Horizon, Host: Ted Simons

May 8, 2008


Host: Ted Simons

Employer Sanctions Reaction

  |   Video
  • Glen Hamer of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry responds to the changes made to the employer sanctions law, many requested by the business community. He will also discuss the proposal to permanently repeal a property tax.
Guests:
  • Glen Hamer - President and CEO, Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry
  • Gary Stuart - Author of Miranda Rights book
  • Richard Dawkins - Evolutionary Biologist, Oxford University and author of "The Selfish Gene” and “The God Delusion”
Category: Immigration

View Transcript
>>Ted Simons:
Tonight on "Horizon," changes to the Employer Sanctions Law have been approved. We'll find out what one business leader thinks of the revisions. "You have a right to remain silent": one of the most famous phrases on TV cop shows. Find out some interesting details on how Miranda Rights got their start ere in the Valley. And hear from one of the most famous Atheists in the world, Evolutionary Biologist Richard Dawkins. That's next, on "Horizon."

>>Announcer:
"Horizon" is made possible by the "Friends of Eight": members of your Arizona PBS station. Thank you.

>>Ted Simons:
Hello, and welcome to "Horizon." I'm Ted Simons. We'll talk about the business community's reaction to Employer Sanctions Law changes, but first, here's some news from today. Another lawsuit in the death of Carol Anne Gotbaum, the New York woman who died after being detained in a holding cell at Sky Harbor. In March, Gotbaum's family sued the City of Phoenix for $8 million, claiming police used excessive force during her arrest, and ignored procedures. That suit was rejected by the City. Today, the family filed a Wrongful Death suit against the city, saying that police caused or contributed to Gotbaum's death. Gotbaum was placed in a holding cell on September 28th while on a layover in Phoenix, after police say she became disruptive. She was on her way to an alcohol rehab center in Tucson.

>>Ted Simons:
At a news conference today, Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon said the majority of Phoenix Police officers have been trained in the city's new immigration enforcement policy. The Mayor asked Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio to inform and collaborate with local police agencies if Arpaio sends deputies to an area for an operation.

>>Phil Gordon:
No one disagrees that he has Concurrent Jurisdiction. I've asked him initially, I continue to ask -- I'll ask today that if he's doing any type of operation in the City of Phoenix, or for that matter, in any local jurisdiction, that not only he notify the local jurisdiction's police department, but that he works with. our city has undercover operations in conjunction with other agencies going on. Just saying we're coming in and -- doesn't protect the safety of the officers or the sheriff's deputies.

>>Ted Simons:
When the Employer Sanction Law passed the Legislature last year, the business community wanted the law revised. Those revisions finally came, and were put immediately into effect through an Emergency Clause. Among the changes, the law that punishes employers for knowingly hiring illegal aliens only applies to workers hired after the start of this year. It also now only applies to a single location where an infraction occurs in businesses with multiple locations. The changes also bar investigations based solely on race or national origin. Finally, another change would target employers who pay workers under the table. Here to talk about the changes in the law and other issues is Glen Hamer, president and CEO of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Glen, good to see you again. Thanks for joining us.

>>Glen Hamer.
Ted, great to be back on the show.

>>Ted Simons:
Let's talk about the business community. Are you guys OK now with the changes in Employer Sanctions?

>>Glen Hamer:
We're certainly very pleased with the changes that just passed the Legislature. And we're -- and were sign to law by the Governor. Let me make clear, we're by no means thrilled with the underlying law. In fact, the Arizona Chamber still remains part of a legal action that will -- may ultimately be decided by the US Supreme Court. But we did make important progress this session.

>>Ted Simons:
What kind of effects have you seen, heard, rumored of so far regarding Employee Sanctions Law? Any kind of effect at all yet?

>>Glen Hamer:
Well, it's certainly hurt our State's economy. It's really simply a question of degrade. The positive nature of the changes should provide some additional certainty for those businesses, the vast majority of businesses in Arizona that are doing everything they can to play by the rules. And the changes that you just mentioned include providing additional protection for businesses that are doing everything they can to play by the rules.

>>Ted Simons:
You're saying the law is affecting business, though, negatively. How?

>>Glen Hamer:
Well, what it's done is that it's made it riskier to invest in the State of Arizona. Businesses, at least with the original law, there were a number of anecdotal examples, businesses who said, we wanted to come in and invest in Arizona, but if we're at risk of losing our investment, we can go to Colorado or to another State. We're hopeful that with these changes, it will make Arizona more attractive to invest.

>>Ted Simons:
I know there was a lot of concern from the business community on anonymous complaints. That did not change.

>>Glen Hamer:
Unfortunately we were not able to completely change that provision. Although there was a little bit of progress made in that law enforcement or the County Attorneys no longer be required to investigate anonymous complaints. They can do so, but it's at their discretion.

>>Ted Simons:
OK. Overall changes. The idea, the 800-pound gorilla in the room, two of them, actually, were initiative processes. First of all, do you think the changes are enough to keep those things off the ballot? And secondly, if not, what can you do?

>>Glen Hamer:
I believe that most people in the business community, and it certainly is not unanimous at this point, would like to see the law dealt with in the Legislative arena, as well as in the courts. And our hope would be that with these positive changes, and it doesn't mean there aren't additional legislative changes that would be helpful, that both initiatives -- both initiatives would vanish.

>>Ted Simons:
OK. Keeping with initiatives here, your transportation initiative, the State Sales Tax up a penny. 6.6\% , I believe it would be now, for transportation, what do you think of this idea?

>>Glen Hamer:
Well, because this State is one in which we see so many initiatives, last cycle, I believe we had 19 initiatives on the ballot. We haven't taken -- the Arizona Chamber hasn't taken a formal position. With that said, I believe that everyone recognizes that we need to do more in this State to reduce congestion, and to make it easier to transport goods. We have a lot of transportation needs in this State, and there's going to obviously be some sort of price tag associated with improving our transportation system.

>>Ted Simons:
A big price tag, and some critics of a tax say what about user fees? What about impact fees on developers? Chamber's ideas on both of those?

>>Glen Hamer:
Well, in terms of user fees, it's generally a good principle to have any sort of tax or whatever word you want to use, directly associated with those who benefit. And I would say on the national level, it's interesting that I believe the US Chamber, and some of the major manufacturing groups, are supporting or would be supportive of an increase to the gas tax, because they feel that's a user fee that needs to go up to meet our necessary transportation needs. Now, in Arizona historically, Maricopa and Pima County have used the Sales Tax mechanism to improve their transportation networks.

>>Ted Simons:
OK, impact fees on developers as well, real quickly. I know you're probably not hot on that idea, but a lot of folks say that's a way to get money from people who are benefiting this sprawl and extra development, and transportation --

>>Glen Hamer:
Our definition of user fee would not include impact fees in terms of funding transportation.

>>Ted Simons:
OK. Let's get one more aspect here. The repeal of state property tax. I know that you wanted it to happen. Didn't happen.

>>Glen Hamer:
Not yet.

>>Ted Simons:
Not yet. I know. Do you think it could happen? Will this b r a bargaining chip in the budget process?

>>Glen Hamer:
We're optimistic. I do believe it can happen. In fact, we conducted a poll where 60\% of Arizonans made it clear that they did not approve of the Governor's veto of the Property Tax Bill, and 65\% support an extension of the -- of the Property Tax repeal. I would say that this will happen one of two ways. It will either be included in the budget in some storm -- form, or there's a chance it could be referred to the ballot, in which case it would be a slam dunk in terms of passing.

>>Ted Simons:
The Governor says it's -- we're a growing State, and we simply can't afford to lose this particular source of revenue. Why is she wrong?

>>Glen Hamer:
Well, Arizona has the fourth or fifth most uncompetitive Property Tax when it comes to Business Property Taxes. It's something that makes the State much less desirable than it ought to be for businesses who want to expand here. Our feeling is that particularly during this difficult economic times, the last thing in the world you would want to do is raise taxes on businesses. As well as residential property owners. And one additional point I would make, Ted, 40 chambers from across the State, representing over 30,000 companies support the repeal of this statewide property tax. I'm confident that one way or another, either through the budget or through a referendum, or initiative, this will occur.

>>Ted Simons:
All right. Glen, thank you so much for joining us. We appreciate it.

>>Glen Hamer:
Thank you.

>>Ted Simons:
Well, it's one of the best-known legal phrases -- "You have the right to remain silent". The story of Miranda Rights started with a small crime wave by Ernesto Arthur Miranda of
Mesa in the early '60s. Led to a Supreme Court case in 1966, where the Miranda Right came into existence. I'll talk to a former Arizona State Law professor who has written a book titled "Miranda: The Story of America's Right to Remain Silent." But first, here's a quick look at the history of Miranda Rights.

>>Grace Provanzano:
Miranda Rights must be read to a person before any interrogation by police, or when they in custody. Miranda rights became part of the American lexicon more than 30 years ago. Arturo Ernesto Miranda, he is number one in this police line-up, was often in trouble with the law. Shortly after this photo was taken, police coerced him into a confession. Miranda admitted to a rape and was also eventually found guilty of an earlier robbery. The case were appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court, and it confirmed both convictions. It went on to become a landmark case, argued at the US Supreme Curt. The following words came from a brief written by a US Supreme Court justice in 1966. "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to consult an Attorney before questioning. You have the right to have your attorney present with you during questioning. If you cannot afford an Attorney, one will be appointed for you at no expense to you. You may choose to exercise these rights at any time. Do you understand these rights?"

>>Ted Simons:
Here to talk about his book and the Miranda case is Gary Stuart. Garry, good to have you on the case.

>>Gary Stuart:
Nice to be back.


>>Ted Simons: Who was Ernesto Miranda?

>>Gary Stuart:
A 23-year-old guy that lived in Mesa, wasn't known much to anybody, had some minor infractions with the law. Spent a fair amount of time in Juvenile detentions. But lived in Mesa, worked in Downtown Phoenix. In March of 1963, pretty ordinary guy.

>>Ted Simons:
And why did he end up getting arrested, for what, a string of rape charges?

>>Gary Stuart:
Yes. And one of the really fascinating things about that arrest is how easy it came about, and how unpredictable the outcome was.

>>Ted Simons:
And he was convicted almost -- I would say almost entirely because he incriminated himself.

>>Gary Stuart: He did.

>>Ted Simons:
and that brought along this whole case. We were talking beforehand, give us a brief synopsis of how that went down with the police officer and the lineup and that sort of thing.

>>Gary Stuart:
These crimes occurred three different rapes in Downtown Phoenix, all in a two or three-block area, near where Miranda worked. He fit the profile of the kind of person that all three women said attacked them. But they had no evidence that it was in fact him. What they had was, they had evidence of a car that was seen a block away from the scene of one of the three, and they knew what kind of car it was, it was a fairly unique car. They found a car like that at Miranda's House that was actually owned by his common law wife, a woman named Twila Hoffman. The car was the only connection, but it wasn't seen at the scene of the crime.

>>Ted Simons:
And so they take him Downtown, and tell him, what, that everything is fine, they can't -- they would do anything, just dot lineup, and everything will be fine.

>>Gary Stuart:
They started first, of course, with an interrogation, a soft interrogation. Nothing hard about it. Middle of the day, weekday, 11:00 in the morning. He denied everything. The police officer was a man named Carroll Coolly, a highly respected police officer. Nice guy, I met him, spent a little time with him, actually. But Carroll said, I don't think these women can identify you. You say you didn't do it, I don't think they can identify you. Why don't you go into this lineup and then when they can't identify you, I'll buy your lunch and take you home that. Was the deal.

>>Ted Simons:
and once he went to the lineup and they didn't identify him, he goes back and he hears a very different story.

>>Gary Stuart:
Very different story. He asked Carroll coolly, how did I do, and he shook his head and said, "Ernie, they nailed you. I think you better just tell me what happened." so he did. At this point in time, of course, he had been completely unwarned about anything. He didn't know that he had a right to remain silent. He didn't know he had a right to a lawyer. He didn't know what he said could be used against him up to this point. At that point, Caroll Coolly did read him an earlier version of what became the famous Miranda Rights. At that point, he was told what he said could be used against him in a court of law, and he was asked to confirm he was going to give this confession in writing, which he did, voluntarily.

>>Ted Simons:
Did the years, we're talking the '60s, early '60s and mid '60s with the court decision

>>Gary Stuart:
'63, Supreme Court case in '66.

>>Ted Simons:
Did the makeup of the court and the tenor of the times factor into this case?

>>Gary Stuart:
Absolutely. It would not have happened 10 years earlier or perhaps 10 years later.

>>Ted Simons:
Because?

>>Gary Stuart:
The make-up of the court was very different at that time. It was the Warren Court. Warren was a very thoughtful, very Republican, very interesting but very forward-looking man. And one of the things he knew, and as it turned out by '66, so did four other justices, he knew that confession that is coerced confession, without being warned, was a systemic problem in rural America. For the most part, rural America, not urban centers. And more so in the south than in other regions. Coerced confessions were the common way in which crime was solved. Far too common. Not the only way, for sure, but far too common. Miranda was case that could be used to address that very large social and legal problem. And the Warren Court knew that.

>>Ted Simons: How often has Miranda been challenged?

>>Gary Stuart: Oh, 40 or 50 times where it's really clear that it's being challenged. Two or three cases every year for more than 40 years, in some cases, five or six cases.

>>Ted Simons: My goodness.

>>Gary Stuart:
But those challenges, for the most part, ended in 2000, in a case called Dickerson vs. United States. A case in which Chief Justice Rehnquist, another famous Arizona justice, handled the case in such a way as to cement in stone the fourth -- not the fourth, but the fifth and sixth amendment rights originally enunciated in the original Miranda decision in 1966.

>>Ted Simons:
Impact of Miranda on law enforcement.

>>Gary Stuart:
The impact was one that no one could have predicted at the beginning. Law Enforcement across the nation was opposed and adverse to the idea that a police officer, a working police officer, had to be part of what was thought either to be the judicial system, or the defense bar. They wanted no part of advising people of what their rights were. They thought everybody should know what their rights were. Carroll Coolly thought that everybody should know what their rights were. He thought that he said that he knew Miranda knew his rights. That's because Miranda had been in the system before. When I asked Carroll Coolly when I first met him, did he know he had the right to a lawyer, he said, well, I don't know if he knew that. I wasn't going to tell him. Did he know he had a right to remain silent? Probably not. That was the state of the law, and good police work in the '60s.

>>Ted Simons:
And Ernesto Miranda winds up dying a violent death, and I guess the accused was read his Miranda Rights.

>>Gary Stuart:
He was read his Miranda rights. One of the little ironies of the came, he was read his rights by a police officer whose last name was Bueno. And he read them in Spanish, because the man who killed Ernesto Miranda only spoke Spanish. So his rights were read to him in Spanish, who responded to him, "I don't have to talk to you." And he said, "No, you don't, and he said, then I don't want to talk to you". And he left. He left the police station, four or five hours after the arrest, has never been seen since.

>>Ted Simons:
Fascinating stuff. Gary Stuart, the author of the story of America's right to remain silent from Miranda. Just absolutely -- I have always found this case interesting, and the fact it's based here in adds, thank you so much for joining us.

>>Gary Stuart:
You're welcome. Thanks for bringing me here..

>>Ted Simons:
Richard Dawkins is an Evolutionary Biologist at Oxford University. He's the author of the influential book "The Selfish Gene." Currently, he's considered one of the so-called "New Atheists", a group of writers attacking the concept of religion. He was at ASU to talk about his new book "The God delusion." Larry Lemmons spoke with Dawkins before his lecture.

>> Larry Lemmons:
Professor Dawkins, you're here to talk about your new book, "The God Delusion." can you give us sort of an overview of the premise you have for that book?

>>Richard Dawkins:
The existence of God is a scientific hypothesis, like any other. It's a scientific hypothesis which doesn't have any evidence in favor of it. And rather a lot of evidence, I think, against it. That's the first half of the book. And then the second half of the book is that the very existence of religion in the world is on balance a force for evil rather than a force for good.

>> Larry Lemmons:
You talk about that in terms of, I know there's so problems in the world today. You're talking about religious fundamentalism, was that one of the reasons why you felt compelled to write the book?

>>Richard Dawkins:
no. I think I'd give higher priority to the scientific issue. Because I - unlike some of my scientific colleagues, I do think it is a scientific issue, whether there is a great spirit, a great intellect behind the universe. It seems to be very interesting scientific question. So that is my first priority. However, the timing of the book, you could say yes, there does seem to be a resurgence of religious influence in the world. Not only in America, but in the Middle East as well. And that did rather prompt me to think it was a good thing to do.

>> Larry Lemmons:
And those terms too, I know about the "Out" campaign you were talking about, that Atheists should be more open about their Atheism, because it hasn't been so in the past. So I was thinking this is a step in that direction.

>>Richard Dawkins:
Yes, it is a step in that direction. I think that there is a -- may actually be a bit of a myth about America, that America is supremely religious country. It certainly appears so. All presidential candidates in America have to talk about God in every speech. Otherwise, they don't get elected, and they dare mention they're Atheists, which some of them must be, because it don't make any sense that in a population of people of intelligence and education, that literally none of them in Congress, say, would be Atheists. Of course they are. So to that extent, it probably is true that America is a very religious country in the sense that everybody thinks it is. But I believe that there's a tremendous groundswell of nonreligious opinions in America, but none of them know that the others exist. So they need to come out. They need to break out. Rather as the Gay community did in 20 or 30 years ago, Atheists need to come out and show people that they're ordinary, decent, nice people, good people, just like everybody else.

>> Larry Lemmons:
Could you talk a little bit about, in terms of the scientific aspect, how would you characterize the creation of the Universe in terms of its complexity? And how it seems to be perfect for life, it seems to be perfect to do the things that we do? How is it that it evolved to such a state?

>>Richard Dawkins:
First of all, the complexity that impresses us most is biological complexity. And that, we now understand, that used to be, that always used to be thought of as an argument for the existence of a God. Ever since 1859 and the publication of Darwin's "Origin of Species", we've known that's not true. So, the really big argument for a God as a designer was destroyed by darwin. Now we're left with a possible physicist argument, what produced the Universe in the first place? Why are the physical constants, the constants of the Universe, so apparently beautifully set up to give rise to life? It has been argued by physicists, among them, Paul Davis, that if any of those constants were slightly different, then we wouldn't have the Universe as we know it, and we wouldn't have life. Some people see that as an argument for a designer. I emphatically don't, because you haven't explained anything. If it's difficult enough to explain how those physical constants came into being, it's even harder to explain how something as complicated as a designer could come into being. So what we're looking for is the physical -- the physicist's equivalent of a Darwin. Biology has its Darwin, and Biology is now essentially explained. Physics hasn't had its Darwin yet. So we have a gap in our understanding. But for a scientist, a gap is a challenge. It's something we're trying to break into, trying to understand. And so, I believe that those questions that we don't yet understand, many of them will be answered, including, perhaps, the origin of the physical constance. Even if they're not, however, even if they're there are some questions in Physics that we shall never know the answer to, it emphatically doesn't mean because scientists don't know the answer, theologians do.

>> Larry Lemmons:
Well, I know that many people who are very religious will describe what you're describing as a kind of religion in itself. They're saying, this is my religion, this is what I believe, this is your theory, this is what you believe. Is science a religion? Could it be described as a religion?

>>Richard Dawkins:
That's a very -- I'm very familiar with what you're saying. That's -- it's a very pernicious idea. The idea that, your opinion is as good as mine, and we each have our own opinion, and we're entitled to it, well, we're entitled to it, of course, but the question is which side has the evidence? Evidence is all-important. And scientific beliefs are not opinions. Scientific beliefs are based upon evidence. Masses of evidence. Huge quantities of evidence. All pointing in the same direction. Whereas the religious beliefs oppose them&are not based on evidence at all.

>>Larry Lemmons:
I had seen, in one of the previous things that you had done, about how you bemoan the fact Science was not being taught so well in schools. There wasn't an appreciation for scientific method, or really what it was. Do you consider that to be one of the primary reasons why people might fall back -- I know in certain communities in America they do. Even school boards fall back on wanting to teach intelligent design, or lack of evolution.

>>Richard Dawkins:
I think the scientists have fallen down in their responsibility to educate. You would be amazed by the number of people who think that because living things are complicated, as I said before, eyes look beautifully designed, that means there must be a God. They clearly haven't the faintest idea about Evolution, which is a beautiful explanation. And I stress beautiful, because not only is it correct, it also is so elegant and a child who is deprived of the privilege of understanding where she comes from, why she's the way she is, why the whole of life is the way it is, that is such a privilege to be able to understand it, it's a privilege that's granted to anybody who lived after 1859. And we are in that category, of course. It's not a privilege granted to our medieval forebearers. And they were very unfortunate not to have had that privilege. We are very fortunate to have it, and how very sad it is that so many children are not given it, they're deprived of it by bigoted religious interests that actually try to subvert the scientific education of children.

>>Larry Lemmons:
Professor Dawkins, thanks so much for visiting "Horizon."

>>Richard Dawkins:
Thank you very much indeed.

>>Ted Simons:
And thank you for joining us on "horizon." I'm Ted Simons. You have a great evening.

>>Announcer:
"Horizon" is made possible by the "Friends of Eight": members of your Arizona PBS station. Thank you.

Miranda Rights Book

  |   Video
  • Lawyer Gary Stuart is the author of a book about the Miranda rights. Stuart shares some fascinating stories about how this famous decision came to be, and its ironic impact on Ernesto Miranda, the Phoenix man whose case led to Miranda rights.
Guests:
  • Glen Hamer - President and CEO, Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry
  • Gary Stuart - Author of Miranda Rights book
  • Richard Dawkins - Evolutionary Biologist, Oxford University and author of "The Selfish Gene” and “The God Delusion”
Category: Law

View Transcript
>>Ted Simons:
Tonight on "Horizon," changes to the Employer Sanctions Law have been approved. We'll find out what one business leader thinks of the revisions. "You have a right to remain silent": one of the most famous phrases on TV cop shows. Find out some interesting details on how Miranda Rights got their start ere in the Valley. And hear from one of the most famous Atheists in the world, Evolutionary Biologist Richard Dawkins. That's next, on "Horizon."

>>Announcer:
"Horizon" is made possible by the "Friends of Eight": members of your Arizona PBS station. Thank you.

>>Ted Simons:
Hello, and welcome to "Horizon." I'm Ted Simons. We'll talk about the business community's reaction to Employer Sanctions Law changes, but first, here's some news from today. Another lawsuit in the death of Carol Anne Gotbaum, the New York woman who died after being detained in a holding cell at Sky Harbor. In March, Gotbaum's family sued the City of Phoenix for $8 million, claiming police used excessive force during her arrest, and ignored procedures. That suit was rejected by the City. Today, the family filed a Wrongful Death suit against the city, saying that police caused or contributed to Gotbaum's death. Gotbaum was placed in a holding cell on September 28th while on a layover in Phoenix, after police say she became disruptive. She was on her way to an alcohol rehab center in Tucson.

>>Ted Simons:
At a news conference today, Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon said the majority of Phoenix Police officers have been trained in the city's new immigration enforcement policy. The Mayor asked Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio to inform and collaborate with local police agencies if Arpaio sends deputies to an area for an operation.

>>Phil Gordon:
No one disagrees that he has Concurrent Jurisdiction. I've asked him initially, I continue to ask -- I'll ask today that if he's doing any type of operation in the City of Phoenix, or for that matter, in any local jurisdiction, that not only he notify the local jurisdiction's police department, but that he works with. our city has undercover operations in conjunction with other agencies going on. Just saying we're coming in and -- doesn't protect the safety of the officers or the sheriff's deputies.

>>Ted Simons:
When the Employer Sanction Law passed the Legislature last year, the business community wanted the law revised. Those revisions finally came, and were put immediately into effect through an Emergency Clause. Among the changes, the law that punishes employers for knowingly hiring illegal aliens only applies to workers hired after the start of this year. It also now only applies to a single location where an infraction occurs in businesses with multiple locations. The changes also bar investigations based solely on race or national origin. Finally, another change would target employers who pay workers under the table. Here to talk about the changes in the law and other issues is Glen Hamer, president and CEO of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Glen, good to see you again. Thanks for joining us.

>>Glen Hamer.
Ted, great to be back on the show.

>>Ted Simons:
Let's talk about the business community. Are you guys OK now with the changes in Employer Sanctions?

>>Glen Hamer:
We're certainly very pleased with the changes that just passed the Legislature. And we're -- and were sign to law by the Governor. Let me make clear, we're by no means thrilled with the underlying law. In fact, the Arizona Chamber still remains part of a legal action that will -- may ultimately be decided by the US Supreme Court. But we did make important progress this session.

>>Ted Simons:
What kind of effects have you seen, heard, rumored of so far regarding Employee Sanctions Law? Any kind of effect at all yet?

>>Glen Hamer:
Well, it's certainly hurt our State's economy. It's really simply a question of degrade. The positive nature of the changes should provide some additional certainty for those businesses, the vast majority of businesses in Arizona that are doing everything they can to play by the rules. And the changes that you just mentioned include providing additional protection for businesses that are doing everything they can to play by the rules.

>>Ted Simons:
You're saying the law is affecting business, though, negatively. How?

>>Glen Hamer:
Well, what it's done is that it's made it riskier to invest in the State of Arizona. Businesses, at least with the original law, there were a number of anecdotal examples, businesses who said, we wanted to come in and invest in Arizona, but if we're at risk of losing our investment, we can go to Colorado or to another State. We're hopeful that with these changes, it will make Arizona more attractive to invest.

>>Ted Simons:
I know there was a lot of concern from the business community on anonymous complaints. That did not change.

>>Glen Hamer:
Unfortunately we were not able to completely change that provision. Although there was a little bit of progress made in that law enforcement or the County Attorneys no longer be required to investigate anonymous complaints. They can do so, but it's at their discretion.

>>Ted Simons:
OK. Overall changes. The idea, the 800-pound gorilla in the room, two of them, actually, were initiative processes. First of all, do you think the changes are enough to keep those things off the ballot? And secondly, if not, what can you do?

>>Glen Hamer:
I believe that most people in the business community, and it certainly is not unanimous at this point, would like to see the law dealt with in the Legislative arena, as well as in the courts. And our hope would be that with these positive changes, and it doesn't mean there aren't additional legislative changes that would be helpful, that both initiatives -- both initiatives would vanish.

>>Ted Simons:
OK. Keeping with initiatives here, your transportation initiative, the State Sales Tax up a penny. 6.6\% , I believe it would be now, for transportation, what do you think of this idea?

>>Glen Hamer:
Well, because this State is one in which we see so many initiatives, last cycle, I believe we had 19 initiatives on the ballot. We haven't taken -- the Arizona Chamber hasn't taken a formal position. With that said, I believe that everyone recognizes that we need to do more in this State to reduce congestion, and to make it easier to transport goods. We have a lot of transportation needs in this State, and there's going to obviously be some sort of price tag associated with improving our transportation system.

>>Ted Simons:
A big price tag, and some critics of a tax say what about user fees? What about impact fees on developers? Chamber's ideas on both of those?

>>Glen Hamer:
Well, in terms of user fees, it's generally a good principle to have any sort of tax or whatever word you want to use, directly associated with those who benefit. And I would say on the national level, it's interesting that I believe the US Chamber, and some of the major manufacturing groups, are supporting or would be supportive of an increase to the gas tax, because they feel that's a user fee that needs to go up to meet our necessary transportation needs. Now, in Arizona historically, Maricopa and Pima County have used the Sales Tax mechanism to improve their transportation networks.

>>Ted Simons:
OK, impact fees on developers as well, real quickly. I know you're probably not hot on that idea, but a lot of folks say that's a way to get money from people who are benefiting this sprawl and extra development, and transportation --

>>Glen Hamer:
Our definition of user fee would not include impact fees in terms of funding transportation.

>>Ted Simons:
OK. Let's get one more aspect here. The repeal of state property tax. I know that you wanted it to happen. Didn't happen.

>>Glen Hamer:
Not yet.

>>Ted Simons:
Not yet. I know. Do you think it could happen? Will this b r a bargaining chip in the budget process?

>>Glen Hamer:
We're optimistic. I do believe it can happen. In fact, we conducted a poll where 60\% of Arizonans made it clear that they did not approve of the Governor's veto of the Property Tax Bill, and 65\% support an extension of the -- of the Property Tax repeal. I would say that this will happen one of two ways. It will either be included in the budget in some storm -- form, or there's a chance it could be referred to the ballot, in which case it would be a slam dunk in terms of passing.

>>Ted Simons:
The Governor says it's -- we're a growing State, and we simply can't afford to lose this particular source of revenue. Why is she wrong?

>>Glen Hamer:
Well, Arizona has the fourth or fifth most uncompetitive Property Tax when it comes to Business Property Taxes. It's something that makes the State much less desirable than it ought to be for businesses who want to expand here. Our feeling is that particularly during this difficult economic times, the last thing in the world you would want to do is raise taxes on businesses. As well as residential property owners. And one additional point I would make, Ted, 40 chambers from across the State, representing over 30,000 companies support the repeal of this statewide property tax. I'm confident that one way or another, either through the budget or through a referendum, or initiative, this will occur.

>>Ted Simons:
All right. Glen, thank you so much for joining us. We appreciate it.

>>Glen Hamer:
Thank you.

>>Ted Simons:
Well, it's one of the best-known legal phrases -- "You have the right to remain silent". The story of Miranda Rights started with a small crime wave by Ernesto Arthur Miranda of
Mesa in the early '60s. Led to a Supreme Court case in 1966, where the Miranda Right came into existence. I'll talk to a former Arizona State Law professor who has written a book titled "Miranda: The Story of America's Right to Remain Silent." But first, here's a quick look at the history of Miranda Rights.

>>Grace Provanzano:
Miranda Rights must be read to a person before any interrogation by police, or when they in custody. Miranda rights became part of the American lexicon more than 30 years ago. Arturo Ernesto Miranda, he is number one in this police line-up, was often in trouble with the law. Shortly after this photo was taken, police coerced him into a confession. Miranda admitted to a rape and was also eventually found guilty of an earlier robbery. The case were appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court, and it confirmed both convictions. It went on to become a landmark case, argued at the US Supreme Curt. The following words came from a brief written by a US Supreme Court justice in 1966. "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to consult an Attorney before questioning. You have the right to have your attorney present with you during questioning. If you cannot afford an Attorney, one will be appointed for you at no expense to you. You may choose to exercise these rights at any time. Do you understand these rights?"

>>Ted Simons:
Here to talk about his book and the Miranda case is Gary Stuart. Garry, good to have you on the case.

>>Gary Stuart:
Nice to be back.


>>Ted Simons: Who was Ernesto Miranda?

>>Gary Stuart:
A 23-year-old guy that lived in Mesa, wasn't known much to anybody, had some minor infractions with the law. Spent a fair amount of time in Juvenile detentions. But lived in Mesa, worked in Downtown Phoenix. In March of 1963, pretty ordinary guy.

>>Ted Simons:
And why did he end up getting arrested, for what, a string of rape charges?

>>Gary Stuart:
Yes. And one of the really fascinating things about that arrest is how easy it came about, and how unpredictable the outcome was.

>>Ted Simons:
And he was convicted almost -- I would say almost entirely because he incriminated himself.

>>Gary Stuart: He did.

>>Ted Simons:
and that brought along this whole case. We were talking beforehand, give us a brief synopsis of how that went down with the police officer and the lineup and that sort of thing.

>>Gary Stuart:
These crimes occurred three different rapes in Downtown Phoenix, all in a two or three-block area, near where Miranda worked. He fit the profile of the kind of person that all three women said attacked them. But they had no evidence that it was in fact him. What they had was, they had evidence of a car that was seen a block away from the scene of one of the three, and they knew what kind of car it was, it was a fairly unique car. They found a car like that at Miranda's House that was actually owned by his common law wife, a woman named Twila Hoffman. The car was the only connection, but it wasn't seen at the scene of the crime.

>>Ted Simons:
And so they take him Downtown, and tell him, what, that everything is fine, they can't -- they would do anything, just dot lineup, and everything will be fine.

>>Gary Stuart:
They started first, of course, with an interrogation, a soft interrogation. Nothing hard about it. Middle of the day, weekday, 11:00 in the morning. He denied everything. The police officer was a man named Carroll Coolly, a highly respected police officer. Nice guy, I met him, spent a little time with him, actually. But Carroll said, I don't think these women can identify you. You say you didn't do it, I don't think they can identify you. Why don't you go into this lineup and then when they can't identify you, I'll buy your lunch and take you home that. Was the deal.

>>Ted Simons:
and once he went to the lineup and they didn't identify him, he goes back and he hears a very different story.

>>Gary Stuart:
Very different story. He asked Carroll coolly, how did I do, and he shook his head and said, "Ernie, they nailed you. I think you better just tell me what happened." so he did. At this point in time, of course, he had been completely unwarned about anything. He didn't know that he had a right to remain silent. He didn't know he had a right to a lawyer. He didn't know what he said could be used against him up to this point. At that point, Caroll Coolly did read him an earlier version of what became the famous Miranda Rights. At that point, he was told what he said could be used against him in a court of law, and he was asked to confirm he was going to give this confession in writing, which he did, voluntarily.

>>Ted Simons:
Did the years, we're talking the '60s, early '60s and mid '60s with the court decision

>>Gary Stuart:
'63, Supreme Court case in '66.

>>Ted Simons:
Did the makeup of the court and the tenor of the times factor into this case?

>>Gary Stuart:
Absolutely. It would not have happened 10 years earlier or perhaps 10 years later.

>>Ted Simons:
Because?

>>Gary Stuart:
The make-up of the court was very different at that time. It was the Warren Court. Warren was a very thoughtful, very Republican, very interesting but very forward-looking man. And one of the things he knew, and as it turned out by '66, so did four other justices, he knew that confession that is coerced confession, without being warned, was a systemic problem in rural America. For the most part, rural America, not urban centers. And more so in the south than in other regions. Coerced confessions were the common way in which crime was solved. Far too common. Not the only way, for sure, but far too common. Miranda was case that could be used to address that very large social and legal problem. And the Warren Court knew that.

>>Ted Simons: How often has Miranda been challenged?

>>Gary Stuart: Oh, 40 or 50 times where it's really clear that it's being challenged. Two or three cases every year for more than 40 years, in some cases, five or six cases.

>>Ted Simons: My goodness.

>>Gary Stuart:
But those challenges, for the most part, ended in 2000, in a case called Dickerson vs. United States. A case in which Chief Justice Rehnquist, another famous Arizona justice, handled the case in such a way as to cement in stone the fourth -- not the fourth, but the fifth and sixth amendment rights originally enunciated in the original Miranda decision in 1966.

>>Ted Simons:
Impact of Miranda on law enforcement.

>>Gary Stuart:
The impact was one that no one could have predicted at the beginning. Law Enforcement across the nation was opposed and adverse to the idea that a police officer, a working police officer, had to be part of what was thought either to be the judicial system, or the defense bar. They wanted no part of advising people of what their rights were. They thought everybody should know what their rights were. Carroll Coolly thought that everybody should know what their rights were. He thought that he said that he knew Miranda knew his rights. That's because Miranda had been in the system before. When I asked Carroll Coolly when I first met him, did he know he had the right to a lawyer, he said, well, I don't know if he knew that. I wasn't going to tell him. Did he know he had a right to remain silent? Probably not. That was the state of the law, and good police work in the '60s.

>>Ted Simons:
And Ernesto Miranda winds up dying a violent death, and I guess the accused was read his Miranda Rights.

>>Gary Stuart:
He was read his Miranda rights. One of the little ironies of the came, he was read his rights by a police officer whose last name was Bueno. And he read them in Spanish, because the man who killed Ernesto Miranda only spoke Spanish. So his rights were read to him in Spanish, who responded to him, "I don't have to talk to you." And he said, "No, you don't, and he said, then I don't want to talk to you". And he left. He left the police station, four or five hours after the arrest, has never been seen since.

>>Ted Simons:
Fascinating stuff. Gary Stuart, the author of the story of America's right to remain silent from Miranda. Just absolutely -- I have always found this case interesting, and the fact it's based here in adds, thank you so much for joining us.

>>Gary Stuart:
You're welcome. Thanks for bringing me here..

>>Ted Simons:
Richard Dawkins is an Evolutionary Biologist at Oxford University. He's the author of the influential book "The Selfish Gene." Currently, he's considered one of the so-called "New Atheists", a group of writers attacking the concept of religion. He was at ASU to talk about his new book "The God delusion." Larry Lemmons spoke with Dawkins before his lecture.

>> Larry Lemmons:
Professor Dawkins, you're here to talk about your new book, "The God Delusion." can you give us sort of an overview of the premise you have for that book?

>>Richard Dawkins:
The existence of God is a scientific hypothesis, like any other. It's a scientific hypothesis which doesn't have any evidence in favor of it. And rather a lot of evidence, I think, against it. That's the first half of the book. And then the second half of the book is that the very existence of religion in the world is on balance a force for evil rather than a force for good.

>> Larry Lemmons:
You talk about that in terms of, I know there's so problems in the world today. You're talking about religious fundamentalism, was that one of the reasons why you felt compelled to write the book?

>>Richard Dawkins:
no. I think I'd give higher priority to the scientific issue. Because I - unlike some of my scientific colleagues, I do think it is a scientific issue, whether there is a great spirit, a great intellect behind the universe. It seems to be very interesting scientific question. So that is my first priority. However, the timing of the book, you could say yes, there does seem to be a resurgence of religious influence in the world. Not only in America, but in the Middle East as well. And that did rather prompt me to think it was a good thing to do.

>> Larry Lemmons:
And those terms too, I know about the "Out" campaign you were talking about, that Atheists should be more open about their Atheism, because it hasn't been so in the past. So I was thinking this is a step in that direction.

>>Richard Dawkins:
Yes, it is a step in that direction. I think that there is a -- may actually be a bit of a myth about America, that America is supremely religious country. It certainly appears so. All presidential candidates in America have to talk about God in every speech. Otherwise, they don't get elected, and they dare mention they're Atheists, which some of them must be, because it don't make any sense that in a population of people of intelligence and education, that literally none of them in Congress, say, would be Atheists. Of course they are. So to that extent, it probably is true that America is a very religious country in the sense that everybody thinks it is. But I believe that there's a tremendous groundswell of nonreligious opinions in America, but none of them know that the others exist. So they need to come out. They need to break out. Rather as the Gay community did in 20 or 30 years ago, Atheists need to come out and show people that they're ordinary, decent, nice people, good people, just like everybody else.

>> Larry Lemmons:
Could you talk a little bit about, in terms of the scientific aspect, how would you characterize the creation of the Universe in terms of its complexity? And how it seems to be perfect for life, it seems to be perfect to do the things that we do? How is it that it evolved to such a state?

>>Richard Dawkins:
First of all, the complexity that impresses us most is biological complexity. And that, we now understand, that used to be, that always used to be thought of as an argument for the existence of a God. Ever since 1859 and the publication of Darwin's "Origin of Species", we've known that's not true. So, the really big argument for a God as a designer was destroyed by darwin. Now we're left with a possible physicist argument, what produced the Universe in the first place? Why are the physical constants, the constants of the Universe, so apparently beautifully set up to give rise to life? It has been argued by physicists, among them, Paul Davis, that if any of those constants were slightly different, then we wouldn't have the Universe as we know it, and we wouldn't have life. Some people see that as an argument for a designer. I emphatically don't, because you haven't explained anything. If it's difficult enough to explain how those physical constants came into being, it's even harder to explain how something as complicated as a designer could come into being. So what we're looking for is the physical -- the physicist's equivalent of a Darwin. Biology has its Darwin, and Biology is now essentially explained. Physics hasn't had its Darwin yet. So we have a gap in our understanding. But for a scientist, a gap is a challenge. It's something we're trying to break into, trying to understand. And so, I believe that those questions that we don't yet understand, many of them will be answered, including, perhaps, the origin of the physical constance. Even if they're not, however, even if they're there are some questions in Physics that we shall never know the answer to, it emphatically doesn't mean because scientists don't know the answer, theologians do.

>> Larry Lemmons:
Well, I know that many people who are very religious will describe what you're describing as a kind of religion in itself. They're saying, this is my religion, this is what I believe, this is your theory, this is what you believe. Is science a religion? Could it be described as a religion?

>>Richard Dawkins:
That's a very -- I'm very familiar with what you're saying. That's -- it's a very pernicious idea. The idea that, your opinion is as good as mine, and we each have our own opinion, and we're entitled to it, well, we're entitled to it, of course, but the question is which side has the evidence? Evidence is all-important. And scientific beliefs are not opinions. Scientific beliefs are based upon evidence. Masses of evidence. Huge quantities of evidence. All pointing in the same direction. Whereas the religious beliefs oppose them&are not based on evidence at all.

>>Larry Lemmons:
I had seen, in one of the previous things that you had done, about how you bemoan the fact Science was not being taught so well in schools. There wasn't an appreciation for scientific method, or really what it was. Do you consider that to be one of the primary reasons why people might fall back -- I know in certain communities in America they do. Even school boards fall back on wanting to teach intelligent design, or lack of evolution.

>>Richard Dawkins:
I think the scientists have fallen down in their responsibility to educate. You would be amazed by the number of people who think that because living things are complicated, as I said before, eyes look beautifully designed, that means there must be a God. They clearly haven't the faintest idea about Evolution, which is a beautiful explanation. And I stress beautiful, because not only is it correct, it also is so elegant and a child who is deprived of the privilege of understanding where she comes from, why she's the way she is, why the whole of life is the way it is, that is such a privilege to be able to understand it, it's a privilege that's granted to anybody who lived after 1859. And we are in that category, of course. It's not a privilege granted to our medieval forebearers. And they were very unfortunate not to have had that privilege. We are very fortunate to have it, and how very sad it is that so many children are not given it, they're deprived of it by bigoted religious interests that actually try to subvert the scientific education of children.

>>Larry Lemmons:
Professor Dawkins, thanks so much for visiting "Horizon."

>>Richard Dawkins:
Thank you very much indeed.

>>Ted Simons:
And thank you for joining us on "horizon." I'm Ted Simons. You have a great evening.

>>Announcer:
"Horizon" is made possible by the "Friends of Eight": members of your Arizona PBS station. Thank you.

Richard Dawkins

  |   Video
  • He’s been called Darwin’s rottweiler. Celebrated author and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins talks about the beauty of evolution and his promotion of atheism.
Guests:
  • Glen Hamer - President and CEO, Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry
  • Gary Stuart - Author of Miranda Rights book
  • Richard Dawkins - Evolutionary Biologist, Oxford University and author of "The Selfish Gene” and “The God Delusion”


View Transcript
>>Ted Simons:
Tonight on "Horizon," changes to the Employer Sanctions Law have been approved. We'll find out what one business leader thinks of the revisions. "You have a right to remain silent": one of the most famous phrases on TV cop shows. Find out some interesting details on how Miranda Rights got their start ere in the Valley. And hear from one of the most famous Atheists in the world, Evolutionary Biologist Richard Dawkins. That's next, on "Horizon."

>>Announcer:
"Horizon" is made possible by the "Friends of Eight": members of your Arizona PBS station. Thank you.

>>Ted Simons:
Hello, and welcome to "Horizon." I'm Ted Simons. We'll talk about the business community's reaction to Employer Sanctions Law changes, but first, here's some news from today. Another lawsuit in the death of Carol Anne Gotbaum, the New York woman who died after being detained in a holding cell at Sky Harbor. In March, Gotbaum's family sued the City of Phoenix for $8 million, claiming police used excessive force during her arrest, and ignored procedures. That suit was rejected by the City. Today, the family filed a Wrongful Death suit against the city, saying that police caused or contributed to Gotbaum's death. Gotbaum was placed in a holding cell on September 28th while on a layover in Phoenix, after police say she became disruptive. She was on her way to an alcohol rehab center in Tucson.

>>Ted Simons:
At a news conference today, Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon said the majority of Phoenix Police officers have been trained in the city's new immigration enforcement policy. The Mayor asked Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio to inform and collaborate with local police agencies if Arpaio sends deputies to an area for an operation.

>>Phil Gordon:
No one disagrees that he has Concurrent Jurisdiction. I've asked him initially, I continue to ask -- I'll ask today that if he's doing any type of operation in the City of Phoenix, or for that matter, in any local jurisdiction, that not only he notify the local jurisdiction's police department, but that he works with. our city has undercover operations in conjunction with other agencies going on. Just saying we're coming in and -- doesn't protect the safety of the officers or the sheriff's deputies.

>>Ted Simons:
When the Employer Sanction Law passed the Legislature last year, the business community wanted the law revised. Those revisions finally came, and were put immediately into effect through an Emergency Clause. Among the changes, the law that punishes employers for knowingly hiring illegal aliens only applies to workers hired after the start of this year. It also now only applies to a single location where an infraction occurs in businesses with multiple locations. The changes also bar investigations based solely on race or national origin. Finally, another change would target employers who pay workers under the table. Here to talk about the changes in the law and other issues is Glen Hamer, president and CEO of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Glen, good to see you again. Thanks for joining us.

>>Glen Hamer.
Ted, great to be back on the show.

>>Ted Simons:
Let's talk about the business community. Are you guys OK now with the changes in Employer Sanctions?

>>Glen Hamer:
We're certainly very pleased with the changes that just passed the Legislature. And we're -- and were sign to law by the Governor. Let me make clear, we're by no means thrilled with the underlying law. In fact, the Arizona Chamber still remains part of a legal action that will -- may ultimately be decided by the US Supreme Court. But we did make important progress this session.

>>Ted Simons:
What kind of effects have you seen, heard, rumored of so far regarding Employee Sanctions Law? Any kind of effect at all yet?

>>Glen Hamer:
Well, it's certainly hurt our State's economy. It's really simply a question of degrade. The positive nature of the changes should provide some additional certainty for those businesses, the vast majority of businesses in Arizona that are doing everything they can to play by the rules. And the changes that you just mentioned include providing additional protection for businesses that are doing everything they can to play by the rules.

>>Ted Simons:
You're saying the law is affecting business, though, negatively. How?

>>Glen Hamer:
Well, what it's done is that it's made it riskier to invest in the State of Arizona. Businesses, at least with the original law, there were a number of anecdotal examples, businesses who said, we wanted to come in and invest in Arizona, but if we're at risk of losing our investment, we can go to Colorado or to another State. We're hopeful that with these changes, it will make Arizona more attractive to invest.

>>Ted Simons:
I know there was a lot of concern from the business community on anonymous complaints. That did not change.

>>Glen Hamer:
Unfortunately we were not able to completely change that provision. Although there was a little bit of progress made in that law enforcement or the County Attorneys no longer be required to investigate anonymous complaints. They can do so, but it's at their discretion.

>>Ted Simons:
OK. Overall changes. The idea, the 800-pound gorilla in the room, two of them, actually, were initiative processes. First of all, do you think the changes are enough to keep those things off the ballot? And secondly, if not, what can you do?

>>Glen Hamer:
I believe that most people in the business community, and it certainly is not unanimous at this point, would like to see the law dealt with in the Legislative arena, as well as in the courts. And our hope would be that with these positive changes, and it doesn't mean there aren't additional legislative changes that would be helpful, that both initiatives -- both initiatives would vanish.

>>Ted Simons:
OK. Keeping with initiatives here, your transportation initiative, the State Sales Tax up a penny. 6.6\% , I believe it would be now, for transportation, what do you think of this idea?

>>Glen Hamer:
Well, because this State is one in which we see so many initiatives, last cycle, I believe we had 19 initiatives on the ballot. We haven't taken -- the Arizona Chamber hasn't taken a formal position. With that said, I believe that everyone recognizes that we need to do more in this State to reduce congestion, and to make it easier to transport goods. We have a lot of transportation needs in this State, and there's going to obviously be some sort of price tag associated with improving our transportation system.

>>Ted Simons:
A big price tag, and some critics of a tax say what about user fees? What about impact fees on developers? Chamber's ideas on both of those?

>>Glen Hamer:
Well, in terms of user fees, it's generally a good principle to have any sort of tax or whatever word you want to use, directly associated with those who benefit. And I would say on the national level, it's interesting that I believe the US Chamber, and some of the major manufacturing groups, are supporting or would be supportive of an increase to the gas tax, because they feel that's a user fee that needs to go up to meet our necessary transportation needs. Now, in Arizona historically, Maricopa and Pima County have used the Sales Tax mechanism to improve their transportation networks.

>>Ted Simons:
OK, impact fees on developers as well, real quickly. I know you're probably not hot on that idea, but a lot of folks say that's a way to get money from people who are benefiting this sprawl and extra development, and transportation --

>>Glen Hamer:
Our definition of user fee would not include impact fees in terms of funding transportation.

>>Ted Simons:
OK. Let's get one more aspect here. The repeal of state property tax. I know that you wanted it to happen. Didn't happen.

>>Glen Hamer:
Not yet.

>>Ted Simons:
Not yet. I know. Do you think it could happen? Will this b r a bargaining chip in the budget process?

>>Glen Hamer:
We're optimistic. I do believe it can happen. In fact, we conducted a poll where 60\% of Arizonans made it clear that they did not approve of the Governor's veto of the Property Tax Bill, and 65\% support an extension of the -- of the Property Tax repeal. I would say that this will happen one of two ways. It will either be included in the budget in some storm -- form, or there's a chance it could be referred to the ballot, in which case it would be a slam dunk in terms of passing.

>>Ted Simons:
The Governor says it's -- we're a growing State, and we simply can't afford to lose this particular source of revenue. Why is she wrong?

>>Glen Hamer:
Well, Arizona has the fourth or fifth most uncompetitive Property Tax when it comes to Business Property Taxes. It's something that makes the State much less desirable than it ought to be for businesses who want to expand here. Our feeling is that particularly during this difficult economic times, the last thing in the world you would want to do is raise taxes on businesses. As well as residential property owners. And one additional point I would make, Ted, 40 chambers from across the State, representing over 30,000 companies support the repeal of this statewide property tax. I'm confident that one way or another, either through the budget or through a referendum, or initiative, this will occur.

>>Ted Simons:
All right. Glen, thank you so much for joining us. We appreciate it.

>>Glen Hamer:
Thank you.

>>Ted Simons:
Well, it's one of the best-known legal phrases -- "You have the right to remain silent". The story of Miranda Rights started with a small crime wave by Ernesto Arthur Miranda of
Mesa in the early '60s. Led to a Supreme Court case in 1966, where the Miranda Right came into existence. I'll talk to a former Arizona State Law professor who has written a book titled "Miranda: The Story of America's Right to Remain Silent." But first, here's a quick look at the history of Miranda Rights.

>>Grace Provanzano:
Miranda Rights must be read to a person before any interrogation by police, or when they in custody. Miranda rights became part of the American lexicon more than 30 years ago. Arturo Ernesto Miranda, he is number one in this police line-up, was often in trouble with the law. Shortly after this photo was taken, police coerced him into a confession. Miranda admitted to a rape and was also eventually found guilty of an earlier robbery. The case were appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court, and it confirmed both convictions. It went on to become a landmark case, argued at the US Supreme Curt. The following words came from a brief written by a US Supreme Court justice in 1966. "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to consult an Attorney before questioning. You have the right to have your attorney present with you during questioning. If you cannot afford an Attorney, one will be appointed for you at no expense to you. You may choose to exercise these rights at any time. Do you understand these rights?"

>>Ted Simons:
Here to talk about his book and the Miranda case is Gary Stuart. Garry, good to have you on the case.

>>Gary Stuart:
Nice to be back.


>>Ted Simons: Who was Ernesto Miranda?

>>Gary Stuart:
A 23-year-old guy that lived in Mesa, wasn't known much to anybody, had some minor infractions with the law. Spent a fair amount of time in Juvenile detentions. But lived in Mesa, worked in Downtown Phoenix. In March of 1963, pretty ordinary guy.

>>Ted Simons:
And why did he end up getting arrested, for what, a string of rape charges?

>>Gary Stuart:
Yes. And one of the really fascinating things about that arrest is how easy it came about, and how unpredictable the outcome was.

>>Ted Simons:
And he was convicted almost -- I would say almost entirely because he incriminated himself.

>>Gary Stuart: He did.

>>Ted Simons:
and that brought along this whole case. We were talking beforehand, give us a brief synopsis of how that went down with the police officer and the lineup and that sort of thing.

>>Gary Stuart:
These crimes occurred three different rapes in Downtown Phoenix, all in a two or three-block area, near where Miranda worked. He fit the profile of the kind of person that all three women said attacked them. But they had no evidence that it was in fact him. What they had was, they had evidence of a car that was seen a block away from the scene of one of the three, and they knew what kind of car it was, it was a fairly unique car. They found a car like that at Miranda's House that was actually owned by his common law wife, a woman named Twila Hoffman. The car was the only connection, but it wasn't seen at the scene of the crime.

>>Ted Simons:
And so they take him Downtown, and tell him, what, that everything is fine, they can't -- they would do anything, just dot lineup, and everything will be fine.

>>Gary Stuart:
They started first, of course, with an interrogation, a soft interrogation. Nothing hard about it. Middle of the day, weekday, 11:00 in the morning. He denied everything. The police officer was a man named Carroll Coolly, a highly respected police officer. Nice guy, I met him, spent a little time with him, actually. But Carroll said, I don't think these women can identify you. You say you didn't do it, I don't think they can identify you. Why don't you go into this lineup and then when they can't identify you, I'll buy your lunch and take you home that. Was the deal.

>>Ted Simons:
and once he went to the lineup and they didn't identify him, he goes back and he hears a very different story.

>>Gary Stuart:
Very different story. He asked Carroll coolly, how did I do, and he shook his head and said, "Ernie, they nailed you. I think you better just tell me what happened." so he did. At this point in time, of course, he had been completely unwarned about anything. He didn't know that he had a right to remain silent. He didn't know he had a right to a lawyer. He didn't know what he said could be used against him up to this point. At that point, Caroll Coolly did read him an earlier version of what became the famous Miranda Rights. At that point, he was told what he said could be used against him in a court of law, and he was asked to confirm he was going to give this confession in writing, which he did, voluntarily.

>>Ted Simons:
Did the years, we're talking the '60s, early '60s and mid '60s with the court decision

>>Gary Stuart:
'63, Supreme Court case in '66.

>>Ted Simons:
Did the makeup of the court and the tenor of the times factor into this case?

>>Gary Stuart:
Absolutely. It would not have happened 10 years earlier or perhaps 10 years later.

>>Ted Simons:
Because?

>>Gary Stuart:
The make-up of the court was very different at that time. It was the Warren Court. Warren was a very thoughtful, very Republican, very interesting but very forward-looking man. And one of the things he knew, and as it turned out by '66, so did four other justices, he knew that confession that is coerced confession, without being warned, was a systemic problem in rural America. For the most part, rural America, not urban centers. And more so in the south than in other regions. Coerced confessions were the common way in which crime was solved. Far too common. Not the only way, for sure, but far too common. Miranda was case that could be used to address that very large social and legal problem. And the Warren Court knew that.

>>Ted Simons: How often has Miranda been challenged?

>>Gary Stuart: Oh, 40 or 50 times where it's really clear that it's being challenged. Two or three cases every year for more than 40 years, in some cases, five or six cases.

>>Ted Simons: My goodness.

>>Gary Stuart:
But those challenges, for the most part, ended in 2000, in a case called Dickerson vs. United States. A case in which Chief Justice Rehnquist, another famous Arizona justice, handled the case in such a way as to cement in stone the fourth -- not the fourth, but the fifth and sixth amendment rights originally enunciated in the original Miranda decision in 1966.

>>Ted Simons:
Impact of Miranda on law enforcement.

>>Gary Stuart:
The impact was one that no one could have predicted at the beginning. Law Enforcement across the nation was opposed and adverse to the idea that a police officer, a working police officer, had to be part of what was thought either to be the judicial system, or the defense bar. They wanted no part of advising people of what their rights were. They thought everybody should know what their rights were. Carroll Coolly thought that everybody should know what their rights were. He thought that he said that he knew Miranda knew his rights. That's because Miranda had been in the system before. When I asked Carroll Coolly when I first met him, did he know he had the right to a lawyer, he said, well, I don't know if he knew that. I wasn't going to tell him. Did he know he had a right to remain silent? Probably not. That was the state of the law, and good police work in the '60s.

>>Ted Simons:
And Ernesto Miranda winds up dying a violent death, and I guess the accused was read his Miranda Rights.

>>Gary Stuart:
He was read his Miranda rights. One of the little ironies of the came, he was read his rights by a police officer whose last name was Bueno. And he read them in Spanish, because the man who killed Ernesto Miranda only spoke Spanish. So his rights were read to him in Spanish, who responded to him, "I don't have to talk to you." And he said, "No, you don't, and he said, then I don't want to talk to you". And he left. He left the police station, four or five hours after the arrest, has never been seen since.

>>Ted Simons:
Fascinating stuff. Gary Stuart, the author of the story of America's right to remain silent from Miranda. Just absolutely -- I have always found this case interesting, and the fact it's based here in adds, thank you so much for joining us.

>>Gary Stuart:
You're welcome. Thanks for bringing me here..

>>Ted Simons:
Richard Dawkins is an Evolutionary Biologist at Oxford University. He's the author of the influential book "The Selfish Gene." Currently, he's considered one of the so-called "New Atheists", a group of writers attacking the concept of religion. He was at ASU to talk about his new book "The God delusion." Larry Lemmons spoke with Dawkins before his lecture.

>> Larry Lemmons:
Professor Dawkins, you're here to talk about your new book, "The God Delusion." can you give us sort of an overview of the premise you have for that book?

>>Richard Dawkins:
The existence of God is a scientific hypothesis, like any other. It's a scientific hypothesis which doesn't have any evidence in favor of it. And rather a lot of evidence, I think, against it. That's the first half of the book. And then the second half of the book is that the very existence of religion in the world is on balance a force for evil rather than a force for good.

>> Larry Lemmons:
You talk about that in terms of, I know there's so problems in the world today. You're talking about religious fundamentalism, was that one of the reasons why you felt compelled to write the book?

>>Richard Dawkins:
no. I think I'd give higher priority to the scientific issue. Because I - unlike some of my scientific colleagues, I do think it is a scientific issue, whether there is a great spirit, a great intellect behind the universe. It seems to be very interesting scientific question. So that is my first priority. However, the timing of the book, you could say yes, there does seem to be a resurgence of religious influence in the world. Not only in America, but in the Middle East as well. And that did rather prompt me to think it was a good thing to do.

>> Larry Lemmons:
And those terms too, I know about the "Out" campaign you were talking about, that Atheists should be more open about their Atheism, because it hasn't been so in the past. So I was thinking this is a step in that direction.

>>Richard Dawkins:
Yes, it is a step in that direction. I think that there is a -- may actually be a bit of a myth about America, that America is supremely religious country. It certainly appears so. All presidential candidates in America have to talk about God in every speech. Otherwise, they don't get elected, and they dare mention they're Atheists, which some of them must be, because it don't make any sense that in a population of people of intelligence and education, that literally none of them in Congress, say, would be Atheists. Of course they are. So to that extent, it probably is true that America is a very religious country in the sense that everybody thinks it is. But I believe that there's a tremendous groundswell of nonreligious opinions in America, but none of them know that the others exist. So they need to come out. They need to break out. Rather as the Gay community did in 20 or 30 years ago, Atheists need to come out and show people that they're ordinary, decent, nice people, good people, just like everybody else.

>> Larry Lemmons:
Could you talk a little bit about, in terms of the scientific aspect, how would you characterize the creation of the Universe in terms of its complexity? And how it seems to be perfect for life, it seems to be perfect to do the things that we do? How is it that it evolved to such a state?

>>Richard Dawkins:
First of all, the complexity that impresses us most is biological complexity. And that, we now understand, that used to be, that always used to be thought of as an argument for the existence of a God. Ever since 1859 and the publication of Darwin's "Origin of Species", we've known that's not true. So, the really big argument for a God as a designer was destroyed by darwin. Now we're left with a possible physicist argument, what produced the Universe in the first place? Why are the physical constants, the constants of the Universe, so apparently beautifully set up to give rise to life? It has been argued by physicists, among them, Paul Davis, that if any of those constants were slightly different, then we wouldn't have the Universe as we know it, and we wouldn't have life. Some people see that as an argument for a designer. I emphatically don't, because you haven't explained anything. If it's difficult enough to explain how those physical constants came into being, it's even harder to explain how something as complicated as a designer could come into being. So what we're looking for is the physical -- the physicist's equivalent of a Darwin. Biology has its Darwin, and Biology is now essentially explained. Physics hasn't had its Darwin yet. So we have a gap in our understanding. But for a scientist, a gap is a challenge. It's something we're trying to break into, trying to understand. And so, I believe that those questions that we don't yet understand, many of them will be answered, including, perhaps, the origin of the physical constance. Even if they're not, however, even if they're there are some questions in Physics that we shall never know the answer to, it emphatically doesn't mean because scientists don't know the answer, theologians do.

>> Larry Lemmons:
Well, I know that many people who are very religious will describe what you're describing as a kind of religion in itself. They're saying, this is my religion, this is what I believe, this is your theory, this is what you believe. Is science a religion? Could it be described as a religion?

>>Richard Dawkins:
That's a very -- I'm very familiar with what you're saying. That's -- it's a very pernicious idea. The idea that, your opinion is as good as mine, and we each have our own opinion, and we're entitled to it, well, we're entitled to it, of course, but the question is which side has the evidence? Evidence is all-important. And scientific beliefs are not opinions. Scientific beliefs are based upon evidence. Masses of evidence. Huge quantities of evidence. All pointing in the same direction. Whereas the religious beliefs oppose them&are not based on evidence at all.

>>Larry Lemmons:
I had seen, in one of the previous things that you had done, about how you bemoan the fact Science was not being taught so well in schools. There wasn't an appreciation for scientific method, or really what it was. Do you consider that to be one of the primary reasons why people might fall back -- I know in certain communities in America they do. Even school boards fall back on wanting to teach intelligent design, or lack of evolution.

>>Richard Dawkins:
I think the scientists have fallen down in their responsibility to educate. You would be amazed by the number of people who think that because living things are complicated, as I said before, eyes look beautifully designed, that means there must be a God. They clearly haven't the faintest idea about Evolution, which is a beautiful explanation. And I stress beautiful, because not only is it correct, it also is so elegant and a child who is deprived of the privilege of understanding where she comes from, why she's the way she is, why the whole of life is the way it is, that is such a privilege to be able to understand it, it's a privilege that's granted to anybody who lived after 1859. And we are in that category, of course. It's not a privilege granted to our medieval forebearers. And they were very unfortunate not to have had that privilege. We are very fortunate to have it, and how very sad it is that so many children are not given it, they're deprived of it by bigoted religious interests that actually try to subvert the scientific education of children.

>>Larry Lemmons:
Professor Dawkins, thanks so much for visiting "Horizon."

>>Richard Dawkins:
Thank you very much indeed.

>>Ted Simons:
And thank you for joining us on "horizon." I'm Ted Simons. You have a great evening.

>>Announcer:
"Horizon" is made possible by the "Friends of Eight": members of your Arizona PBS station. Thank you.

Content Partner: