in Tallahassee is June. Now, as you said, it appears that there is going to be a new legal team set up to take care of this appeal. Johnnie Cochran at the forefront of that -- we've already heard from him. We know of his intent to be on this team. But we also heard from Al Sharpton, the reverend AL Sharpton, who's going to be on the show in a minute. He spoke at a news conference in Fort Lauderdale yesterday. He went there to meet with the prosecutor, Ken Padowitz, to express his concerns about this case. And he said that other attorneys who have been contacted to join this team include Barry Scheck, Peter Neufeld and Charles Ogletree from Harvard University, and he said that that team will be assembled and will travel to Florida to take part in this effort. Now, the attorney who tried the case, Jim Lewis, has confirmed that attorneys in Florida have been talking with Johnnie Cochran and his staff, and that they are expected to come to Florida to have a meeting at the end of this week to hammer out strategy and to decide what this team actually is going to look like -- Greta.</s>VAN SUSTEREN: Mark, has anyone actually met with Lionel Tate so far, or is there just a lot of talk about who's going to work with him?</s>POTTER: Jim Lewis met with Lionel last week, no indication that they discussed the specifics of the new team. Reverend Al Sharpton met with him yesterday, and I guess you'll have a chance, in a moment, to ask him specifically about that meeting, whether they discussed the legal strategy.</s>VAN SUSTEREN: All right. Thanks to CNN's Mark Potter in Miami. As Mark Potter just said, Lionel Tate got a high-profile visitor on Monday. The Reverend Al Sharpton was allowed to meet with the boy, who's being kept at a facility for high-risk juveniles instead of an isolation cell in an adult jail. Al Sharpton joins me now from New York. Welcome, Reverend.</s>SHARPTON: Thank you.</s>VAN SUSTEREN: Reverend, what was your impression of Lionel Tate when you met with him?</s>SHARPTON: Well, I thought that here was a young man who clearly is sitting there, having been sentenced to life in jail. He clearly seemed traumatized by it, but he also wanted to say to me that he wanted his mother and family to know that he was doing what they said: praying and staying strong, and trying to see what would become his fate. So he seemed to be like a 14-year-old young boy who was terrified of a system that he seems to, at this point, be facing without any opportunity to even show redemption at any point in his life.</s>VAN SUSTEREN: Did you get the idea that he understood what "life without parole" meant?</s>SHARPTON: I do not know that he specifically understands the legal consequence. I think he understands that this is very serious. I think he understands that it was something that was very unlikely that his lawyers and his mother and he thought would happen. And I think he was very happy to know that some other people were now working with his mother to try and deal with the bigger question. I told him that my concern was not the specific case, but that the legal precedent that is being set by this case is a threat to juveniles everywhere. To think that Charles Manson, that serial killers in parts of this country, can face parole, and here's a young man who committed this act at 12 years old, and if this sentence stands he can he never go in front of a parole board. This is unthinkable to me.</s>VAN SUSTEREN: Was it unthinkable to Lionel Tate? Did he have the concept that Charles Manson would get a parole hearing, he will not? Did he understand those things?</s>SHARPTON: I do not want to say that he understood them. I certainly expressed them. He certainly seemed to appreciate that I was saying them. But again, we're are talking about a child. And I think that, even at 14, even where he is, it'll be very difficult for him to understand all of the legal ramifications, which is one of the reasons I don't think he ought to be sentenced as an adult, because I don't think he's responsible enough to be able to make those kinds of weighty decisions as an adult.</s>VAN SUSTEREN: What was the most unusual thing about Lionel Tate, if anything, when you first met him?</s>SHARPTON: The thing that was unusual to me is he's very well- mannered: Yes, sir, no, sir. He was very much wanting me to know that he was very concerned about Tiffany's family, the young lady that lost her life, and that I understood that this was, in his words, something that was not his intent. So he seemed very much concerned that I understand that he was not some kind of monster. That's my words, not his. I was the first person other than his lawyer that was allowed to see him. He also was very concerned about his mother, who was there at the jail but not permitted to see him, and he was very concerned that I communicate to her that he was trying to be strong and trying to be what she would want him to be.</s>VAN SUSTEREN: Did he indicate to you whether the choice go trial instead of accepting the plea offer that was extended by the prosecutor at pretrial, did he indicate to you that he knew about that three-year deal, and did he indicate that he himself chose not to take it, or was there any discussion about that?</s>SHARPTON: There was no discussion about the plea at all. I did tell him that there was an other legal team being put in place that I was working with. I asked him did he know who Johnnie Cochran was. He said he did. And I told him that Mr. Cochran and I and Dr. Ogletree and Barry Scheck and others had talked, and they would be coming to see him. And he seemed to be pleased with that. But we did not talk about the plea at all.</s>VAN SUSTEREN: All right, you talked to the prosecutor as well in the last day or so. Did the prosecutor tell you what he intends to do?</s>SHARPTON: The prosecutor said that he would support an application for clemency, and we made it clear to him in the meeting that we felt that it was his discretion to prosecute Lionel as an adult, something that he did not have to do. He said, "Well, the grand jury indicted on that." I said that in my experience around the country, grand juries are usually guided by the prosecutors, the defense is not allowed in, and that I felt that he opted to do something that now he is in fact calling for clemency in. We agreed to disagree, and he has said to us publicly, as he said to us yesterday, in the meeting in Ft. Lauderdale, that he would support clemency in this matter.</s>VAN SUSTEREN: All right. What about the conditions where Lionel is being held, what did you think of them?</s>SHARPTON: It seemed to be all right. He seemed to be fine. But it struck me that he's in a maximum juvenile center. I felt that I've not seen a more guarded and a maximum security type atmosphere for even adults. I was absolutely surprised at the kind of fortress that he was in, and although he said he had no problems, he was being treated well, and I met the warden and some of the people who seemed to be very much interested in the well-being of the young people there.</s>VAN SUSTEREN: All right. We need to take a break. My thanks to the Reverend Sharpton.</s>SHARPTON: Thank you.</s>VAN SUSTEREN: We'll change course in a minute and start following the money trail. Hard money, soft money and maybe even your money, when THE POINT returns.</s>VAN SUSTEREN: It's every politician's dream: unlimited money for me, no contributions allowed for my opponent. With that as the unspoken starting point, the U.S. Senate's Democrats and Republicans are trying to rewrite our country's campaign finance laws. Think I'm joking? Today, the Senate approved raising contribution limits for candidates running against self-financed millionaires. That's right, reform the system by throwing even more money around. Are we letting the foxes redesign chicken coops? Well, let's ask my guests: "National Review" editor Rich Lowry is in New York; syndicated columnist Arianna Huffington is in Los Angeles, rolling blackouts permitting. Her latest book, called "How to Overthrow the Government," is about to come out in paperback. And here in Washington is Jake Tapper of salon.com, and he's also the cohost of CNN's new show, "Take Five." Welcome to all of you. Arianna, first to you. Let's get right to the point. Is the system, as it stands now, corrupt?</s>ARIANNA HUFFINGTON, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: It is legalized bribery, Greta. And it's not going to be solved on the Senate floor. It's very clear that the dance to kill the McCain-Feingold bill has begun. Amendment after amendment is going to be proposed, voted on, and by the end of it, I predict they're not going to pass the McCain- Feingold bill that resembles in any way what the senators want. And that's inevitable because the incumbents who are in power at the moment are not going to allow fundamental reform that will change the status quo, even at a time when we had the bankruptcy bill pass both the House and the Senate, which is a clear demonstration of the power of money to influence policy. And when we had President Bush reverse his decision during the campaign on controlling and regulating carbon dioxide, again, because of the huge contributions of the energy industry.</s>VAN SUSTEREN: All right, Jake, it sounds like we Americans are getting bamboozled by some dance on the Senate floor. At least, that's how Arianna seems to paint it. Do you agree or disagree?</s>JAKE TAPPER, SALON.COM: Well, I agree with a lot of what Arianna said. I don't know that I agree fully with the introduction to the segment. I think one of the things about the self-financed millionaires bill -- the amendment that came up yesterday and then a revised amendment that was brought up today -- it had to do with, you know, millionaires can spend anything that they want, any amount of money that they want on their campaign for whatever reason. And this was a bill that was actually trying to help people who run against millionaires, and this gets into the complexities and the nuances of this issue. Not everybody is out there to sandbag the McCain-Feingold bill.</s>VAN SUSTEREN: But, Jake, isn't that -- let me just talk about that particular point. Isn't that sort of -- I mean, we're talking about reform, and the first thing the Senate seems to worry about is that someone from the outside could come in with more money and try to usurp them. They're worried about their own turf. That's the starting point, apparently.</s>TAPPER: Right, and it's hilarious. And then you have people like Senator Corzine of New Jersey, who broke all records by spending $65 million on his own Senate race for New Jersey, and at least 25, if not more, millionaires voting on this issue. It is very funny, and the president of common cause noted that, how amusing it was, that the first thing that was taking up a day and a half of debate was issues of millionaires, and running against millionaires, and senators worried about rich opponents.</s>VAN SUSTEREN: Rich, what's wrong with that? Don't rich people have a first amendment right to spend their money how they please?</s>RICH LOWRY, "NATIONAL REVIEW": Of course they do. Greta, this bill is a jerry-rigged monstrosity. It's the worst legislation we've seen in Washington since the Hillary health care bill, which is why you have a right/left coalition against it. You have conservative grassroots groups opposing it, and you also have left wing groups like the ACLU and the AFL-CIO opposing it as well. And there are two real fundamental problems with this bill that can't be fixed. One is that it would defund political parties. I happen to think, and a lot of people think, political parties are great institutions. They do things like register voters, they get out the vote, they run political advertising. All those things are good things for our democracy, and it takes money to do those things. And, Greta, the second problem is a first amendment one. You know, if there were a bill on the Senate floor today that said, Greta, that you could not broadcast your show 60 days before election, or that said Arianna Huffington could not write an op-ed column 60 days before an election, there would be an outcry. That'd be an obvious violation of the first amendment, and that's exactly what McCain and Feingold are trying to do to independent groups. They're trying to limit their influence at the most important time -- 60 days before an election. That is baldly unconstitutional.</s>VAN SUSTEREN: Let me just say this, Rich. I understand the first amendment issue, and I think that's a legitimate problem. We certainly know the Supreme Court spoke out about that about 25 years ago. But do you not agree that money talks in this city? Money buys legislation, and it's a real problem.</s>LOWRY: Well, look, money talks to some extent, and you're never going to be able to do away with that. But I don't think it buys legislation, in quite the fashion that crude campaign finance reformers like Arianna Huffington say. Look, for instance, the Bush supposed flip-flop on carbon dioxide regulation. That was -- he referred to that once in the campaign in the 30th paragraph of a 40-paragraph speech. No one wrote about it. It ran counter to the entire thrust of this campaign, which was opposing the Kyoto Treaty and opposing greenhouse emission regulations, so the idea that he was bought off and flipped on that is just ridiculous. Ideology...</s>VAN SUSTEREN: Go ahead, Arianna.</s>HUFFINGTON: Greta, since I was just called a crude campaign finance reformer, let me just proudly own the label. I'd much rather be that than an ignorant champion of the status quo, which is all that Rich Lowry has been. And again and again, bringing up the defense of the first amendment, when even Judge Souter -- here we had a Supreme Court decision, when it comes to the Missouri law, which clearly said that the assumption that big donors are calling the tune. And I'm quoting from his statement -- is actually more dangerous in terms of our democracy because it inhibits people from participating in our political system. And that is the major danger we're facing at the moment -- extreme apathy, cynicism, half the eligible voters not voting. And Rich Lowry and his friends have actually no answer to that. They just want to continue the existing corrupt system without any solution beyond full disclosure, which doesn't mean anything.</s>LOWRY: Arianna, the first amendment is not a side show to this debate. It is essential to it. Look, we can argue about whether the first amendment should protect nude dance or not, we can argue about whether it should protect flag burning or not, but there is no question that political speech is at the core of what the first amendment is supposed to about...</s>LOWRY: ... and that's the problem with the McCain-Feingold bill.</s>VAN SUSTEREN: All right. Let me Jake in this. Go ahead, Jake.</s>TAPPER: The first amendment argument is a little more complex than Rich is portraying it, because it is true that the U. S. Supreme Court has ruled the way he describes it, but it's also true that there have been other U.S. Supreme Court rulings that have ruled that money is not speech, money is property. Now, when you get into the issue ad provision, the McCain- Feingold that Rich has more of point. But when it comes to banning the unregulated, unlimited money, called soft money, that's where the argument falls a little short. And I think one of the other things that Arianna points out, without calling Rich any names, and of course I wish him well in his race for the mayor of New York, if he does indeed decide to do that...</s>VAN SUSTEREN: He's going to announce here, Jake, if he does.</s>TAPPER: Is that right? Good.</s>VAN SUSTEREN: He promised that.</s>LOWRY: I'm only going to announce if I can get Arianna's endorsement, so...</s>VAN SUSTEREN: She's going to contribute.</s>TAPPER: Be that as it may, one thing that I -- I've heard conservatives like Gary Bauer and Bill Kristol of "The Weekly Standard" and others talk about the fact that in Washington today, anyone who covers Washington, who covers Capitol Hill knows it's just not money buys you access, money does buy legislation. Lobbyists do draft bills. The bankruptcy bill that passed last week -- it's true -- and this is not Republican or Democrat issue, that was a bipartisan monstrosity, but the consumers were not represented in that bill, and the reason may be that money lenders, and by that I mean the credit card companies and the banks, they gave $40 million in soft money to the party last year, to both the Republicans and Democrats. Senator Hillary Clinton voting for something like that, and only 13 people voting against it.</s>LOWRY: If you look at the merits...</s>VAN SUSTEREN: Let me ask Arianna. Arianna, can I ask just one quick question -- I know you are close to Senator McCain -- in the event that this McCain-Feingold bill doesn't succeed, are we going to see Senator McCain in the race in 2004?</s>HUFFINGTON: Well, I sincerely hope so. I think this is a great education for Senator McCain, Greta, because he has tried to be both a reformer and a loyal Republican, and I think he's now beginning to realize probably I hope, that both these things are not compatible, and I hope he is going to get back on his stray-dog express and go around the country and recognize that this battle is not going to be won on the Senate floor. Like the civil rights battle, it's going to be won in the streets of America. And that's what brought about the Voting Rights Act, and that's what going to bring about a campaign finance reform bill, not this endless debates about amendments, because the intention here is clear.</s>VAN SUSTEREN: Unfortunately, I must cut you off. I'm sorry we didn't get to find out from Rich whether he will run for mayor of New York. Next time, Rich, I will ask you that. My thanks to Rich Lowry, Arianna Huffington and Jake Tapper. THE POINT returns after a quick break and our "MONEYLINE" update.</s>VAN SUSTEREN: Tonight's "Final Point" goes to you, my viewers. Regarding last night's "Final Point" on the Timothy McVeigh execution, Lynn Cushman (ph) writes: "I agree with you that it is a waste of resources to perform an autopsy on Timothy McVeigh. What I find really ludicrous in general is that if the authorities suspect guards of abusing a prisoner, then why wouldn't they take steps to investigate or prevent it before his execution?" And here's an interesting point of view from a Canadian viewer who says, McVeigh's sentence should be commuted to life in prison. "McVeigh is a despicable man who legally and morally deserves to die, but there are many men and women in your country who worship this man and view him as a hero for their cause, and when he's executed, will regard him as a martyr. McVeigh's execution will be a prelude, I'm certain, to still further acts of vengeance. More innocent lives will be lost." To let me know what you think about THE POINT, send an e-mail to askgreta@cnn.com. That's one word, askgreta. I'm Greta Van Susteren in Washington. Next on "LARRY KING LIVE," is there any way to beat the plummeting market?