03/06/00

LC000306

VAL>> ON LIFE AND TIMES TONIGHT --

WARREN>> WHEN YOUNG PEOPLE COMMIT GROWN-UP CRIMES, THE ONE THING WE KNOW FOR SURE IS THERE ARE NO EASY ANSWERS.

SAUL GONZALEZ>> AS SOCIETY GRAPPLES WITH HOW TO DEAL WITH ITS YOUNGEST CRIMINALS, MEASURES LIKE PROPOSITION 21 CONFRONT US WITH HOW TO BALANCE BOTH RETRIBUTION AND REFORM.

KEVIN ROSS>> WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS, WE JUST KEEP LOCKING THEM UP AND WE JUST KEEP LOCKING THEM UP. I THINK THAT, AT SOME POINT, WE HAVE TO STEP BACK AND SAY WHAT ARE WE DOING?

VAL>> IN TONIGHT'S THINKERS, SHAKERS & NEWSMAKERS, WHAT DO PROPS 30 AND 31 MEAN IF YOU EVER WANT TO SUE ANOTHER DRIVER'S INSURANCE COMPANY?

WARREN>> PATT MORRISON WONDERS IF CALIFORNIA'S CHIEF EXECUTIVE IS TAKING THE TERM "CHIEF" TOO LITERALLY.

PATT>> JUSTICE IS THE FIGURE IN THE BLINDFOLD, BUT IT'S GOVERNOR GRAY DAVIS WHO SEEMS TO BE HAVING THE VISION PROBLEM. THE GOVERNOR COURTS TROUBLE IN THE COURTS ON TONIGHT'S INFINITELY MORRISON.

VAL>> AND HIS WORK IS OFTEN EDGY AND INTENSELY PERSONAL.

ARTHUR DONG>> IN 1977, I WAS ATTACKED BY FOUR TEENAGE BOYS WHO WERE ROAMING THE STREETS OF SAN FRANCISCO TO HARASS GAY MEN.

VAL>> WE'LL TALK WITH AWARD-WINNING DOCUMENTARIAN, ARTHUR DONG, ABOUT AN UPCOMING RETROSPECTIVE OF HIS WORK.

WARREN>> THOSE STORIES COMING UP NEXT ON LIFE AND TIMES TONIGHT FOR MONDAY, MARCH 6, 2000.

LIFE AND TIMES TONIGHT IS MADE POSSIBLE BY THE FOLLOWING CORPORATIONS AND FOUNDATIONS:

THE JAMES IRVINE FOUNDATION
WHICH IS DEDICATED TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN INFORMED CALIFORNIA CITIZENRY.


GTE
A COMPANY COMMITTED TO TELECOMMUNICATIONS EXCELLENCE AND AN OPEN DIALOGUE AMONG ALL PEOPLE.

AND THE L.K. WHITTIER FOUNDATION
DEDICATED TO IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF LIFE BY SUPPORTING INNOVATIVE ENDEAVORS IN THE FIELDS OF MEDICINE, HEALTH, SCIENCE AND EDUCATION.

WARREN>> GOOD EVENING, I'M WARREN OLNEY.

VAL>> AND I'M VAL ZAVALA.

WARREN>> OUR TOP STORY TONIGHT, SHOULD YOUNG TEENAGERS BE TRIED, SENTENCED AND IMPRISONED AS ADULTS? THAT'S THE QUESTION AT THE CORE OF PROPOSITION 21 ON TOMORROW'S BALLOT.

VAL>> NOW THE MEASURE MEANS THAT PROSECUTORS COULD TRY TEENS AS YOUNG AS 14 IN ADULT COURT WITHOUT HAVING TO CONSULT JUVENILE JUDGES. SAUL GONZALEZ EXPLAINS TWO SIDES.

SAUL>> FROM INNER CITY GANG SHOOTINGS TO MASSACRES AT SUBURBAN HIGH SCHOOLS, TRAGEDIES LIKE THESE HAVE SPARKED A NATIONAL DEBATE ON YOUTH VIOLENCE AND IN CALIFORNIA SPAWNED PROPOSITION 21, A GET TOUGH ON JUVENILE CRIME INITIATIVE ON THE MARCH 7 BALLOT. THE PROPOSITION'S CREATOR AND MOST PROMINENT SUPPORTER IS FORMER CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR, PETE WILSON.

PETE WILSON>> YOUTH IS NO EXCUSE FOR COMMITTING MURDER, ROBBERY, RAPE, HOME INVASIONS OR FOR TERRORIZING ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOODS.

SAUL>> AMONG ITS PROVISIONS, IF PASSED, PROPOSITION 21 WOULD REQUIRE ADULT TRIALS FOR JUVENILE OFFENDERS AS YOUNG AS 14 YEARS OF AGE FOR MURDER OR SEX CRIME OFFENSES, LONGER AND TOUGHER SENTENCES FOR MINORS IN STATE PRISONS INSTEAD OF JUVENILE FACILITIES AND ENHANCED PENALTIES FOR GANG-RELATED CRIMES LIKE HOME INVASION ROBBERIES AND CARJACKINGS.

ADDITIONALLY, PROP 21 WOULD GIVE PROSECUTORS MORE POWER AT THE EXPENSE OF PROBATION OFFICERS AND JUDGES IN DECIDING WHETHER TO TRY MINORS IN ADULT OR JUVENILE COURTS. RIVERSIDE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND PROP 21 SUPPORTER, GROVER TRASK, SAYS REFORMS LIKE THESE ARE LONG OVERDUE.

GROVER TRASK>> THERE'S A PHILOSOPHICAL DIVIDE BETWEEN THE PROPONENTS OF 21 AND THE OPPONENTS. THOSE THAT SUPPORT THIS ARE SAYING THAT THERE'S A CERTAIN CATEGORY OF CHRONIC PREDATOR JUVENILE THAT THE CHRONOLOGICAL AGE REALLY DOESN'T MATTER WHEN THEY KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING AND ARE SO VIOLENT IN OUR COMMUNITIES. BASICALLY THAT PERSON, IF HE COMMITS ADULT CRIMES, IS GOING TO GET ADULT PUNISHMENT.

SAUL>> CRITICS OF PROPOSITION 21, MANY OF THEM STUDENT ACTIVISTS, ARGUE THAT THE INITIATIVE IS AN ALARMIST AND MEAN-SPIRITED MEASURE THAT SEEKS TO DEMONIZE YOUNG PEOPLE, EVEN AS NATIONAL CRIME RATES PLUMMET.

>> THEY WOULD RATHER LOCK US UP THAN EDUCATE US. THEY WOULD RATHER LOCK US UP THAN PUT MONEY INTO PREVENTION PROGRAMS.

KEVIN ROSS>> AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE HAVE TO LOOK AT WHAT ARE WE DOING WITH THESE YOUNG PEOPLE? ARE WE GOING TO JUST PUNISH THEM, PUNISH THEM AND MORE PUNISHMENT OR ARE WE GOING TO AT LEAST OFFER THEM SOME OTHER PART OF THE DIET THAT GIVES THEM HOPE, THAT GIVES THEM AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REDEMPTION?

SAUL>> INGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE, KEVIN ROSS, BELIEVES PROPOSITION 21 IS BAD LAW AND BAD PUBLIC POLICY, A MEASURE THAT HE THINKS ELEVATES RETRIBUTION ABOVE REFORM IN THE JUVENILE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM.

KEVIN ROSS>> WE ARE TAKING THE EMPHASIS AWAY FROM REHABILITATION AND FOCUSING COMPLETELY ON PUNISHMENT. NOW, WHEN YOU LOOK AT ADULTS, IT USED TO BE THAT WE WOULD SAY, WITH A WINK AND A SMILE, YES, THEY'RE GOING TO BE REHABILITATED. BUT WE ALL KNOW THAT, AT THE END OF THE DAY, ADULTS WERE BEING PUNISHED FOR THESE CRIMES THAT THEY WERE COMMITTING. THE COMMITMENT THAT WE HAVE BEEN MAKING IN TERMS OF A JUSTICE SYSTEM THAT WE WERE STILL COMMITTED TO REHABILITATING YOUNG PEOPLE, THERE WAS STILL AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM TO TURN IT AROUND AND GET THEMSELVES TOGETHER. WHAT WE'RE SAYING RIGHT NOW IS THAT -- WE'RE EVEN STARTING TO SAY, "YOU KNOW WHAT? THAT'S A WASTE OF TIME TO REHABILITATE THEM."

SAUL>> BEYOND THE LEGAL AND PUBLIC POLICY PROS AND CONS AROUND PROPOSITION 21, THERE EXISTS ONE CENTRAL PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTION. ARE THERE INDIVIDUALS WHO EXIST IN SOCIETY, EVEN CHILDREN, WHO'VE COMMITTED CRIMES SO HEINOUS, SO DESPICABLE, THAT THEY ARE QUITE SIMPLY BEYOND REDEMPTION?

SAUL>> IF YOU SEND A SEVERELY MALADJUSTED 14, 15, 16-YEAR-OLD TO PRISON WHO'S COMMITTED A HEINOUS CRIME, NO DOUBT, DO YOU REALLY EXPECT THAT THEN JUVENILE TO COME OUT A FEW YEARS LATER OR MANY YEARS LATER AS AN ADULT REFORMED, WELL-ADJUSTED?

GROVER TRASK>> NO. 

SAUL>> SO YOU DON'T?

GROVER TRASK>> NO. I THINK, AGAIN, WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND HERE THAT CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS IN OUR SOCIETY, FOR WHATEVER REASON AND WE CAN GO INTO THE SOCIAL DYNAMICS, BUT THEY REACH A POINT WHERE THEY'RE ANTI-SOCIAL AND, NO MATTER WHAT WE DO WITH THEM, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO CHANGE THEIR WAYS.

SAUL>> CRITICS OF PROPOSITION 21 REMIND VOTERS THAT THE WORST JUVENILE OFFENDERS, LIKE MURDERERS AND RAPISTS, CAN ALREADY BE SENT TO ADULT COURT FOR TRIAL AND SENTENCING. THEY PREDICT THAT YOUNG PEOPLE ACCUSED OF FAR LESS SERIOUS CRIMES WILL BECOME CASUALTIES OF PROPOSITION 21, SWEPT INTO CALIFORNIA'S PRISON SYSTEM.

KEVIN ROSS>> MY BIGGEST FEAR IS IF WE DON'T REALLY LOOK AT WHAT ARE WE DOING IN TERMS OF AFTER-SCHOOL PROGRAMS, WHAT ARE WE DOING IN TERMS OF PREVENTION, ALL WE'RE GOING TO END UP DOING IS ADDING MORE YOUNG PEOPLE TO THE ALREADY TWO MILLION INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE LOCKED UP ACROSS THIS COUNTRY. CALIFORNIA HAS THE HIGHEST INCARCERATION RATES FOR YOUTH OF ALL THE STATES. WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS, WE JUST KEEP LOCKING THEM UP AND WE JUST KEEP LOCKING THEM UP. I THINK THAT, AT SOME POINT, WE HAVE TO STEP BACK AND SAY WHAT ARE WE DOING? ARE WE DOING EVERYTHING WE CAN TO PREVENT THESE INDIVIDUALS FROM GOING INTO THE SYSTEM?

SAUL>> AS SOCIETY GRAPPLES WITH HOW TO DEAL WITH ITS YOUNGEST CRIMINALS, MEASURES LIKE PROPOSITION 21 CONFRONT US WITH HOW TO BALANCE BOTH RETRIBUTION AND REFORM IN OUR CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM.

WARREN>> ONE OBJECTION TO THIS IS THAT IT GIVES PROSECUTORS MORE DISCRETION IN DETERMINING WHETHER KIDS WILL BE TRIED AS ADULTS AT THE EXPENSE OF JUDGES?

SAUL>> MUCH MORE AUTHORITY AND THAT'S WHAT I THINK A LOT OF CRITICS ARE WORRIED ABOUT IN THE LONG RUN, THAT THIS GIVES AFTER THREE STRIKES, AFTER THE WAR ON DRUGS, AFTER THE WAR ON GANGS, THIS GIVES THAT MUCH MORE POWER TO PROSECUTORS. PEOPLE WHOSE LOYALTIES MAY BE MORE TO THE LEGAL SYSTEM AND PUTTING PEOPLE IN JAIL AND LESS SOCIAL REFORM OR SOCIAL JUSTICE.

VAL>> SAUL, YOU MENTIONED THAT CRIME IS DOWN, BUT IS IT DOWN AMONG JUVENILES?

SAUL>> YES, IT IS. NOT AS MUCH AS IT IS AMONG ADULTS, THAT'S TRUE, BUT IT HAS FALLEN HERE IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY. GANG CRIMES HAVE FALLEN, FOR INSTANCE, ACROSS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. CRITICS ALSO POINT TO THAT AND SAY, "WELL, WHY DO THIS NOW? I MEAN, IN THE FACE OF FALLING CRIME RATES?" PROPONENTS WILL RESPOND AND SAY, "WELL, JUST YOU WAIT. WE HAVE A POPULATION OF KIDS AGING INTO THEIR PRIME CRIME YEARS, THEIR TEENS AND THEIR TWENTIES, AND WE NEED THIS IN PLACE. WE NEED SOMETHING LIKE THIS IN PLACE TO DEAL WITH THAT CRIME WAVE OF YEARS TO COME." THE CRIME WAVE THAT'S ABOUT TO HIT, OR SO THEY SAY.

VAL>> SAUL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

SAUL>> THANK YOU, VAL.

TIME NOW FOR OUR THINKERS, SHAKERS & NEWSMAKERS.

WE DEVOTE TONIGHT'S SEGMENT TO PROPOSITIONS 30 AND 31, DEALING WITH AUTO INSURANCE. THESE TWO BALLOT MEASURES ARE ESSENTIALLY IDENTICAL TO TWO LAWS THAT PASSED LAST YEAR BY THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE. THEY ALLOW ACCIDENT VICTIMS TO SUE THE GUILTY DRIVER'S INSURANCE COMPANY IF THE VICTIMS FEEL THEIR CLAIMS AREN'T BEING SETTLED FAIRLY.

WARREN>> THESE PROPOSITIONS PIT THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY AGAINST TRIAL LAWYERS. THE LAWYERS WANT THE MEASURES TO PASS, THE INSURANCE COMPANIES WANT TO KILL THEM. HERE TO DISCUSS BOTH SIDES ARE KELLY HAYES-RAITT, SPOKESPERSON FOR THE YES ON 30 AND 31 CAMPAIGN, AND MIKE JOHNSON, WHO IS SPEAKING AGAINST PROPS 30 AND 31.

KELLY HAYES-RAITT, YOU FIRST. IF IT IS STATE LAW ALREADY, WHY DO WE NEED TO PASS THESE PROPOSITIONS?

KELLY HAYES-RAITT>> WELL, THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY PUT THESE TWO LAWS ON THE BALLOT. THEY WANT A NO VOTE AS A WAY OF FORCING VOTERS TO APPROVE WHAT THE LEGISLATURE'S DONE. SO THE LAWS ACTUALLY HAVEN'T GONE INTO EFFECT YET. WHAT PROP 30 WILL DO IS FORCE INSURANCE COMPANIES TO PAY OUT CLAIMS ON TIME. RIGHT NOW, WARREN, ACCIDENT VICTIMS GET VICTIMIZED TWICE. FIRST, BY THE DRIVER THAT HIT THEM AND SECONDLY, BY THE GUILTY DRIVER'S INSURANCE COMPANY.

WHAT PROP 30 WILL DO IS FORCE INSURANCE COMPANIES TO COME TO THE TABLE FASTER SO THAT WE CAN GET OUR CLAIMS PAID ON TIME. AND IT'S NOT JUST TRIAL LAWYERS WHO ARE SUPPORTING PROP 30. IT'S ALSO THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED PERSONS, CALIFORNIA NURSES ASSOCIATION, CALIFORNIA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION AND, OF COURSE, THE GOVERNOR AND THE LEGISLATURE, WHO PASSED AND SIGNED THIS LAW.

VAL>> MICHAEL, YOU HAVE YOUR OPENING STATEMENT?

MIKE JOHNSON>> WELL, YOU KNOW, THESE TWO PROPOSITIONS ARE PIECES OF LEGISLATION THAT WERE PUSHED THROUGH THE LEGISLATURE BY PERSONAL INJURY LAWYERS FOR THE BENEFIT OF PERSONAL INJURY LAWYERS. WHAT THEY WOULD DO IS ESTABLISH A WHOLE NEW LAYER OF LAWSUITS ON OUR EXISTING SYSTEM. THESE ARE LAWS THAT EXIST IN ONLY A FEW OTHER STATES. THESE ARE NOT ESSENTIAL LAWS THAT VICTIMS NEED IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO GET THEIR DUE FROM INSURANCE COMPANIES. THE WAY THIS SYSTEM WORKS TODAY IS, IF YOU'RE INJURED IN AN ACCIDENT AND YOU'RE UNHAPPY WITH THE SETTLEMENT THAT THE OTHER PERSON'S INSURANCE COMPANY HAS OFFERED YOU, YOU CAN TAKE YOUR CLAIM TO COURT.

WHAT THESE LAWS WOULD SIMPLY DO IS ADD AN ADDITIONAL LAWSUIT, A PUNITIVE DAMAGE LAWSUIT, THAT COULD BE BROUGHT IF YOU DIDN'T THINK THE INSURANCE COMPANY HAD SETTLED THE CLAIM FOR AS MUCH AS YOU DESERVED OR AS QUICKLY AS YOU WANTED. AND THAT WOULD PUT THE INSURANCE COMPANIES IN A POSITION WHERE THEY WOULD START DOLING OUT MORE MONEY AND THAT'S THE --

KELLY HAYES-RAITT>> OH, PLEASE.

MIKE JOHNSON>> -- BENEFIT FOR ACCIDENT VICTIMS, BUT THEY'RE GOING TO GET THAT MONEY OUT OF OUR POCKETS. IT'S NOT GOING TO COME OUT OF THEIR PROFITS.

VAL>> SO THAT'S WHY YOU SAY PEOPLES' PREMIUMS WOULD GO UP?

MIKE JOHNSON>> ABSOLUTELY. I MEAN, YOU DON'T GET SOMETHING FOR NOTHING.

VAL>> WE'RE GOING TO TAKE ONE POINT AT A TIME. TRUE OR FALSE, PREMIUMS WOULD GO UP?

KELLY HAYES-RAITT>> ABSOLUTELY FALSE. INSURANCE COMPANIES ARE FORBIDDEN BY LAW, BY PROP 103 THAT WE PASSED IN 1988, FOR PASSING A LAW INTO CONSUMERS ANY PENALTIES OR FINES OR JUDGMENTS THEY PAY IF THEY BREAK THE LAW. IF AN INSURANCE COMPANY BREAKS THE LAW, VAL, THEY'RE JUST GOING TO HAVE TO EAT IT LIKE ANYBODY ELSE WOULD. THEY ARE FORBIDDEN --

MIKE JOHNSON>> THAT'S IRRELEVANT. WE'RE NOT TALKING --

KELLY HAYES-RAITT --FROM PASSING A LAW INTO CONSUMERS ANY RATE INCREASES.

WARREN>> OKAY. MIKE?

MIKE JOHNSON>> I MEAN, THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYSTS IN THE VOTERS' PAMPHLET COMES TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THIS WOULD LIKELY INCREASE INSURANCE PREMIUMS. I MEAN, THE FACT THAT THE PROPONENTS OF THIS ARE TELLING YOU YOU CAN GET SOMETHING FOR NOTHING HERE SHOULD MAKE YOU SUSPICIOUS OF THEIR ARGUMENTS, BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET SOMETHING FOR NOTHING. IT WILL COST YOU MORE.

WARREN>> SO IS THE QUESTION, THEN, HOW MUCH IT WILL INCREASE INSURANCE PREMIUMS?

KELLY HAYES-RAITT>> NO, WARREN, IT'S NOT. I MEAN, I GOT TO LOVE ELECTION TIMES WHEN INSURANCE COMPANIES SUDDENLY BECOME MY BEST BUDDY. DOES ANYBODY BELIEVE FOR A MOMENT THAT THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY IS SPENDING $50 MILLION DOLLARS TO DEFEAT SOMETHING JUST BECAUSE THEY'RE WORRIED ABOUT MY RATES GOING UP? HERE'S WHAT THEY'RE CONCERNED ABOUT. THE LONGER THEY DELAY PAYING A CLAIM, THE MORE LIKELY YOU, THE INJURED DRIVER, ARE TO SETTLE YOUR CLAIM FOR LESS BECAUSE YOU GET FRUSTRATED.

WARREN>> OKAY.

MIKE JOHNSON>> THIS WILL FORCE INSURANCE COMPANIES TO PAY OUT MORE MONEY. INSURANCE COMPANIES --

KELLY HAYES-RAITT>> WILL FORCE THEM TO PAY ON A TIME --

MIKE JOHNSON>> -- DON'T WANT TO SEE THEIR COSTS GO UP, BUT I CAN GUARANTEE YOU THAT THEY WILL PASS THOSE COSTS ON TO CONSUMERS. AND, UNDER PROPOSITION 103, THEY CAN DO THAT.

KELLY HAYES-RAITT>> NO, THEY CAN'T, MICHAEL, AND YOU KNOW THAT.

MIKE JOHNSON>> LOOK, THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYSTS WOULD NOT HAVE COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THEY DID IN THE VOTER PAMPHLET. READ IT IN THE PAMPHLET FOR YOURSELF. YOU DON'T GET SOMETHING FOR NOTHING HERE. THIS WILL PUT INSURANCE COMPANIES IN A POSITION WHERE THEY WILL BE MUCH MORE LIKELY TO ACCEPT INFLATED SETTLEMENT DEMANDS, YOU'LL HAVE A LOT MORE FRAUD, PEOPLE WILL BE ABLE TO GET MONEY MORE EASILY OUT OF INSURANCE COMPANIES AND IT WILL COST US.

WARREN>> WHAT ABOUT THE CONTENTION WHICH IS IN THE TELEVISION COMMERCIAL THAT WE ARE ALL SEEING NOW THAT, IN FACT, THIS WILL ENCOURAGE INSURANCE SCAM ARTISTS TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE COMPANIES?

KELLY HAYES-RAITT>> ABSOLUTELY FALSE. WHEN THE LOS ANGELES TIMES SAID THAT WE SHOULD VOTE YES ON PROP 30, THEY SAID THERE IS NOTHING IN PROP 30 THAT WOULD ENCOURAGE FRAUD. ON THE CONTRARY, SUBMITTING CLAIMS TO THE SCRUTINY OF INDEPENDENT ADJUDICATORS MAY WELL REDUCE THE NUMBER OF FRAUDULENT CLAIMS PAID. WARREN, UNDER PROP 30, UNINSURED DRIVERS CAN'T SUE, DRUNK DRIVERS CAN'T SUE. IN FACT, NOBODY WILL BE ABLE TO SUE IF THE INSURANCE COMPANY EITHER SETTLES THE CLAIM OR AGREES TO HAVE IT HEARD OUT OF COURT BY A RETIRED JUDGE.

WARREN>> MIKE JOHNSON?

MIKE JOHNSON>> DON'T YOU THINK THAT, IF THIS LAW WERE SO ESSENTIAL TO PEOPLE GETTING THEIR CLAIMS PAID FAIRLY, THAT IN MORE THAN THREE OTHER STATES IN THE REST OF THE COUNTRY, THEY'D HAVE LAWS LIKE THIS? BUT THEY DON'T. WE'VE BEEN LIVING WITHOUT THESE LAWS --

WARREN>> MAYBE THAT'S BECAUSE THE INSURANCE COMPANIES HAVE BEEN ABLE TO KEEP --

MIKE JOHNSON>> LOOK, LAWYERS ARE VERY, VERY POWERFUL AND MOST LEGISLATURES ARE DOMINATED BY LAWYERS. IF THIS WERE SUCH AN ESSENTIAL LAW, YOU WOULD HAVE SEEN IT IN MORE PLACES THAN WE SEE IT TODAY.

VAL>> SO YOU'RE SAYING WE DON'T NEED IT, THE PROBLEM'S NOT THAT BAD?

MIKE JOHNSON>> I'M SAYING WE DON'T NEED IT. WE DON'T NEED IT. WE ALREADY HAVE A SYSTEM WHERE, IF YOU HAVE A DISPUTE WITH THE INSURANCE COMPANY, YOU CAN TAKE THAT CLAIM TO COURT --

KELLY HAYES-RAITT>> YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE TO.

MIKE JOHNSON>> -- AND IT CAN BE HEARD. IN 95 PERCENT OF CASES TODAY, THEY'RE SETTLED. FINE. WE DON'T NEED TO ADD MORE LAWSUITS TO OUR SYSTEM, WHICH IS CERTAINLY GOING TO INCREASE COSTS. THERE'S NO WAY --

KELLY HAYES-RAITT>> PROP 30 --

VAL>> IS THERE A HUGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO ARE UNHAPPY WITH THE WAY THEIR CLAIMS --

KELLY HAYES-RAITT>> YES. WHEN THE LEGISLATURE LOOKED AT THIS LAST FALL, THEY FOUND THAT THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY ROUTINELY DENIES PAYING CLAIMS, ESPECIALLY MADE BY THOSE PEOPLE WHO ARE TOO OLD OR TOO SICK OR TOO BUSY TO FIGHT THEM. IT'S THESE INSURANCE COMPANY DELAYS THAT THE LEGISLATURE WANTED TO DEAL WITH. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THEY DISCOVERED WAS THAT INSURANCE COMPANIES DELAY PAYING CLAIMS BECAUSE THE LONGER THEY CAN HANG ON TO THAT PREMIUM DOLLAR THE MORE THEY MAKE IN EXTRA PROFIT.

WARREN>> OKAY. I THINK THE REST OF THE TIME WE HAVE AVAILABLE IS FOR YOU.

MIKE JOHNSON>> I MEAN, LOOK, LOOK, THE OTHER SIDE HAS BEEN MAKING THE ARGUMENT THAT THERE ARE 300 COMPLAINTS EVERY MONTH TO THE DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE ABOUT THIS IN A STATE OF 35 MILLION PEOPLE?

KELLY HAYES-RAITT>> THAT'S JUST THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG.

MIKE JOHNSON>> THAT IS NOTHING. LOOK, UNDER THESE PROPOSITIONS, YOU GET SOMETHING. INSURANCE COMPANIES WILL HAVE A GUN TO THEIR HEADS, THEY'LL BE FORCED TO PAY OUT MORE MONEY, BUT --

KELLY HAYES-RAITT>> OH, PLEASE.

MIKE JOHNSON>> -- YOU WILL PAY FOR THAT. YOU WILL PAY FOR THAT.

KELLY HAYES-RAITT>> THERE ARE 272 OUT-OF-STATE INSURANCE COMPANIES THAT ARE FIGHTING PROP 30. THEY'RE FIGHTING YOUR RIGHT TO BRING THEM TO THE TABLE AND MAKE THEM PAY CLAIMS ON TIME.

WARREN>> WE'RE VIRTUALLY OUT OF TIME. ISN'T THAT RIGHT? AREN'T THE INSURANCE COMPANIES, IN FACT --

MIKE JOHNSON>> INSURANCE COMPANIES ARE OPPOSED TO THIS BECAUSE IT WILL INCREASE COSTS, BUT THOSE COSTS, WE'LL FEEL THEM.

WARREN>> WE'RE OUT OF TIME. THANKS TO YOU BOTH FOR BEING WITH US.

MIKE JOHNSON>> THANK YOU.

WARREN>> PATT MORRISON HAS A QUESTION TONIGHT. SHE WANTS TO QUESTION THE JUDGMENT OF THE MAN WHO'S MAKING JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS IN CALIFORNIA, IN TONIGHT'S INFINITELY MORRISON.

PATT>> WHEN I HEAR THE PHRASE "MARCH MADNESS", I THINK OF SPRING FEVER AFTER A LONG WINTER OR MAYBE A WHITE SALE DOWN AT THE DEPARTMENT STORE. I DON'T THINK OF GOVERNOR GRAY DAVIS. AT LEAST I DIDN'T UNTIL HE OPENED HIS MOUTH AT BREAKFAST WITH REPORTERS LAST WEEK. WHAT HE PUT IN WAS NOT SCRAMBLED EGGS, BUT HIS OWN FOOT.

DAVIS DECLARED THAT ANYONE HE APPOINTS WHO LATER BREAKS WITH HIM ON ISSUES LIKE THE DEATH PENALTY OUGHT TO RESIGN, INCLUDING JUDGES. "I WOULD EXPECT THEM TO RESIGN," HE SAID, "BECAUSE THEY HAD "DECEIVED ME IN THE INTERVIEW." "GOVERNOR APPOINTEES", HE SAID, "SHOULD NOT BE FREE AGENTS." GOVERNOR, WHAT WERE YOU THINKING? LET ME ABBREVIATE THAT QUESTION. GOVERNOR, WERE YOU THINKING? A MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR RE-ELECTION WAR CHEST AND A 20 PERCENTAGE POINT VICTORY MARGIN DO NOT MAKE FOR CARTE BLANCHE TO OVERRIDE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES. JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE, JUDICIAL ACTIVISM AND A LITMUS TESTS FOR JUDGES ARE ALREADY AT ISSUE. MANY OF PRESIDENT CLINTON'S APPOINTMENTS ARE BOGGED DOWN BY SENATORS WHO JUST DON'T LIKE THEIR PHILOSOPHIES.

NOW SOME LEGAL SCHOLARS WERE USING WORDS LIKE "OUTRAGEOUS" AND "APPALLING" TO DESCRIBE THE GOVERNOR'S EVIDENTLY BLITHE DISMISSAL OF A JUDICIARY THAT THINKS FOR ITSELF. THIS COMES ON THE HEELS OF DAVIS' LITTLE TORNADO OF A REMARK LAST YEAR THAT THE STATE'S LEGISLATORS WERE THERE TO "IMPLEMENT MY VISION". GOVERNOR DAVIS, YOU'D BE IN GOOD COMPANY. PRESIDENT NIXON WAS FURIOUS WHEN HIS SUPREME COURT APPOINTEES RULED AGAINST HIM TO THE LAST IN THE WATERGATE MATTER. PRESIDENT EISENHOWER FELT BETRAYED BY EARL WARREN, THE FORMER CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR HE MADE SUPREME COURT CHIEF JUSTICE. THE WARREN COURT BROKE THE BACK ON 100 YEARS OF SEGREGATION WITH ITS BROWN VERSUS BOARD OF EDUCATION DECISION, THE FIRST OF MANY PROGRESSIVE DECISIONS THAT MADE IKE SO MAD THAT HE SAID THAT APPOINTING WARREN WAS "THE BIGGEST DAMN FOOL MISTAKE I EVER MADE."

PERHAPS DAVIS WAS BURNED BY HIS YEARS WITH GOVERNOR JERRY BROWN'S EGALITARIAN STYLE AND ITS CONSEQUENCES, LIKE THE ROSE BIRD APPOINTMENT, WHICH WAS ALMOST AS DISASTROUS TO BROWN AS IT WAS TO BIRD. OR PERHAPS HE KEEPS THINKING OF THE TIME HE WAS STATE CONTROLLER. GOVERNOR, GET A GRIP. IT WASN'T THAT KIND OF CONTROLLER.

VAL>> THANK YOU, PATT.

WELL, ARTHUR DONG IS AN AWARD-WINNING FILM AND VIDEO PRODUCER. HIS WORKS INCLUDE DOCUMENTARY FILMS, PBS PROGRAMS AND TEN DOCUMENTARIES THAT HE PRODUCED FOR US HERE AT LIFE AND TIMES.

WARREN>> ARTHUR DONG HAS BEEN HONORED WITH A PEABODY AWARD, OSCAR AND EMMY NOMINATIONS AND HE'S A THREE-TIME WINNER AT THE SUNDANCE FILM FESTIVAL. HIS WORK NOW IS THE SUBJECT OF A RETROSPECTIVE, AS WE'LL SEE IN TONIGHT'S PEOPLE, PLACES & THINGS.

[FILM CLIP]

WARREN>> ARTHUR DONG, THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. THAT FROM ONE OF YOUR EARLIER WORKS, "SEWING WOMAN", WHICH IS BASED IN PART ON YOUR MOTHER'S EXPERIENCE?

ARTHUR DONG>> YES, AND YOU LEFT ON QUITE A CLIFFHANGER. I WONDERED WHAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN TO THIS WOMAN. BUT WHAT I WANTED TO COVER, JUST BRIEFLY, WAS HOW THIS WOMAN FROM CHINA, A SURVIVOR IN AN ARRANGED MARRIAGE, IMMIGRATED TO AMERICA IN THIS STRANGE LAND, AND MAKE IT. MY MOM REALLY IMPRESSED ME AND INSPIRED ME. SHE WORKED IN A SEWING FACTORY FOR 30 YEARS. I SAID THERE'S SOMETHING ABOUT THIS WOMAN THAT I NEED TO TELL, I NEED TO EXPLORE, AND IT BECAME A LIFE STORY TOLD THROUGH HER OWN WORDS.

WARREN>> A LOT OF YOUR WORK DEALS WITH GAY ISSUES?

ARTHUR DONG>> YES. "SEWING WOMAN" WAS KIND OF MY ASIAN-AMERICAN PERIOD, WHICH WAS IMPORTANT AND IT STILL IS IMPORTANT. BUT AS ISSUES GOT MORE HEATED IN TERMS OF GAY RIGHTS AND A FIGHT FOR EQUALITY, IT GOT HEATED FOR ME AS WELL. I SAID I NEED TO DELVE INTO THIS AREA AS WELL. I THINK I TRIED TO DO THAT HERE AT LIFE AND TIMES IN A COUPLE OF PROGRAMS.

VAL>> THAT'S RIGHT.

WARREN>> LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT A CLIP FROM ONE OF YOUR DOCUMENTARIES CALLED "COMING OUT UNDER FIRE".

[FILM CLIP]

VAL>> NOW THIS DOCUMENTARY CAME OUT IN 1994, VERY MUCH A PART OF THE "DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL" CONTROVERSY?

ARTHUR DONG>> ABSOLUTELY. WHEN WE FIRST STARTED -- IN FACT, THIS IS THE FILM I LEFT THE STATION FOR. AS WE STARTED IN PRODUCTION, PRESIDENT CLINTON SAID HE'S GOING TO LIFT THE BAN. HE WAS JUST INAUGURATED. IT THREW US IN THIS TURMOIL OF POLITICAL ISSUES WHICH WE DIDN'T EXPECT, BUT WE HAD BEEN WORKING ON THIS FILM FOR A LONG TIME. BUT IT'S FUNNY, BECAUSE TODAY IT'S STILL AN ISSUE. IT'S STILL A PRESIDENTIAL ISSUE RIGHT ON THE FRONT BURNERS.

WARREN>> THAT FILM ITSELF IS VERY INTERESTING. WHAT YOU DID THERE WAS TAKE A TRAINING FILM FROM WORLD WAR II AND THEN YOU TOOK A COPY THAT WAS -- WHERE DID THAT COME FROM, THAT THE NARRATOR WAS READING?

ARTHUR DONG>> THE WORDS WERE ACTUALLY FROM A DIRECTIVE FROM THE MILITARY DURING WORLD WAR II WHEN THE WHOLE POLICY AGAINST GAYS IN THE MILITARY FIRST STARTED. WHEN THEY STARTED SAYING, WELL, WE HAVE TO GET RID OF THESE PSYCHOPATHS AND THEY LABELED THEM SEXUAL PERVERTS AND DISCHARGED THEM WITH A BLUE DISCHARGE, A DISHONORABLE DISCHARGE, AND STIGMATIZING THESE GAY AND LESBIAN VETERANS FOR LIFE PRACTICALLY.

VAL>> AND THEN IN 1997, YOU TOOK ON AN EVEN EDGIER TOPIC AND THAT IS PEOPLE WHO ARE IN PRISON FOR MURDERING GAY MEN, AND WE'RE GOING TO MEET ONE OF THEM IN THIS CLIP HERE.

[FILM CLIP]

NOW, ARTHUR, WERE YOU YOURSELF DOING THAT INTERVIEW? DID YOU HAVE TO FACE THESE PEOPLE YOURSELF?

ARTHUR DONG>> ABSOLUTELY. THIS FILM WAS INSPIRED BY THE FACT THAT I WAS ACTUALLY A VICTIM OF GAY BASHING ON THE STREETS OF SAN FRANCISCO 20 YEARS AGO.

VAL>> OH, HOW SO?

ARTHUR DONG>> I WAS WALKING ALONG THE STREETS AND I WAS ATTACKED. IT BOTHERED ME FOR 20 YEARS AND I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH THAT PROBLEM IN MY HEAD AND OUT CAME THIS FILM. WHAT I WANTED TO DO WAS MEET KILLERS FACE TO FACE AND REALLY CONFRONT WHAT I HAD IN MY MIND OF WHAT THESE MEN WERE AND JUST SEE THEM FACE TO FACE AND SIT WITH THEM AND SAY, "WELL, WHY DID YOU DO IT?"

WARREN>> WHAT WAS IT LIKE FOR YOU TO DO THAT?

ARTHUR DONG>> WELL, I THINK AFTER 20 YEARS OF MULLING THIS OVER AND REALLY RESEARCHING THE TOPIC, I WAS READY FOR IT. AND AFTER THE WORK THAT I HAD DONE AT THE STATION JUST IN BEING WITH DIFFERENT TYPES OF PEOPLE, WITHOUT EVEN KNOWING THEM AT ALL FROM THE MINUTE BEFORE, GOT ME READY FOR IT. I WAS ACTUALLY -- I THINK IT WAS A CATHARTIC TO MEET THEM AND SAY, WELL, THESE ARE HUMAN BEINGS, AND I NEEDED TO UNDERSTAND WHO THEY WERE.

WARREN>> VERY QUICKLY, WHY THE TITLE "LICENSED TO KILL"?

ARTHUR DONG>> IT'S A QUESTION, REALLY. WHAT YOU SEE HERE IS JUST THE BEGINNING IN THE FILM. THROUGH THE FILM, THROUGH 90 MINUTES, YOU MEET THESE MEN VERY INTIMATELY, AND THE QUESTION IS, "WELL, WHAT IS IT THAT MADE YOU THINK THAT YOU COULD KILL GAY MEN?"

WARREN>> AND YOUR RETROSPECTIVE NOW, ARE YOU HAPPY ABOUT THIS?

ARTHUR DONG>> IT'S PRETTY EXCITING. IT'S KIND OF FUN TO SEE YOUR WHOLE LIFE FLASH BY YOU IN THREE DAYS, BUT NO -- AND WE'RE GOING TO DO A MASTER CLASS, WHICH I AM VERY EXCITED ABOUT.

VAL>> UM-HUM. WELL, I'VE SEEN YOUR WORK. IT'S SUPERB AND YOU ARE AMAZINGLY RESTRAINED WHEN YOU SPEAK WITH THOSE CONVICTS. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

ARTHUR DONG>> THANKS FOR HAVING ME BACK.

WARREN>> THANKS VERY MUCH FOR BEING WITH US. YOU CAN GET MORE INFORMATION AT THE NUMBER AND THE WEBSITE THAT ARE ON YOUR SCREEN NOW.

323-960-2394
WWW.OUTFEST.ORG

THE OUTFEST RETROSPECTIVE ON ARTHUR DONG OPENS WEDNESDAY, MARCH 8, AND RUNS THROUGH SATURDAY.

VAL>> THAT IS OUR PROGRAM FOR TONIGHT.

TOMORROW, THERE IS NO WAY TO AVOID SUPER TUESDAY. ONE POLITICAL PLAYER SKETCHES OUT THIS SCENARIO FOR US.

>> FIRST OF ALL, GEORGE BUSH MIGHT WIN BOTH. HE MIGHT WIN THE BEAUTY CONTEST AND HE MIGHT WIN THE MAJORITY OF THE DELEGATES, OR MCCAIN MIGHT END UP WINNING BOTH, SO WE DON'T KNOW. I THINK IT WOULD BE VERY BAD FOR THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, THOUGH, IF THE TOP VOTE-GETTER ISN'T IN FACT DECLARED THE WINNER.

WARREN>> WE'LL SEE WHAT HAPPENS TOMORROW ON LIFE AND TIMES TONIGHT.

TOMORROW ON WHICH WAY LA, NO LESS THAN 20 PROPOSITIONS APPEAR ON TOMORROW'S BALLOT. HOW COME? AND IF VOTERS PREFER PROPOSITIONS TO POLITICIANS, WHAT'S THE FUTURE OF A REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT? WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT. THAT'S TOMORROW.

KCRW 89.9 FM, WHICH WAY LA
WEEKDAYS FROM 1-2 P.M.
REBROADCAST AT 7:00 P.M.

VAL>> AND DON'T FORGET. IF YOU DON'T VOTE, YOU CAN'T GRIPE. SO FOR ALL OF US HERE AT LIFE AND TIMES TONIGHT, HAVE A WONDERFUL EVENING. TAKE CARE.

LIFE AND TIMES TONIGHT WAS MADE POSSIBLE BY THE FOLLOWING CORPORATIONS AND FOUNDATIONS:

THE JAMES IRVINE FOUNDATION
WHICH IS DEDICATED TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN INFORMED CALIFORNIA CITIZENRY.

GTE
A COMPANY COMMITTED TO TELECOMMUNICATIONS EXCELLENCE AND AN OPEN DIALOGUE AMONG ALL PEOPLE.

AND THE L.K. WHITTIER FOUNDATION
DEDICATED TO IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF LIFE BY SUPPORTING INNOVATIVE ENDEAVORS IN THE FIELDS OF MEDICINE, HEALTH, SCIENCE AND EDUCATION.

TO REACH US AT LIFE AND TIMES TONIGHT, CALL 323-644-4159. SEND US AN E-MAIL TO LIFE AND TIMES@KCET.ORG OR LOG ONTO OUR WEBSITE AT WWW.KCET.ORG TO SEND MESSAGES OR DOWNLOAD TRANSCRIPTS OF TONIGHT'S PROGRAM.