Other transcripts

Transcripts

October 23, 2002

Host: Michael Grant
Topics:
Official Clean Elections Forum:
Attorney General
In-Studio Guests:
Terry Goddard, Democrat;
Ed Kahn, Libertarian;
Andrew Thomas, Republican.

>> TONIGHT FROM THE CHANNEL 8 STUDIOS ON THE CAMPUS OF ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY, A "HORIZON" ELECTION 2002 SPECIAL. A FORUM WITH THE CANDIDATES FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL.

>> MICHAEL: THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS ARIZONA'S TOP LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WHO OVERSEES A STAFF OF 900. THE OFFICE REPRESENTS AND PROVIDES LEGAL ADVICE TO STATE AGENCIES. IT ENFORCES CONSUMER PROTECTION, ENVIRONMENTAL AND CIVIL LAWS. THE OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL ALSO PROSECUTES WHITE COLLAR CRIME, ORGANIZED CRIME AND DRUG CRIMES. GOOD EVENING, I'M MICHAEL GRANT OF CHANNEL 8'S "HORIZON". WELCOME TO THE OFFICIAL CLEAN ELECTIONS FORUM OF CANDIDATES FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL. EACH CANDIDATE WILL HAVE UP TO 60 SECONDS FOR AN OPENING STATEMENT FOLLOWED BY A QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION. EACH CANDIDATE WILL THEN HAVE 60 SECONDS FOR CLOSING REMARKS. HERE'S A BRIEF LOOK AT THE THREE CANDIDATES FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL. TERRY GODDARD IS THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL. GODDARD IS AN ATTORNEY IN PRIVATE PRACTICE. HE IS A FORMER MAYOR OF PHOENIX AND PAST ARIZONA DIRECTOR OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT. GODDARD WAS A PROSECUTOR AND ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL IN THE SPECIAL PROSECUTIONS UNIT FROM 1976 TO 1978. AN ARIZONA NATIVE, GODDARD IS 55 YEARS OLD, MARRIED AND HAS ONE SON. HE IS A PARTICIPATING CANDIDATE UNDER THE CITIZENS CLEAN ELECTIONS ACT. ED KAHN IS THE LIBERTARIAN CANDIDATE FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL. KAHN IS AN ATTORNEY IN PRIVATE PRACTICE. HE HAS SERVED ON NUMEROUS GOVERNMENT, COMMUNITY AND LAW COMMITTEES IN THE TUCSON AREA. HE IS A RETIRED LIEUTENANT COMMANDER IN THE UNITED STATES NAVAL RESERVE, JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL CORPS. KAHN IS 67 YEARS OLD, HAS LIVED IN ARIZONA FOR 36 YEARS, IS MARRIED AND HAS THREE CHILDREN. HE IS A NON-PARTICIPATING CANDIDATE. ANDREW THOMAS IS THE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE. HE IS AN ATTORNEY IN PRIVATE PRACTICE. THOMAS IS A FORMER STATE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL AND FORMER DEPUTY COUNSEL AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY ADVISOR TO GOVERNOR SYMINGTON. HE ALSO AUTHORED A BOOK ON CRIME. HE HAS LIVED IN ARIZONA FOR 11 YEARS, HE IS 35 YEARS OLD, MARRIED AND HAS THREE CHILDREN. THOMAS IS A PARTICIPATING CANDIDATE. WE DREW LOTS ACTUALLY TINY SLIPS OF PAPER BEFORE THIS FORUM TO DETERMINE THE ORDER OF OPENING STATEMENTS. WE BEGIN WITH MR. THOMAS.

>> Andrew Thomas: THANK YOU AND GOOD EVENING. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS THE CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA AND IS LOOKED TO AS THE LEADER IN THE FIGHT AGAINST CRIME. I BELIEVE I OFFER THE EXPERIENCE AND VISION NECESSARY TO LEAD THAT FIGHT SUCCESSFULLY. I HAVE PUT FORWARD VARIOUS PROPOSALS TO FIGHT CRIME IN THE STATE THAT BUILD ON MY SUCCESS IN WORKING FOR THE STOP JUVENILE CRIME INITIATIVE SEVERAL YEARS AGO. AND IN HELPING TO FIGHT BACK THE U.S. LABOR'S DEPARTMENT ATTEMPTS TO HIKE INMATES' PAY. I BELIEVE I HAVE A VISION FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE AND CRIME CONTROL THAT IS VERY DIFFERENT FROM MY OPPONENT'S. I WANT TO CRACK DOWN ON CHILD MOLESTERS AND GET THEM OUT OF OUR NEIGHBORHOODS AND INTO PRISON WHERE THEY BELONG. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO CRACK DOWN ON CONSUMER FRAUD. I STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH MY OPPONENT'S PROPOSAL TO REPEAL MANDATORY PRISON SENTENCES FOR SO-CALLED LOW LEVEL DRUG OFFENDERS. THAT WOULD PUT CAREER CRIMINALS BY THE THOUSANDS OUT ON OUR STREETS. I WOULD BE HONORED TO RECEIVE YOUR VOTE AND I LOOK FORWARD TO THE DEBATE THIS EVENING.

>> MICHAEL: MR. GODDARD.

>> Terry Goddard: THANK YOU, MICHAEL. GOOD EVENING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. MY NAME IS TERRY GODDARD. I'M CANDIDATE FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL. I BELIEVE MY BACKGROUND AND TALENT WILL MAKE A DIFFERENCE FOR THE PEOPLE FOR THE PEOPLE IN ARIZONA IN THIS IMPORTANT JOB. I BELIEVE I CAN HIT THE GROUND RUNNING AND DO THE BEST JOB OF PROTECTING ARIZONA FAMILIES. I SERVED FOR 27 YEARS IN THE NAVAL RESERVE AND I'VE BEEN AN ATTORNEY FOR 27 YEARS, AND I'M ONLY 55. YOU CAN DO THE MATH. I STARTED MY LEGAL CAREER IN THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE AS A PROSECUTOR PUTTING CORPORATE CROOKS IN PRISON. AS MAYOR OF PHOENIX, I OVERSAW THE LARGEST POLICE FORCE IN ARIZONA AND MADE MAJOR PROGRESS IN PROTECTING THE NEIGHBORHOODS. AS HUD DIRECTOR, I WORKED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IN FIGHTING CONSUMER FRAUD, PROTECTING FAIR HOUSING RIGHTS AND ESPECIALLY TRYING TO STOP PREDATORY LENDERS. THERE'S A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CANDIDATES HERE THIS EVENING. MY GOAL IS SIMPLE: I WANT TO USE THE TOOLS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AS AGGRESSIVELY AS POSSIBLE TO PROTECT ARIZONA FAMILIES.

>> MICHAEL: MR. KAHN.

>> Edward Kahn: THANKS, I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY AS A THIRD PARTY CANDIDATE TO PARTICIPATE WITH THE DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS, ESPECIALLY SINCE I THINK IT'S FAIR TO SAY THE DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS HAVE PUT US IN THE MESS WE'RE IN. THE ARIZONA REPUBLIC TODAY HAD AN INTERESTING ARTICLE ABOUT DICK MAHONEY AS THE INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE AND HOW HE STARTED OUT SO WELL BUT HAS SEEMED TO HAVE LOST HIS THRUST AS AN INDEPENDENT AND HIS ABILITY TO CHANGE THINGS. I WANT TO PICK UP MAHONEY'S MANTLE. AS A LIBERTARIAN, I CAN CHANGE THINGS, THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY CAN CHANGE THINGS. THE REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS HAVE PUT US IN THE MESS WE'RE IN TODAY. IF THE VOTERS OF ARIZONA REALLY WANT THINGS TO CHANGE, IF THEY WANT AN ATTORNEY GENERAL TO ROOT OUT WASTE AND CORRUPTION AND PROTECT THE CITIZENS OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA, THEN THEY OUGHT TO VOTE LIBERTARIAN.

>> MICHAEL: THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN. AND WE WILL TOUCH ON SEVERAL OF THOSE SUBJECTS THAT YOU TOUCHED ON IN THE NEXT HALF HOUR OR SO. LET ME START WITH PROPOSITION 203, MR. GODDARD. FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL GRANT WOODS SAYS IT'S GOOD POLICY. WHAT DO YOU THINK?

>> Terry Goddard: I APPRECIATE THE SUPPORT OF FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL WOODS, BUT I DISAGREE WITH HIM STRONGLY ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE. I BELIEVE IT'S NOT GOOD PUBLIC POLICY. I THINK THE IDEA OF OUR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY IN THE BUSINESS OF HANDING OUT FREE DRUGS TO ANYONE WHO APPLIED IS NOT JUST BAD PUBLIC POLICY, IT GOES AGAINST FEDERAL LAW.

>> MICHAEL: MR. KAHN, WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT PROPOSITION 203?

>> Edward Kahn: WELL, UNFORTUNATELY, IT STARTED OUT AS A GOOD IDEA. I DON'T THINK ANYBODY SHOULD GO TO JAIL FOR SMOKING POT OR CARRYING A COUPLE OF OUNCES OF MARIJUANA. THEY MUCKED IT UP, 18 PAGES OF COMPLEX LITIGATION AND FORCING THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY TO DISTRIBUTE MARIJUANA IS TOTALLY WRONG. SO I'M GOING TO VOTE NO.

>> MICHAEL: IN OTHER WORDS, THE DECRIMINALIZATION ASPECT, IF YOU UNHITCH THE DECRIMINALIZATION FROM THE REST OF PROP 203, YOU DON'T NECESSARILY THINK THAT'S BAD POLICY.

>> Edward Kahn: NO, DECRIMINALIZING THE POSSESSION OF MARIJUANA IS GOOD POLICY, BUT THEY MUCKED IT UP AND THREW TOO MUCH BULK IN. IT'S GOT TOO MUCH EXCESS BAGGAGE.

>> MICHAEL: MR. GODDARD, BEFORE I GO TO MR THOMAS ON THE QUESTION, WHAT ABOUT YOU? JUST THE POLICY OF DECRIMINALIZING MARIJUANA POSSESSION; ALSO OPPOSED TO THAT OR NOT?

>> Terry Goddard: NOT NECESSARILY. HOWEVER, I THINK YOU NEED ANOTHER PROPOSITION, THAT'S RICK ROMLEY'S PROPOSAL TO MAKE SURE IF SOMEBODY REFUSES COUNSELING FOR A DRUG PROBLEM, THAT THE COURTS CAN STEP IN AND PUT THEM IN JAIL.

>> Michael: MR. THOMAS, WHAT'S YOUR VIEW ON PROPOSITION 203?

>> Andrew Thomas: PROP 203 IT WOULD BE A DISASTER, IT WOULD PUT 1400 HARD CORE CRIMINALS OUT ON THE STREETS BY REINSTATING PROVISIONS THAT WERE REPEALED FROM EARLIER DRUG LEGALIZATION MEASURES. IT WOULD TURN DPS OFFICERS INTO DRUG MERCHANTS, HANDING OUT MARIJUANA. IT WOULD BE A TERRIBLE THING FOR THE STATE. I STRONGLY OPPOSE IT AND MORE GENERALLY THE TREND IN OUR SOCIETY, AND PARTICULARLY IN ARIZONA WE HAVE A FEW MILLIONAIRES THAT TRIED TO TURN ARIZONA INTO A LABORATORY AND ARIZONA'S THEN THE GUINEA PIG FOR THESE DRUG LEGALIZATION MEASURES THAT THEY KEEP PUTTING ON THE BALLOT. I OPPOSE THAT. I FOR ONE AM NOT GOING TO RAISE A WHITE FLAG IN THE WAR ON DRUGS AND WE HAVE DIFFERENCES IN THE CANDIDATES ON THAT. WE HAVE TERRY SAYING HE IS NOT NECESSARILY OPPOSED TO DECRIMINALIZING MARIJUANA, WHICH IS THE FIRST I'VE HEARD OF THAT, I THINK IT'S VERY SIGNIFICANT. I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD GO DOWN THAT ROAD.

>> MICHAEL: A LOT OF CONSERVATIVES FEEL WE'RE GOING DOWN THE WRONG ROAD, LOSING THE WAR ON DRUGS, AND A MUCH MORE SANE APPROACH IS TO TREAT IT CIVILLY RATHER THAN CRIMINALLY.

>> Andrew Thomas: I DISAGREE WITH THAT. MARIJUANA IS A GATE KEEPER DRUG. STUDIES HAVE SHOWN USING MARIJUANA FREQUENTLY LEADS A USER TO USE COCAINE OR MORE SERIOUS DRUGS. I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD TREAT THIS MATTER LIGHTLY, IT'S SOMETHING, DRUGS DULL OUR MINDS AND CORRODE OUR SOULS AND I THINK WE NEED TO NIP THIS IN THE BUD RIGHT NOW.

>> MICHAEL: LET ME CLARIFY, BECAUSE I THOUGHT I HEARD YOU SAY YOU WERE NOT NECESSARILY OPPOSED TO THE DECRIMINALIZING OF MARIJUANA.

>> Terry Goddard: MY UNDERSTANDING OF 203 AND OTHER PROPOSITIONS IS THAT IT WOULD BE REDUCED TO A CIVIL PENALTY AND A SIGNIFICANT FINE. OBVIOUSLY, IT IS NOT ENCOURAGED BEHAVIOR AND I DON'T BELIEVE IT SHOULD BE.

>> MICHAEL: MR. KAHN, LET ME GO TO THE DPS DISTRIBUTION POINT. THE DPS DIRECTOR SAID THE STATE COULD BE CIVILLY LIABLE IF WE HAND OUT CONTAMINATED MARIJUANA. DO YOU THINK THE STATE COULD BE HELD CIVILLY LIABLE?

>> Edward Kahn: ABSOLUTELY. THE STATE CAN BE HELD LIABLE ANY TIME THEY FOUL UP AND INJURE SOMEBODY. THAT'S ONE OF THE INHERENT RISKS OF THIS PROPOSITION.

>> MICHAEL: COULD THE LEGISLATURE FIX THAT FLAW WITHOUT RUNNING AFOUL OF THE VOTER PROTECTION ACT OR NOT?

>> Edward Kahn: THAT'S A TOUGH ONE, AND THOSE QUESTIONS ALWAYS WIND UP IN THE HANDS OF THE ARIZONA SUPREME COURT.

>> MICHAEL: OR AN ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINION.

>> Edward Kahn: SURE. BUT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL CAN ISSUE AN OPINION AND THEN STANLEY FELDMAN, IN HIS WISDOM, CAN TURN IT ALL AROUND.

>> MICHAEL: MR. THOMAS, WHAT DO YOU THINK? COULD THE STATE BE HELD CIVILLY LIABLE FOR CONTAMINATED MARIJUANA DISTRIBUTED BY THE DPS? AND IF SO, IS THAT THE KIND OF THING THE LEGISLATURE COULD CLEAN UP WITHOUT VIOLATING THE VOTER PROTECTION ACT?

>> Andrew Thomas:IT'S POSSIBLE. AS A FUTURE POTENTIAL ATTORNEY GENERAL YOU HAVE TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT SETTING UP LIABILITY IN ADVANCE. IN TERMS OF THE LEGISLATURE AMENDING THE ACT, I DON'T THINK THE LEGISLATURE SHOULD BE IN THE BUSINESS OF AMENDING PUBLIC VOTES. THAT'S HOW THE VOTER PROTECTION ACT CAME INTO BEING. IT WAS A DRUG LEGALIZATION MEASURE THAT THE LEGISLATURE CHANGED. THE FACT THAT IT CONTAINS PROVISIONS IN THE CURRENT PROP 203 TO RELEASE THESE DRUG POSSESSION INMATES WHO ARE IN FACT HARD CORE CRIMINALS AND DRUG DEALERS WHO PLEA BARGAIN DOWN, I JUST THINK THAT ONCE THE PEOPLE SPEAK, GOVERNMENT SHOULD LISTEN.

>> MICHAEL: MR. GODDARD, WHAT DO YOU THINK?

>> Terry Goddard: ON WHICH ONE OF THE ISSUES?

>> MICHAEL: I THINK WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT -- WHAT THE HECK IS IT -- OH, YEAH, CONTAMINATED MARIJUANA. IS THE STATE ON THE HOOK IF THE DPS HANDS IT OUT?

>> Terry Goddard: I THINK WE'RE SETTING UP A PARADIGM HERE. I THINK THE FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE IS THAT IT IT CONTRAVENES FEDERAL NARCOTICS LAWS. I DON'T SEE HOW THE STATE, WHETHER IT'S PASSED BY THE VOTERS OR NOT, IS GOING TO BE IN THE POSITION TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT. SO, BOTTOM LINE, I DON'T THINK WE EVER GET TO THE CONTAMINATED ISSUE BECAUSE, FRANKLY, I THINK FEDERAL LAW IS GOING TO PREVAIL.

>> MICHAEL: LET ME SHIFT TO DEATH PENALTY. EARLIER THIS YEAR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S COMMISSION RECOMMENDED THE DEATH PENALTY BE SUBMITTED TO THE VOTE OF THE PEOPLE. DO YOU THINK IT SHOULD BE?

>> Andrew Thomas: ABSOLUTELY NOT. I STRONGLY SUPPORT THE DEATH PENALTY, IT'S AN INSTITUTION UNDER ASSAULT IN OUR COURTS, AND I DO NOT THINK THAT THE RIGHT WAY -- ESPECIALLY NOW THAT WE HAVE HAD TWO FEDERAL COURTS STRIKE DOWN THE DEATH PENALTY AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL -- WE SHOULD BE SINGLING THIS ISSUE FOR SPECIAL TREATMENT ON THE BALLOT WHEN THE VOTERS HAVE MADE IT CLEAR BY ALL THIS ORGANIZED OPPOSITION THAT IN ARIZONA WE SUPPORT THE DEATH PENALTY, WE BELIEVE IT'S AN APPROPRIATE DETERRENT TO CRIME AND APPROPRIATE FOR JUSTICE. TERRY HAS AN OPPOSITE VIEW. HE THINKS IT SHOULD BE A PUBLIC VOTE. I STRONGLY DISAGREE AND I FIND MYSELF IN THE AWKWARD POSITION OF AGREEING WITH ATTORNEY GENERAL JANET NAPOLITANO, A DEMOCRAT, WHO OPPOSED THAT RECOMMENDATION OF HER COMMISSION OF HAVING THE PUBLIC VOTE. THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN FOR DECADES AND SPOKEN UP, THERE IS NO NEED FOR A PUBLIC VOTE AND WE'RE GOING DOWN THE ROAD IF WE DO THAT.

>> MICHAEL: IF THEY HAVE SPOKEN, WHY NOT LET THEM SPEAK ONE MORE TIME?

>> Andrew Thomas:WHY DON'T WE HAVE THEM SPEAK ON TAKING CHILD MOLESTERS OUT OF OUR NEIGHBORHOODS AND INTO PRISON? IF WE'RE GOING TO START COMING UP WITH A LAUNDRY LIST OF PUBLIC VOTE, I THINK THAT SHOULD BE A LOT HIGHER THAN ANYTHING REGARDING THE DEATH PENALTY.

>> Terry Goddard: I LOVE HEARING FROM MR. THOMAS WHAT IT IS I HAVE SAID OR WHAT IT IS I BELIEVE.

>> MICHAEL: YOU TRY IT.

>> Terry Goddard: IN POINT OF FACT, I'M NOT AFRAID OF HAVING THE PEOPLE VOTE ON THE DEATH PENALTY. I THINK IT MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE. I'M NOT PROMOTING THAT. ALL I HAVE SAID IS THAT I'M NOT GOING TO OPPOSE PUTTING IT ON THE BALLOT BECAUSE I THINK THAT IS ALWAYS AN APPROPRIATE WAY TO GET MAJOR PUBLIC ISSUES OUT. I SUPPORT THE DEATH PENALTY. I WOULD BE AN OPPOSED TO THAT AN ISSUE THAT WOULD PUT A MORATORIUM OR AN ABOLITION. BUT TO HAVE PEOPLE VOTE ON IT, I THINK THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM.

>> MICHAEL: MR. KAHN, WHERE DO YOU STAND ON THE DEATH PENALTY, WHETHER OR NOT IT GOES TO A PUBLIC VOTE?

>> Edward Kahn: WELL, IT'S INTERESTING, MICHAEL, I THINK ALL OF US ARE IN FAVOR OF THE DEATH PENALTY. SOME OF US DISAGREE ON HOW THE LEGISLATURE HANDLED THE RECENT SUPREME COURT DECISION ON WHETHER JURIES SHOULD DECIDE WHO GETS THE DEATH PENALTY. WHETHER IT OUGHT TO GO TO A PUBLIC VOTE, I DON'T THINK SO. WE HAVE SO MANY PROPOSITIONS AND INITIATIVES ON THE BALLOT NOW THAT IT'S CONFUSING. THE IDEA OF A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC IS THAT THE VOTERS CHOOSE REPRESENTATIVES TO MAKE DECISIONS FOR THEM. I'M WITH TERRY, I'M NOT OPPOSED TO A PUBLIC VOTE, IF THE PEOPLE WANT TO HAVE A PUBLIC VOTE ON IT, BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA.

>> MICHAEL: LET ME GO TO THE MODIFICATIONS TO THE DEATH PENALTY STATUTE. THERE WERE TWO MAJOR CHANGES, MR. KAHN JUST REFERRED TO ONE, AND THAT IS TURNING OVER THE SENTENCING PROCESS TO JURIES. THE SECOND WAS WE NO LONGER HAVE AN AUTOMATIC A APPEAL ON DEATH CASES TO THE SUPREME COURT. WERE THOSE GOOD DECISIONS ON THOSE TWO ISSUES OR NOT?

>> Terry Goddard: THOSE ARE THE DECISIONS, AND THE LEGISLATURE HAS CHANGED THE STATUTE SO THAT NOW WE HAVE SOMETHING THAT I THINK WILL ABIDE SCRUTINY UNDER THE RING DECISION. MY CRITICISM IS THAT IT WENT A LITTLE TOO FAR, THAT IN FACT THE AUTOMATIC APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT AND HAVING A JUDGE BE THE FINAL ARBITER OF THE SENTENCE WOULD HAVE MADE OUR DEATH PENALTY PROVISIONS MORE IMMUNE FROM A SUCCESSFUL APPEAL AND I THINK WOULD HAVE SETTLED THE ISSUE MUCH MORE CLEARLY. WHAT THEY CHOSE TO DO WAS TAKE AN EXTRA STEP BEYOND WHAT THE SUPREME COURT SAID THEY NEEDED TO DO IN RING.

>> MICHAEL: WOULD IT HAVE MADE THE PROCESS MORE FAIR AND SECURE?

>> Terry Goddard: I THINK IT PROBABLY MORE CONSISTENT BECAUSE THE TRIAL JUDGE AND SUPREME COURT WOULD BE THERE TO LOOK OVER SOME KIND OF RUNAWAY JURY OR WHERE THE JURY DIDN'T FOLLOW THE EVIDENCE. THAT HAPPENS, AND THAT WAS WHY THE DEATH PENALTY WAS THROWN OUT OR AT LEAST SUSPENDED SEVERAL YEARS AGO FOR A PERIOD OF ALMOST 10 YEARS. I DON'T THINK WE WANT TO GO BACK ON THAT TRAIL. OTHER STATES HAVE SUCCESSFULLY USED THE MEDIAN PROPOSITION WHICH ALLOWS THE JURY TO BE INVOLVED IN THE AGGRAVATION AND MITIGATION FACTUAL ISSUES.

>> MICHAEL: MR. KAHN, AUTOMATIC REVIEW BY THE SUPREME COURT AND JURIES DOING THE SENTENCING?

>> Edward Kahn: TERRY IS ON THE RIGHT TRACK. OUR SYSTEM OF CHECKS AND BALANCES REQUIRES THAT THE JURY DETERMINE THE FACTS WHERE THERE ARE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES. BUT WE NEED A JUDGE TO BE THE CHECKS AND BALANCES, AS TERRY SAYS, TO PREVENT A RUNAWAY JURY. I THINK THE LEGISLATURE WENT TOO FAR.

>> MICHAEL: MR. THOMAS, TOO FAR, JUST RIGHT? THE GOLDILOCKS TEST? WHAT DO YOU THINK?

>> Andrew Thomas: I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE GOLDILOCKS, I'LL LEAVE THAT ANALOGY WHERE IT LIES. I THINK THE LEGISLATURE MADE THE RIGHT DECISION, UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF JANET NAPOLITANO WHO SPEAR-HEADED TO BRING ARIZONA INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE RING DECISION. WE NEED FULL JURY SENTENCING, NOT THE PIECEMEAL APPROACH TERRY IS REFERRING TO. I AGREE WITH ATTORNEY GENERAL NAPOLITANO AND THE PROSECUTORS IN THIS STATE WHO LOBBIED TO HAVE FULL JURY SENTENCING. I THINK TO NOT HAVE FULL JURY SENTENCING OPENS ARIZONA UP TO ANOTHER DECADE OF APPEALS, PERHAPS GOING BACK TO THE SUPREME COURT, ALL OF THE CAPITAL CASES FOR THE NEXT TEN YEARS OVERTURNED BECAUSE WE DIDN'T GO FAR ENOUGH IN ALLOWING THE JURY TO DECIDE THE IMPORTANT ISSUES IN A CAPITAL CASE.

>> MICHAEL: IT HAS BEEN SUGGESTED IN CASES, PARTICULARLY IN MAJOR POLICY CASES LIKE ARNOLD V. SARN, MENTAL HEALTH RIGHTS, THAT THE LEGISLATURE SHOULD HAVE TO BE CONSULTED BEFORE THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, WITH CONSULTATION WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, MAKES SETTLEMENTS, THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH MAY BE WRITING A CHECK THAT THE LEGISLATIVE BODY CANNOT CASH. DO YOU THINK THE LEGISLATURE OUGHT TO ACTIVELY REVIEW SETTLEMENTS OF THAT NATURE?

>> Andrew Thomas: IT'S PRETTY DIFFICULT TO SETTLE CASES IN TERMS OF THE ACTUAL MACHINERY. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS I'VE BEEN INVOLVE IN A NUMBER OF LARGER SETTLEMENTS AND YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE CONCURRENCE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, WITH THE DEPARTMENTS, THERE ARE CHECKS AND BALANCES TO BRING THE LEGISLATURE INTO IT AS WELL, WHO WOULD WE HAVE, THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE? A VOTE OF ALL 90 LEGISLATORS? I THINK THE CURRENT SYSTEM IS BASICALLY EFFECTIVE BUT WE NEED TO BE VIGILANT SO WE DON'T HAVE SOMETHING LIKE THE ALT FUELS SITUATION OCCUR.

>> MICHAEL: THOSE CAN DRIVE LEGISLATIVE WAYS AND MEANS AND BUDGET COMMITTEES ABSOLUTELY NUTS. SHOULD THE LEGISLATURE HAVE A VOICE IN THIS?

>> Terry Goddard: I THINK IT'S VERY HARD TO GET THE LEGISLATURE TO THE TABLE. I PRESUME THE ISSUE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IS FISCAL, NOT LEGAL.

>> MICHAEL: THAT'S THE POINT THAT'S BEEN MADE, THAT HOLD IT, THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH CUT A DEAL HERE AND WE'RE HAVING TO SHELL OUT $300 MILLION OR WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE TO DO IT, TO PUT IT INTO EFFECT.

>> Terry Goddard: BASICALLY, I THINK THE CLEAREST POINT HERE IS THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S JOB, ONE OF THE MAJOR JOBS, IS TO SAVE TAXPAYER MONEY AND BE THERE IN TERMS OF CUTTING THE BEST POSSIBLE AGREEMENT. RECENTLY THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE HAD A VERY SERIOUS ADVERSE DECISION AND NOW HAS HAD TO REACH A DECISION THAT'S GOING TO COST THE STATE $325 MILLION. THAT'S A VERY HARD NUT, BUT I DON'T THINK THERE WAS ANY OTHER DIRECTION THEY COULD HAVE GONE. IN FACT, THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE WAS VERY AGGRESSIVE IN SAYING THIS IS A CASE THAT SHOULDN'T BE SETTLED, IT MUST GO TO COURT. TO BRING THE LEGISLATURE IN IS GOING TO MAKE IT VERY DIFFICULT TO COME UP WITH FINAL SETTLEMENTS. THE CASE YOU BROUGHT UP, IS A CASE OF THE LEGISLATURE FOLLOWING THEIR OWN RULES. IN THIS CASE THEY OUGHT TO THINK VERY SERIOUSLY ABOUT WHAT THEY PASSED.

>> MICHAEL: MR. KAHN, I SENSE YOU WANT TO KEEP THE LEGISLATURE OUT OF THIS PROCESS, TOO.

>> Edward Kahn: IT'S INTERESTING. WHEN I WAS ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL FOR THE NAVAJO TRIBE WE HAD A SIMILAR SITUATION WHERE WE HAD A CASE THAT WENT THROUGH THE NAVAJO TRIBAL COURT SYSTEM AND THE SUPREME COURT ON THE NAVAJO NATION RULED IN FAVOR OF THE PLAINTIFF AND DECLARED THE TRIBE OWED THIS PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL A SUBSTANTIAL SUM OF MONEY. WHEN IT CAME TIME TO FOR THE NAVAJO COUNCIL TO APPROPRIATE FUNDS TO PAY THE JUDGMENT. THE POLITICIANS GOT INTO IT AND SAID TO HELL WITH THE SUPREME COURT, WE'RE NOT GOING TO PAY THIS GUY. I DON'T THINK WE OUGHT TO LET THE POLITICIANS INTERFERE WITH THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM. WHAT YOU SUGGEST IS VERY RISKY.

>> MICHAEL: ANDREW JACKSON-LIKE. I HAVE A VIEWER QUESTION. THE LEGISLATURE IN ITS WISDOM HAS MANDATED SENTENCES FOR CERTAIN CRIMES. I HAPPEN TO THINK THIS IS A BAD APPROACH TO CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM. AND WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THE CANDIDATES' OPINIONS. WHAT'S YOUR OPINION?

>> Edward Kahn: I THINK YOUR QUESTIONER THERE IS A LIBERTARIAN. I AM OPPOSED TO MANDATORY SENTENCING. SEEMS TO ME IT VIOLATES AN INDIVIDUAL'S CONSTITUTIONAL AND CIVIL RIGHTS. THAT'S WHY WE HAVE VICTIM'S RIGHTS ACT. WE HAVE THE VICTIMS TELL THEIR SIDE OF THE STORY AND THE CONVICTED PERSON TELLS HIS SIDE OF THE STORY AND THE SENTENCE IS PLACED THEN BASED ON ALL THE FACTS IN FRONT OF THE JUDGE. WHEN YOU MANDATE A SENTENCE YOU TAKE THE DISCRETION FROM THE JUDGE AND I THINK FRANKLY YOU VIOLATE THE CONVICTED PERSON'S CIVIL RIGHTS.

>> MICHAEL: MR. THOMAS, WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT MANDATORY SENTENCES?

>> Andrew Thomas: I SUPPORT OUR CURRENT SYSTEM OF MANDATORY SENTENCES AND I DO NOT BELIEVE WE SHOULD GO DOWN THE ROAD OF MAKING MORE DISCRETION FOR JUDGES SO THERE IS MORE UNCERTAINTY IN THE LAW SO POTENTIAL CRIMINAL OFFENDERS DON'T KNOW WHAT TIME THEY ARE GOING TO DO. THIS HAS COME UP IN THE CANDIDATES, TERRY STARTING A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO INDICATING HE WANTED TO REPEAL CERTAIN MANDATORY SENTENCES FOR DRUG OFFENDERS. HE IS NOW BACKING AWAY FROM THAT VIEW. YOU SEE MORE FLIP-FLOPS ON THE ISSUE THAN YOU GET FROM A BEACH TOWEL. IF WE REPEALED MANDATORY SENTENCES FOR LOW LEVEL DRUG OFFENDERS, WE WOULD PUT THOUSANDS OF DRUG DEALERS AND CAREER CRIMINALS ON THE STREETS.

>> Terry Goddard: I RESENT THE HALIBUT COMMENT, BUT I SUPPORT MANDATORY SENTENCES FOR SERIOUS CRIMES. I BELIEVE WE SHOULD RESPECT OUR JUDGES AND MAKE SURE THEY CAN APPLY THE FACTS WHERE IT IS APPROPRIATE. WE HAVE OVERDONE IT, FRANKLY. WE HAVE SO MANY CRIMES LISTED, CLASS 6 FELONIES WHICH CARRY THEM A MANDATORY PRISON TIME. I THINK IT'S HIGHLY INAPPROPRIATE. THESE ARE THEFT OF OVER $100 OF FOOD STAMPS, A SMALL THEFT OF A CREDIT CARD WILL END UP PUTTING YOU IN PRISON. THESE ARE THINGS THAT I THINK SHOULD BE REVIEWED AND IF NECESSARY ROLLED BACK. IN FACT, THAT'S WHAT THE LEGISLATURE IS DOING RIGHT NOW. THEY HAVE A COMMISSION WHICH IS LOOKING AT ALL OF THE MANDATORY SENTENCES, TRYING TO DECIDE WHETHER SOME OF THEM SHOULD BE CLASSIFIED AS MISDEMEANORS, SO WE CAN FOCUS ON THE MOST SERIOUS CRIMES FOR MANDATORY SENTENCES.

>> MICHAEL: UNFORTUNATELY, WE ARE OUT OF TIME. TIME FOR CLOSING STATEMENTS. WE DREW LOTS TO DETERMINE THE ORDER. AND MR. GODDARD WILL GO FIRST.

>> Terry Goddard: THANK YOU, MR. GRANT, AND THANK YOU FOR THE CHANCE TO BE HERE THIS EVENING. I APPRECIATE THE AUDIENCE'S CONCERN ABOUT THE IMPORTANT ELECTION. I HOPE WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO SHED MORE LIGHT THAN HEAT. YOU HAVE A CHOICE BETWEEN THREE DIFFERENT EXPERIENCES AND VERY DIFFERENT PHILOSOPHIES. I DON'T THINK, AND THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT DIDN'T COME UP BUT ONE THAT MR. THOMAS EMPHASIZED, I DON'T THINK PROSECUTORS OR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SHOULD THROW AWAY AN IMPORTANT TOOL IN THE FIGHT AGAINST CRIME, ESPECIALLY WHEN EVERY FRONT-LINE PROSECUTOR SAYS IT WOULD PUT DANGEROUS PEOPLE ON THE STREET. MR. THOMAS' PLAN FOR ELIMINATING PLEA BARGAINS SOUNDS TOUGH BUT IT WON'T WORK AND IT'S GOING TO HAVE THE EFFECT OF PUTTING MANY, MANY DANGEROUS CRIMINALS BACK ON THE STREET. I CAN'T AGREE WITH MANY OF HIS OTHER POSITIONS. ELIMINATING ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE, REPEALING THE MIRANDA DECISION, GETTING RID OF IMPORTANT PARTS OF THE FOURTH AND FIFTH AMENDMENTS, AND CHALLENGING THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. THESE ARE IMPORTANT RIGHTS. I BELIEVE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IN ARIZONA SHOULD BE FIGHTING FOR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. I WILL.

>> MICHAEL: MR. KAHN, YOUR CLOSING STATEMENTS, PLEASE.

>> Edward Kahn: IT'S INTERESTING, YOUR PROGRAM IS SO DIFFERENT, BUT I THINK THE AVERAGE VOTER TODAY IS GETTING SNOWED UNDER WITH SO MANY COMMERCIALS. EVERYONE RUNNING FOR ELECTED OFFICE IS GOING TO BE A FIGHTER AND A LEADER, AND THEY'RE GOING TO DO ALL THESE WONDERFUL THINGS FOR THE PUBLIC -- WITH THE PUBLIC'S MONEY. BUT NOBODY TALKS ABOUT HOW TO BALANCE THE BUDGET OR HOW TO REALLY EFFECT CHANGE. I THINK THE FOCUS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SHOULD BE TO PROTECT THE CITIZENS OF THIS STATE FROM GOVERNMENT WASTE, ABUSE AND NEGLECT. AND THAT'S THE FOCUS OF THE LIBERTARIAN MOVEMENT. THE DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS HAVE BEEN IN CHARGE HERE FOR MANY, MANY YEARS. IF THE VOTERS ARE FED UP WITH THE WAY THINGS ARE, IF THEY WANT A CHANGE, THEY HAVE TO VOTE LIBERTARIAN.

>> MICHAEL: MR. THOMAS, YOUR CLOSING STATEMENTS.

>> Andrew Thomas: THANK YOU MICHAEL, AND THANK YOU TO THE PEOPLE OF ARIZONA FOR MAKING THE CLEAN ELECTIONS POSSIBLE. I WAS THE ONLY REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE FOR STATEWIDE OFFICE WHO DEFENDED THE CLEAN ELECTIONS ACT WHEN IT WAS UNDER ATTACK IN OUR COURTS. AND I'M GRATEFUL THAT THE SUPREME COURT UNANIMOUSLY UPHELD THAT IMPORTANT PUBLIC VOTE. THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL DUTY OF GOVERNMENT IS TO ALLOW DECENT, LAW-ABIDING PEOPLE TO LIVE THEIR LIVES IN PEACE AND SECURITY. LATELY, OUR GOVERNMENT HAS NOT BEEN FULFILLING THAT DUTY. ARIZONA HAS THE SECOND HIGHEST CRIME RATE OF ALL 50 STATES. WE NEED AN ATTORNEY GENERAL WHO IS WILLING TO TACKLE THAT PROBLEM, TO PUT FORWARD NEW IDEAS AND NEW LEADERSHIP, TO MAKE ARIZONA STREETS SAFER, TO MAKE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND SCHOOLS SAFER. I HAVE PUT FORWARD A PLAN TO GET CHILD MOLESTERS OUT OF OUR NEIGHBORHOODS AND INTO PRISON, WHERE THEY BELONG. I REFUSE TO BACK DOWN FROM THE CRITICISM I HAVE RECEIVED FROM THE FRANKLY THE SOFT ON CRIME SOPHISTICATES IN THE MEDIA AND OTHERS. TERRY HAS MISSTATED HIS POSITION ON MANDATORY SENTENCING. I AM THE CANDIDATE WHO IS TOUGH ON CRIME, AND IF YOU ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE SAFETY OF ARIZONA CITIZENS, I WOULD APPRECIATE YOUR VOTE. I THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

>> MICHAEL: GENTLEMEN, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. AND BEST OF LUCK ON THE BALANCE OF THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL. IF YOU MISSED ANY PORTION OF THIS DEBATE, YOU CAN WATCH IT ON LINE AT THE HORIZON ELECTION 2002 WEBSITE, WWW.KAET.ASU.EDU. CLICK ON ELECTION 2002 AND YOU'LL FIND THE SCHEDULE OF UPCOMING ELECTION COVERAGE. THANKS FOR JOINING US THIS EVENING. I'M MICHAEL GRANT. HAVE A GREAT ONE. GOOD NIGHT.