010/06/04

LC041006

Val Zavala>> Tonight on Life and Times --

A look at Proposition 66, the effort to reform the Three Strikes
Law. Has it cracked down on criminals, or put petty thieves in
jail?

Laurie Levinson>> They may be shoplifters, they may be drug
addicts, but why are we using those spaces for them when there
are frankly so many murderers and rapists that we could fill
those cells with?

Val>> And then, Peter Pan before he could fly. Two best-
selling authors team up to tell the real story of Tinker Bell,
the Lost Boys and Neverland.

It's all straight ahead on tonight's Life and Times.

Life and Times is made possible through the generous support of
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.

And by a generous grant from Jim and Anne Rothenberg.

Val>> Three strikes and you're out. It's a catchy sports
metaphor that transformed crime and punishment in California.
But after ten years, critics say three strikes might be two
severe and they propose Proposition 66 as a way to fix it.
Stephanie O'Neill Noe looks at how the Three Strikes Law came
about and the pros and cons of reforming it.

Stephanie O'Neill Noe>> It all started four hundred miles north
of Los Angeles in the quaint and close-knit town of Petaluma
eleven years ago. It was then that the kidnapping of twelve
year old Polly Klaas from her bedroom horrified a nation.

Marc Klaas>> "I certainly hope that, if he has a heart, he can
find it in his heart to tell us where Polly is because I meant
it. I don't know how I can go on without Polly. It's going to
be very difficult."

Stephanie O'Neill Noe>> An emotionally draining two month
search led to the discovery of her body. The killer, Richard
Allen Davis, a repeat offender. Davis's arrest galvanized
California citizens behind a new get-tough measure called Three
Strikes and You're Out. Mike Reynolds authored the voter
initiative after his own daughter, Kimber, was murdered in a
Fresno robbery by another repeat offender. Three Strikes was
signed into law by Governor Pete Wilson in 1994.

Mike Reynolds>> "This is the toughest, hardest crime bill not
only California has ever proposed, but the entire country has
ever seen."

Stephanie O'Neill Noe>> And eight months later, seventy-two
percent of California voters approved the Three Strikes
initiative. But soon, people accused of shoplifting or drug use
were put in prison for twenty-five years to life. These cases
shocked Californians and brought about a new effort for reform,
Proposition 66. If passed, the measure would no longer allow
harsh prison sentences for nonviolent felonies. Only the most
serious would trigger a strike. Ramona Ripston is Executive
Director of the American Civil Liberties Union in Southern
California.

Ramona Ripston>> What it means is that, in order to get twenty-
five years to life, you have to commit a violent or a serious
felony. If you do commit a violent or serious felony, you go to
prison for the rest of your life.

Stephanie O'Neill Noe>> But Los Angeles County District
Attorney, Steve Cooley, says long sentences for nonviolent
offenses are rarely meted out in Los Angeles County.

Steve Cooley>> The Strikes Law, as is now being implemented in
California and particularly here in Los Angeles County, works
very, very well. We generally in almost all cases do not seek
twenty-five to life if the new offense is not violent and not
serious.

Laurie Levinson>> Perhaps some District Attorneys will not
abuse their discretion and we have District Attorneys like Steve
Cooley who have been much better about using their discretion
when it comes to the Three Strikes Law, but that's just one
county here in California.

Stephanie O'Neill Noe>> Loyola Law School Professor, Laurie
Levinson, is a former Federal Prosecutor.

Laurie Levinson>> What about all the other counties? There are
District Attorneys who never drop the third strike, who
basically feel that their message is that I'm going to enforce
the law all the way.

Stephanie O'Neill Noe>> According to the California Department
of Corrections, two-thirds of its inmates serving second and
third strike sentences were convicted on nonviolent felonies,
just petty theft and drug use. Highly publicized instances of
defendants getting the harshest prison penalties for stealing
pizza, shampoo or videotapes has eroded the support for Three
Strikes. Sue Reems is among the disenchanted.

Sue Reems>> In 1994, I voted for this law. I thought it was
going to be for murderers, rapists, kidnappers. I never thought
it would affect my son.

Stephanie O'Neill Noe>> Reems's son, Shane, is now in prison
serving a twenty-five year to life sentence for being a lookout
on a twenty dollar drug deal. His prior two strikes were
stealing from a neighbor's house and his parents home to support
his drug habit. Reems says she unwittingly set her son up for
the harsh Three Strikes sentencing by convincing him to turn
himself in, so he did, and then came the bad news.

Sue Reems>> He told me. He said they're going to file three
strikes on me. I couldn't believe that. I mean, that wasn't
violent. Watching a drug sale? How could you, you know, give
somebody a twenty-five year to life sentence for watching a drug
sale? How do you give him a sentence like that when that's a
sentence for a murderer. Even rape doesn't hold a sentence that
long. Kidnapping. How do you give him that kind of a sentence
when he hasn't ever hurt anybody?

Stephanie O'Neill Noe>> California prisons now house about
35,000 so-called second strikers and about 7,000 third strike
prisoners. Proposition 66 would readjust the sentences of
inmates serving beefed-up time for nonviolent felonies.

Steve Cooley>> You're basically wiping out the Three Strikes
Law and you're going to have to recalculate sentences and people
are going to be released. We estimate 16,000 to 18,000 here in
Los Angeles County. That scares me.

Laurie Levinson>> You're not going to be letting loose all
sorts of dangerous felons on the streets of California because
the truth is that much of Three Strikes Law will remain the
same. If somebody has a third strike and it is a serious or
violent felony, something like a robbery or an assault or a
murder or rape, something like that, they're still going behind
bars for the rest of their lives.

Stephanie O'Neill Noe>> Brian Gurwitz is with the No on 66
campaign. He's concerned that Proposition 66 would exempt
certain dangerous crimes from three strikes.

Brian Gurwitz>> For example, residential burglary. If somebody
burglarizes your home, even if they've been convicted of three
counts of child molestation in the past, that's not a strike
unless somebody happens to be in the residence at the time.
Killing somebody in the course of drunk driving. That's not a
strike either because you didn't intend to inflict the injuries.

Stephanie O'Neill Noe>> Polly Klaas's grandfather, Joe Klaas,
is among the leaders of the campaign to reform Three Strikes.

Joe Klaas>> There's a difference between a person that goes
into an unoccupied house to steal the stereo system and somebody
who goes with ropes and gags and a knife to steal a child.
There's quite a bit of difference. I've had a grandchild stolen
and a stereo stolen and there's no comparison. I think it's
obscene to equate stealing a stereo with stealing a child.

Stephanie O'Neill Noe>> Proponents of Proposition 66 point out
that the measure increases prison time for sex offenses against
children. What's more, they say, it will relieve prison
overcrowding and save cash-strapped California money, up to
several hundred million dollars, according to state estimates.

Ramona Ripston>> You send someone to prison for twenty-five
years to life, you're treating them in prison when they're old
and you know that old people require lots and lots of medical
care. I mean, what sense does this make?

Stephanie O'Neill Noe>> But foes of Proposition 66 believe
there's more than money at stake. What happens if Proposition
66 passes?

Steve Cooley>> It's going to be difficult for the courts who
always rise to the occasion to get the job done. You know what?
It will be most difficult for the public out here that's got to
deal with 16,000 to 18,000 convicted felons. It's not going to
be a pretty day for the law-abiding public.

Laurie Levinson>> What it's designed to do is take care of what
has been the most obvious problem of Three Strikes and that
problem is to use those valuable resources, those jail cells,
for criminals who frankly don't particularly belong there. They
may be shoplifters, they may be drug addicts, but why are we
using those spaces for them when there are frankly so many
murders and rapists that we could fill those cells with?

Stephanie O'Neill Noe>> California voters will have the final
say in November on whether to amend Three Strikes. Recent polls
suggest that, so far, nearly seven in ten voters will support
Proposition 66. I'm Stephanie O'Neill Noe for Life and Times.

Kcet.org is the place to look for the very latest on Life and
Times. You'll find previews of upcoming stories, transcripts
and audio of past episodes and links to some of our most
interesting features. Just go to kcet.org and click on "Life
and Times".

Toni Guinyard>> If you believe there's absolutely nothing you
can do to protect yourself during an unconventional terrorist
attack, the researchers at the Rand Corporation in Santa Monica
have some information for you. It comes in the form of this
quick reference guide. We spoke with emergency response expert,
Dr. Tom LaTourrette who helped us go through this guide step by
step. What is an unconventional terrorist attack?

Dr. Tom LaTourrette>> That means an attack with unconventional
weapons. So-called unconventional weapons include chemical
weapons, biological weapons, nuclear weapons or radiological
weapons. We know that the threat is real. We've seen these
things happen in the past, so the threat is out there.

Toni Guinyard>> There are some misconceptions, though, that we
all have about what we can do.

Dr. Tom LaTourrette>> People are concerned about terrorism and
they want guidance. We don't know what the real probability of
different types of attacks are. However, the record shows that
groups have these kinds of weapons and are trying to use them.
So given that the threat is real, we're trying to provide real
tools for people to respond to these real threats.

Toni Guinyard>> Give me an example. What can we do?

Dr. Tom LaTourrette>> Well, for example, in a chemical attack,
your over-arching goal should be to find clean air quickly. So
if the attack is outdoors, your top priority should be to get
indoors. By getting indoors and closing the doors and windows,
that will provide you something like ninety percent of the
protection you can get. Then once you're indoors, you should,
to the extent possible, move upstairs and move toward an
interior room. This can provide you a tremendous amount of
protection.

Toni Guinyard>> This is information that seems too simplistic
in a way.

Dr. Tom LaTourrette>> Well, in some senses, some of it is
intuitive. In other cases, some of it might be counter-
intuitive. There are some misconceptions about how someone
might respond to a terrorist attack. First and foremost, there
is a common misconception that there's nothing anyone can do.
Our research has found that, in fact, there are things
individuals can do in that critical integral between the time
that an attack occurs and the time that emergency responders are
able to arrive on the scene and provide assistance.

People commonly think that professional emergency responders are
going to help and they will, but not right away. They'll be the
first to tell you that. It's going to take time for the
emergency responders to arrive on the scene and provide help and
some of these events unfold so quickly that the actions that an
individual takes before the professional emergency responders
are able to help could make the difference in their survival.

Toni Guinyard>> In your fingertip guide, one of the things it
said was to have the duct tape and the plastic sheeting and we
saw the response of the public when that was first mentioned
after 9/11 and people were scared.

Dr. Tom LaTourrette>> Right. Well, it's in there because it
can help. We certainly don't want to over-emphasize the
importance of duct tape and plastic sheeting. In all reality,
that's a last step. You really want to focus on getting
indoors, closing the windows and doors and moving upstairs.
That will get you most of the way there. If you have the
opportunity and the supplies, you know, taping and sealing a
room can provide additional protection, but that's really the
last step.

There is an old credence that says that in the middle of a
disaster is not the time to pull out the instructions and start
learning what to do. You need to read this ahead of time and
become familiar with the actions. Then throw it in your bag or
wherever you might be so that you might be able to look at it
again. But certainly in the event of an attack, that's not the
time to get it out and start reading it. We've got it on our
website, www.rand.org. You can download it there. I can show
it to you. It comes out on an eight and a half by eleven sheet
of paper. You simply fold it up and then you've got your quick
guide with the cover. All the strategies right here at your
fingertips.

It doesn't take long to review it, become familiar with it, and
then just stick it in your bag, your office and look at it
occasionally and you're set. It also is available in a format
to load onto your PDA. This is a simple program that just
reproduces the contents of the guide onto a PDA. It's a novel
form of communication, but more and more people are using PDAs
for more and more things, so we thought we'd make it available
in that format as well.

Toni Guinyard>> What would you say to those people who are
working in office buildings or living in high-rises?

Dr. Tom LaTourrette>> Well, again, it will depend on what's
going on. If there is a chemical attack that's in the building,
as evidenced by the fact that people around you are displaying
symptoms, your top priority should be to get clean air. Open a
window or go out on a balcony. If that's not possible, you need
to get out of the building or otherwise follow the building's
emergency response plan.

In a radiological attack or any kind of attack outdoors, you
want to stay in the building. If your building is not damaged
and not threatened, you want to stay inside because, again,
staying inside provides you a tremendous amount of shelter.

Going back to the chemical attack that's outdoors, one initial
response might be to just simply run away. Stay outside and run
away as fast as you can. While that could work for some lucky
folks, you don't really know which way to run. You don't know
how far you need to run. You may not be able to run. There may
be buildings or other things in your way. So your odds are not
necessarily that good. Whereas, if you run immediately inside
the closest shelter, you'd get a lot of protection that way.

A couple of key points to keep in mind is that the critical
steps in terms of preparation are understanding what to do.
There isn't a lot of hardware out there that's going to help
you. What you need to do is understand the actions you need to
take. In a chemical attack, find clean air. In a biological
attack, you need to get medical assistance and avoid further
exposure to the agent. In a radiological attack, you'd want to
avoid at all costs inhaling dust that might be radioactive.
Then there's more specific steps for each of those, but it
depends a little bit upon what is going on. There isn't a
universal response for terrorism as a whole.

Toni Guinyard>> How do you dispense this information without
scaring us?

Dr. Tom LaTourrette>> Well, certainly that's a challenge and a
concern. But what we've found is that we conducted focus groups
as part of this analysis and we found that people are concerned
about the threat of terrorism and they want to know what to do.
They want this information. So while there is a risk of people
becoming scared by receiving more specific information, I think
at the same time it provides a sense of confidence and security
that there is something they can do.

Toni Guinyard>> Bottom line, you want us to understand, you
want us to arm ourselves with knowledge, but you don't want us
to be afraid and panic, correct?

Dr. Tom LaTourrette>> That's right. Information is really the
key resource here. As I said, there's not a lot of hardware
that's going to help you. What you really want to do is
understand what you need to do and perhaps think more explicitly
about what you would do in the situation you find yourself in in
your daily life at home, at work, on your way to work. Think
through the steps in the guide. That's the top thing you can do
to help yourself.

Toni Guinyard>> Dr. Tom LaTourrette, I feel that I am armed and
ready for just about anything. Thank you so much for spending a
little time with Life and Times.

Dr. Tom LaTourrette>> You're very welcome. Thanks for having
me.

To send a comment or a question to our program, you can reach us
by mail at this address:

Life and Times
4401 Sunset Blvd.
Los Angeles, California 90027

You can also call our viewer comment line (323) 953-5555) or
contact us the fast way by e-mail at kcet.org.

Val>> What kind of book would you get if you take a Pulitzer
Prize-winning columnist and team him up with a best-selling
suspense writer? Probably what you'd least expect: a children's
book. But not just any children's book. Humorist Dave Barry
and writer Ridley Pearson have written a prequel to the story of
Peter Pan. It's called "Peter and the Starcatchers". Patt
Morrison asked the authors how they did it and why.

Patt Morrison>> Ridley Pearson and Dave Barry, thanks for
joining us.

Dave Barry>> Thanks for having us.

Ridley Pearson>> Thank you.

Patt Morrison>> This book, "Peter and the Starcatchers", is, as
they say in Hollywood, the back story and we have your daughter
to thank for bringing it to us.

Ridley Pearson>> That is right. I was reading the original,
the classic James M. Barrie "Peter Pan" to my daughter, Paige.
She put her hand into the book and looked up and said, "Yeah,
but, Dad, how did Peter Pan meet Captain Hook?"

Patt Morrison>> She sounds like a producer (laughter).

Ridley Pearson>> (Laughter) She might be one one of these days.

Patt Morrison>> And did she like the result? Has she read it?

Ridley Pearson>> Oh, yeah, she loved it. I think she was more
excited about having reached the end of a 450-page book than
maybe the contents, but since then, she's very thrilled about
it.

Dave Barry>> Now you'd say if she really were a producer, she'd
say, "Does he have to be named Peter?" (Laughter)

Patt Morrison>> (Laughter) And can he have a dog? All right.
But for you guys, for the grownups in this, was it the pirates
that was the attraction? The flying? The tights? Come on.
What was it?

Dave Barry>> Not the tights.

Ridley Pearson>> Not the tights.

Dave Barry>> Ridley is into the tights, but I'm not. It was
the kind of idea that nobody had ever thought of, that we knew
anyway, and we know a lot of people. But the idea of, okay,
when you read "Peter Pan" in any version you pick, the Disney
version, the stage version, whatever, it starts out with this
kid who can fly and he doesn't grow old and he lives on this
island with pirates and mermaids and --

Patt Morrison>> -- I know three or four people like that
(laughter).

Dave Barry>> Well, you live in Los Angeles (laughter).

Ridley Pearson>> But it was like, why? Because Barry, you
know, wonderfully said this is the way it is. Well, we thought
how did it get that way? It just seemed like a fun story to do
and it really was fun. We were trying to make it -- this is
kind of a weird word to use when you're talking about this topic
-- we were trying to make it realistic. In other words, a story
that you could sort of believe, okay, that's how all that
happened.

Ridley Pearson>> You know, we really wanted a good plot.

Dave Barry>> We sat across a table from each other twice about
six months apart working the beginning framework out and then
outlining the rest of the book. That part, we really yelled at
each other and called each other stupid. You know, I take it
back (laughter).

Ridley Pearson>> Oh, sure, now.

Dave Barry>> But the actual writing, we did not do that.

Patt Morrison>> You were in Florida and he was in Missouri?

Ridley Pearson>> Right, right. We each took a set of
characters so that we could keep those characters consistent to
the book. I think, if we tried to write each other's characters
the whole time, you'd notice it. But Dave took a set of
characters, I took a set of characters and then we edited each
other fairly ruthlessly which neither of us is used to. Usually
in this literary world, you get these little comments in the
margins that say, "Oh, this character could be tuned up a
little." And in sending things back and forth with Dave,
there'd just be whole pages missing. Now they're just gone.

Patt Morrison>> Well, the other thing, of course, is that Peter
Pan, like many characters in fiction, is an orphan. You know,
you've got Bambi, you've got all the Shirley Temple movies where
she's an orphan.

Dave Barry>> Bambi is an orphan?

Patt Morrison>> I'm sorry to break the news to you, but --

Dave Barry>> -- I always thought just maybe the mom got out of
that fire okay, you know, and later on -- no?

Patt Morrison>> Why is it -- I mean, you're reading to your
kids, you read stories to your kids. It's the orphan who gets
all the fun in children's literature.

Dave Barry>> Yeah, you're right. You're thinking like being
terrific if the kids kill their parents (laughter).

Patt Morrison>> Yeah. Aren't you afraid of buying into this
genre a little bit here?

Ridley Pearson>> Well, we weren't killing off parents to begin
with. We took it up with these Lost Boys. I mean, how can you
not call them orphans when James M. Barrie calls them the Lost
Boys, which is so perfect?

Dave Barry>> Plus, if they weren't orphans, then we'd have to
worry about where their moms and dads were and they couldn't
stay on the island, that would be another subplot, you know?

Patt Morrison>> It would be much too complicated. It's much
easier to write about orphans. One thing you had said earlier,
Dave, was that you can't use some of the old models because
they're not PC any longer.

Ridley Pearson>> Yeah, and they're not pleasant.

Dave Barry>> Well, I guess we could say they're not PC, but
also they seem kind of dumb now when you look at it.

Patt Morrison>> Example?

Dave Barry>> All right. If you've ever seen the Disney cartoon
of Peter Pan --

[Film Clip]

Dave Barry>> There are Indians in there and they're just like
caricature red man, you know, kowabunga Indians, and it's
embarrassing. Everybody watches that cringes. We have natives
on that island, but we didn't want the natives to be like that.

Ridley Pearson>> So ours are Oxford educated.

Dave Barry>> Well, one of them is very smart and articulate.
They're all, you know, perfectly capable. They're not
subservient and they're not awed by the white man or anything
like that. So that was one -- you can call it PC or we just
didn't want those characters.

Ridley Pearson>> Wendy.

Dave Barry>> The other big one is -- well, Molly. The
character I'm least crazy about in Peter Pan is Wendy. The
Wendy in Peter Pan is very simpering. "Oh, Peter, Peter."

[Film Clip]

Dave Barry>> I just didn't like that. It's creepy to me. So
we wanted a girl that our little girls would like, so we created
this character of Molly, but in the end, it's Molly who sort of
saves the world. She's the only one who really knows what's
going on. She enlists Peter's help and Peter turns out to be a
very brave and good person, but without Molly, Peter wouldn't
have a chance.

Patt Morrison>> So your daughter must have liked that part.

Ridley Pearson>> Oh, yeah.

Patt Morrison>> Was this fun to do?

Ridley Pearson>> Oh, man, it was a blast.

Dave Barry>> By far, the most fun I've ever had writing a book.

Patt Morrison>> Really? Because you could bring back childhood
stuff, or because you could deal at long distance with him?

Dave Barry>> Partly the story and partly having somebody to do
it with. When you have another person who's every bit as
involved in the book and knows every single thing you know, when
you have an idea, he can say, oh, that's a good idea or that's a
stupid idea.

Ridley Pearson>> And you're bouncing things off every day. So
every day, there's new pieces coming in or something you wrote.
I would try to slip things back in and they'd still be gone the
next time it came in.

Dave Barry>> But that was so great for me. I just was so
confident as the story kept moving on that it was getting better
and better. Ridley is like a nuclear generator of plot ideas.
If I would say, oh, man, I can't figure out --

Patt Morrison>> -- you're the Homer Simpson at the plant?

Ridley Pearson>> Much to a detriment.

Dave Barry>> I'd say that I can't figure out if they're going
to have to get from here to here, they're going to need a boat,
but where's the boat going to come from? Ridley would -- five
minutes later, there'd be ten ways the boat could be there.
He'd say if we do this, we have to do that and he's got a lot of
stuff going on in there.

Patt Morrison>> Well, is this going to be a movie now?

Dave Barry>> You mean, this interview? (laughter)

Patt Morrison>> Yeah, yeah.

Dave Barry>> Oh, we hope so. I would --

Patt Morrison>> - we're up against Michael Moore --

Dave Barry>> -- I would like Brad Pitt to play me.

Ridley Pearson>> I mean, we've not signed anything with anyone.
There are people interested, but that's always been the case
with all of our stuff.

Patt Morrison>> Now because this is a prequel and there are
many children's books leaving many questions like this
unanswered, is this the new cottage industry from Ridley and
Dave?

Dave Barry>> Actually, we're not done with prequels to Peter
Pan.

Ridley Pearson>> We're having too much fun with "Starcatchers".
We're staying there for a while.

Dave Barry>> We spent 460 pages basically just getting to the
beginning of how Peter Pan became, you know, into being. So we
think there's more of a story to tell. In fact, we've already
outlined --

Ridley Pearson>> -- which means that we've yelled at each other
a little more.

Patt Morrison>> A couple of hints? Is it dark. Does it
involve --

Dave Barry>> -- the ghosts of London.

Patt Morrison>> The ghosts of London.

Dave Barry>> And we really like it.

Patt Morrison>> Ridley Pearson, slacker of the pirates, Dave
Barry, no beard, thank you both for being here.

Val>> And that's our program. I'm Val Zavala. For everyone at
Life and Times, thanks for watching. We'll see you next time.

Life and Times was made possible through the generous support of
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.

And by a generous grant from Jim and Anne Rothenberg.

Val>> Next time on Life and Times, Proposition 71 would provide
state funding for stem cell research. It may be good medicine,
but is it good business?

>> How are we going to pay up to two hundred million dollars a
year out of the general fund when our emergency rooms are
closing, when our trauma centers are closing?

>> It's going to create thousands of jobs throughout Los
Angeles County and Southern California and we think it's a good
investment.

Val>> That's next time on Life and Times.