The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight full coverage of the jury's guilty verdict against Timothy McVeigh in the Oklahoma City bombing trial, plus a report from Seattle on dealing with sex offenders, a look at the big change elections in France, and a Richard Rodriguez essay about some Hollywood photographs. Our summary of the other news this Monday will be at the end of the program tonight. FOCUS - GUILTY

JIM LEHRER: Timothy McVeigh was found guilty today of bombing the federal building in Oklahoma City two years ago. The 29-year-old Gulf War veteran was convicted of all 11 counts for planning and executing the explosion that killed 168 people. The jury of seven men and five women deliberated for more than 23 hours over four days in reaching its decision. The 11 charges against McVeigh included conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction, use of such a weapon, destruction of a federal property by explosives, andfirst degree murder for the deaths of eight federal law enforcement agents working in the building. McVeigh faces the death penalty for the conviction. The jury will reconvene Wednesday to decide whether he will be executed or sent to prison. After the verdict, prosecutors were greeted with cheers and applause by survivors and families of the bombing victims. Lead prosecutor Joseph Hartzler said he was pleased by the verdict.

JOSEPH HARTZLER, Federal Prosecutor: I'm not going to answer questions. All I want to say--on behalf of the entire prosecution and all the federal agencies that supported this prosecution, we thank the victims for their patience and dignity throughout this long ordeal. We're obviously very pleased with the result. We always had confidence in our evidence, and now everyone else will have confidence in the evidence and the verdict. We're ready to move on to the next stage. Thank you. Let's go. [Applause and cheers]

JIM LEHRER: McVeigh's lead defense lawyer, Stephen Jones, had this to say.

STEPHEN JONES, McVeigh's Lawyer: Ladies and gentlemen, this is very brief. Under the terms of Chief Judge Richard Matsch's order on extrajudicial statements, I cannot answer your questions or comment upon the jury's verdict today. I simply wanted to say that we will be ready for the second stage in the morning and that I congratulate Mr. Hartzler, Mr. Ryan, and the FBI agents who are responsible for the investigation and the prosecution of this case, and their work on behalf of the United States and their presentation in court. I regret that we cannot say anything more than that at this time but that I hope that you understand. We have visited with Mr. McVeigh. We will be working with him tonight and tomorrow for the preparation of the second stage on Wednesday. Beyond that I cannot say more. Thank you.

JIM LEHRER: Survivors and families of victims also were greeted enthusiastically by the hundreds of people who had gathered outside the Denver courthouse.

MAN: We are overjoyed. We can't say that we're not. I mean, it's a sad day when you feel that way when somebody is convicted of something like this, but he didn't feel sorry, so I really--I can't feel sorry for him now.

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Whatever is meted out to him by this jury I can this was the day I had to wait for, and I feel a great sense of relief at this point.

ANOTHER WOMAN: That when that verdict came down, that first verdict, and guilty on the count one, I knew that we were home free and that we were going to be okay.

WOMAN: I want the man to feel very--until he draws his last breath in solitary confinement. I mean, lethal injection--putting somebody to sleep that has created such pain for so many, I mean, that's too damn easy.

WOMAN: That's justice. That's all there is to it. I've never doubted the way our justice system works. Sometimes we got what we want. It is still the best system that this world has, and I just feel that, you know, justice is served.

JIM LEHRER: Now we look at this verdict with "Time" Magazine correspondent Patrick Cole, who's been covering this story since the bombing; Jim Fleissner, a former federal prosecutor who's worked with two of the prosecutors in the McVeigh case, he's now a professor at the Mercer University School of Law in Macon, Georgia; and Dan Recht, president of the board of directors of the Colorado Criminal Defense Bar and a practicing attorney in Denver. All three of these gentlemen have been with us before. Patrick Cole, sketch the scene for us in the courtroom as that verdict was read today.

PATRICK COLE, Time Magazine: As the verdict was read today, it was just gripped with emotion. Everybody was waiting with anticipation. Judge Matsch had warned everybody in the courtroom that they could not show any physical or verbal emotion. If they did, they would be escorted out of the courtroom by the marshals. But once the first verdict came down on conspiracy, there was just silence, but behind us we could hear, you know, sobs of joy, sobs of grief from the victims. Janie Coverdell, who lost two of her grandsons in the Murrah building blast, she was--had her head done--she was weeping out of joy and was clutching the hand of another woman sitting next to her. To my right, behind me, was Randy Guzman. His brother was killed in the Murrah building blast, and he was nodding and, you know, smiling, and very happy about the verdict. And others were just crying out of joy, but it was very restraining, because they didn't want to violate the judge's order.

JIM LEHRER: Now, the judge actually read the verdict, did he not?

PATRICK COLE: Yes, he did. It was the judge.

JIM LEHRER: All right. And the verdict was handed to him, and then what did the jurors do? Could you watch them as the judge read their finding?

PATRICK COLE: I think the jurors were basically listening to the judge and watching--watching him.

JIM LEHRER: Not McVeigh, they weren't watching McVeigh?

PATRICK COLE: Some made some eye contact at McVeigh while he was sitting there, but McVeigh was, you know, he was very resolute. He sat there with his hand on his chin, looking at the judge, stone- faced, not very much emotion. We were told that McVeigh--even though he's tried to be upbeat--and he was very upbeat when he came into the courtroom, chatting with Stephen Jones, talking to the other lawyers--but we were told that he was expecting the worst, and it showed in his reaction, because there wasn't very much emotion. He just sat there looking. There was no cringing, no sighing, no nothing from him, just a stone-faced stare at the judge as he read the verdict.

JIM LEHRER: Patrick, were any of his family members present in the courtroom? Was there anybody who was close to him who came up to him after the verdict was read?

PATRICK COLE: No. There were no family members. We haven't seen- -the only time that we've seen any family members was when, of course, when Jennifer McVeigh testified for the prosecution and when--

JIM LEHRER: His sister.

PATRICK COLE: That's his sister.

JIM LEHRER: Right.

PATRICK COLE: Yes. And Bill McVeigh, his father, came very early on, during jury selection, but there were no McVeigh family members. He sat there, and then after the verdicts were read and after the judge gave his instructions to the jurors, he--he then treated McVeigh like--as the accused, and he had the marshals escort him out of the courtroom before he--before he adjourned the session this afternoon.

JIM LEHRER: Was he handcuffed or manacled? How does he come in and out?

PATRICK COLE: He comes in--every day when he comes into the courtroom he comes in dressed in--in khaki pants and also he wears a solid-colored shirt, or sometimes a plaid shirt. We're told that, you know, he's very particular about the kind of shirts that he likes to wear in the courtroom, but we've seen about five or six different shirts. They escorted him out with about four or five marshals, and that's the last that we saw of him.

JIM LEHRER: Now, once McVeigh was gone, then what happened to the jury? The jury--we must remind people--they're anonymous. There are seven men and five women.

PATRICK COLE: That's correct.

JIM LEHRER: Nobody knows their names, right? And nobody in the public knows their names. What happened to them after this--after this was over?

PATRICK COLE: Well, after the verdicts were read, the six alternates were brought into the courtroom because they were kept out of the process, out of the deliberation process, and so they were brought in and--

JIM LEHRER: They were there in case say one of the twelve got sick or something like that; they could have--one of them could have been brought in to take the place of that person so the jury could continue, right?

PATRICK COLE: That's correct. They were brought in, but they were not in the deliberations. They were informed of the verdict, and they were told that they should not discuss the verdict with anyone; they should not have any contact, and, if they did, then they should drop the judge a note. They were then told that they would come back and begin the penalty phase on Wednesday at 9 o'clock, 9 o'clock Wednesday morning.

JIM LEHRER: To your knowledge, Patrick, are members of the press trying to find these jurors and interview them?

PATRICK COLE: As far as I know, none of my colleagues and none of my peers in the press are trying to track these people down. I think they know that Judge Matsch runs a tight ship, and they know that there will be some repercussions if they would try to do so. The way that the press has conducted themselves in this case compared to other cases where things are a little bit more open, where there's no gag order, it has been quite respectable.

JIM LEHRER: Yeah. Now, Mr. Fleissner and Mr. Recht, this verdict, do you expect anybody to be surprised by this? Mr. Fleissner?

JIM FLEISSNER, Former Federal Prosecutor: I don't know if surprise is the right word. As Joe Hartzler said in your lead peace, he was confident about the proof that the government had to prove the case, but as a prosecutor, because you have such a high burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, there's always a sense of relief when the jury comes back with a verdict. You'll recall that Judge Matsch instructed this jury that reasonable doubt was the kind of doubt that would cause a person of reasonable prudence to hesitate in the most important of their personal affairs, where after four days of deliberations I'm sure that the prosecutors were sweating a little bit. And I'm sure their sense of relief and pride in the job they did is great at this point.

JIM LEHRER: Mr. Recht, is there some kind of standard or yardstick that defense lawyers use? Oh, my goodness, the jury's been deliberating so many hours, we've got a chance, or how do you view--when does--how does almost 23 hours of deliberations fit into a solid guilty verdict like this, in other words, is what I'm asking.

DANIEL RECHT, Criminal Defense Attorney: Jim, we have to keep in mind that there's two phases to this trial, so that in the normal case you never quite know what that means, but I think in a death penalty case that is a good sign for the defense because both people were thinking about some things for 20 some hours and keep in mind they have to go back in, listen to more evidence regarding the guilt or the penalty phase and then deliberate again with regard to whether Mr. McVeigh should be executed or not. You have to think that for 20 some hours they were talking about some kind of doubt that they had and the defense is hoping that whatever doubt they had, even if they didn't rise to the level of a reasonable doubt maybe there's some residual doubt that will keep them from executing Mr. McVeigh.

JIM LEHRER: Let's talk about that, Mr. Recht. What happens now Wednesday? They call come back. The same 12 come back. And what kind of evidence will be presented first by the prosecution--the prosecution wants this man to be electrocuted--not electrocuted-- executed. Now what kind of evidence can they present to make their case?

DANIEL RECHT: Now, the prosecution puts on what's called aggravated circumstances, and the defense puts on mitigating circumstances. The prosecution's aggravating circumstances primarily I believe will be evidence of the other hundred and sixty some people that died. You have to remember that in the indictment that came back the guilty--that he was guilty was only with regard to eight people or so. There's another hundred and sixty or so people that they could put on evidence regarding to show the jury just how substantial, just how terrible, just how awful this was, and so I think that will be the bulk of what they'll put on, but I think they're also going to put on some evidence regarding his philosophy and a concern that if they don't execute him, he's bound to try to do these kind of things again, or maybe even facilitate something from jail. Who knows? That piece I'm not sure of.

JIM LEHRER: Yeah. What do you think, Mr. Fleissner, about what would be the most effective way for the prosecution to go for the limit on this?

JIM FLEISSNER: Well, as we just said, there's a statute that controls the jury's consideration. It's almost like a checklist of positive and negative factors for and against the death penalty. And the Supreme Court has required this kind of a structured decision making in a death penalty case, and the way it's set up the burden is on the government. Aggravating factors, as they're called, have to be found unanimously beyond a reasonable doubt. Mitigating factors can be found by one juror based on a preponderance, and then the jury waives these various factors. I think the government is going to try to put on some victim impact aggravating factors, and there's sort of a paradox in the law about victim impact evidence. The Supreme Court, on the one hand, says that the jury's entitled to know the specific harm caused by the defendant's conduct, but on the other hand, the Supreme Court says it can't be so great as to inflame the jury to bring a verdict based on prejudice and passion. And so the judge is going to walk a fine line. And I think the victims' families may be a little disconcerted by the fact that the victim impact testimony is going to be reined in so that there isn't too much emotionalism going against one part of the Supreme Court's pronouncements on this issue.

JIM LEHRER: Isn't the issue of planning also an aggravating circumstance, the fact that it's alleged that he planned this a year ahead of time, this was not an act of emotion on his part?

JIM FLEISSNER: Yes. That first step in the process is that the jury is going to consider so-called statutory, that's listed in the statute, aggravating factors. One of those is as exactly as you said, and that's substantial premeditation and planning. Other ones include attacking vulnerable victims like the children and attacking public servants. And once they find that beyond a reasonable doubt, they'll go in to consider the other so-called non-statutory aggravating factors, such as multiple victims and victim impact and the like.

JIM LEHRER: Then, Mr. Recht, now, so the other side--the defense- -has to look for mitigating circumstances. As you said a moment ago, your theory is that those jurorsare--there must be one or two jurors--one at least--who has some doubt, or they wouldn't have spent 23 hours reaching this unanimous verdict. So now how does the defense go about his business of mitigation?

DANIEL RECHT: Well, Jim, the other thing to keep in mind, as we're analyzing this, is there's, in essence, two kinds of murder cases. There's a kind of murder case where somebody admits during the guilt phase that they did it, but they're arguing it was second degree murder or manslaughter, something like that. We don't have that here. This, of course, was the McVeigh defense saying they didn't do it; they had nothing to do with it; and he was wrongfully accused. It makes it more difficult in the penalty phase, in the death penalty phase. But the kind of evidence then they will put on I think for example they'll put on his sister to say, "I testified for the prosecution but he's my brother; he generally was a good guy as I was growing up--he was--and you know, spare his life." I think they'll put on the father to cry and say spare his life. I think they'll put on evidence about him being a war veteran and that he has good things in his life; all of this, in essence, to say spare his life. And the last piece, if I might- -

JIM LEHRER: Sure.

DANIEL RECHT: I believe they're going to center on what you just said, and that is this residual doubt, that there must be somebody in there that has some kind of doubt, and, and is worried about actually executing this man.

JIM LEHRER: Mr. Recht, what about the possibility of McVeigh, himself, testifying in this phase, could he do that? Is that within the realm of possibility?

DANIEL RECHT: It is, and I'm virtually certain you're going to see that, not certain, but, you know, there's testimony and then there's what's called the right of elocution. You have that in the federal system. I believe it's under Rule 35. And what that says is in the penalty phase, whether it's a death penalty case or not, the defendant has a right to get up at the end of everything and make a statement that is not subject to cross-examination here, and I think that's the first and the only time you're going to hear from Mr. McVeigh, when he's not subject to cross-examination, when he has a chance to talk to this jury and, and I think what he'll do, what he should do is get up there and say you found me guilty and beg for his life and say, you know, these are good things about me.

JIM LEHRER: Yeah. Patrick Cole, what's the buzz there around the courthouse? Is there an expectation that McVeigh is going to do that on Wednesday, or at least sometime after Wednesday?

PATRICK COLE: Yeah. I think there's been a lot of speculation that he might do this because I think we were--when I met with Timothy McVeigh last year he said that he wanted to take the stand in his defense. But I think his lawyers shied against--decided not to do that because, you know, you're taking a big risk, letting the prosecutors cross-examine him, and any sign of--you know--any sign that--of a shady answer or something that sounded shaky, it looks bad to the jury, so--

JIM LEHRER: But, Patrick, what if he comes on there, what if he says, all right, you found me guilty? Does he have to stay with-- in order to be consistent with his defense, does he have to stay with the line, hey, I didn't do this and just hope that he creates enough doubt to get off the--the death penalty hook?

PATRICK COLE: I think if that's in the plan right now his lawyers are really discussing what he should say. I think it's going to be a very controlled statement, but I think he's going to say something that's consistent with, you know, the evidence that was there because I think all along, Stephen Jones has contended that- -that, you know, his guy didn't do it; his guy was along for the ride; you know, he was not the one; and the evidence that the prosecution presented manifests that because they didn't put him at the scene. You didn't have any eyewitness evidence of him making the bomb, so I think, you know, we're going to hear something in this regard if Timothy McVeigh does--does make a plea for his life.

JIM LEHRER: As a practical matter, Patrick Cole, how long should- -would this phase take? I mean, the introduction of all this evidence we've been talking about, and then hd jury goes back and deliberates again, so we're talking the rest of the week, or longer?

PATRICK COLE: Well, sources are both sides are telling us five to eight days for this penalty phase, probably a good--maybe four or five days for prosecution, maybe three days for the defense to present their witnesses.

JIM LEHRER: Now, Mr. Fleissner, of course, in the wings is the trial of Terry Nichols, who is also charged in this case. How does this verdict today affect what might happen in that case?

JIM FLEISSNER: Well, the verdict in this case isn't going to foretell the verdict in the next case? But Nichols' case is somewhat different. The evidence is different. There was evidence at the trial from Michael Fortier, the friend of McVeigh, that in early '95 Nichols wanted to withdraw from the conspiracy. There was also evidence that he participated up to the last weekend and drove McVeigh into Oklahoma City to drop off the getaway car, but it's a different case, and I don't think people should prejudge. On the issue of the sentencing that came up before, if I could briefly interject--

JIM LEHRER: Yes.

JIM FLEISSNER: --I think that it's likely--I think that it is unlikely that McVeigh will actually testify at the hearing. And one of the problems for the defense is he is still open to possible murder charges in the state of Oklahoma, and he has to be very careful whether he would say something that could be used against him there. The other thing is if he gives a very circumscribed statement, then he's going to run the risk that the jury's going to think, well, that's not enough to spare him from the death penalty. I think they're probably going to focus--his lawyer's going to focus on the rage that he felt about Waco and Ruby Ridge and try to make the argument that even though what he did was despicable that he was driven by a rage based on something that the government did.

JIM LEHRER: And in the process admitting that he did it, though, is that what you're suggesting?

JIM FLEISSNER: Well, the defense in the penalty phase I don't think will admit that he did it. I think they will say you've convicted him; I guess we'll accept that.

JIM LEHRER: All right. I hear you. Gentlemen, thank you all three. Good to see you all three again. FOCUS - SEX PREDATORS

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, sex offenders, the French elections, and a Richard Rodriguez essay. Rod Minott of KTCS-Seattle has the sex offenders story.

ROD MINOTT: Joseph Aqui raped more than a dozen women and served his full twenty-year prison sentence. In 1992, the 44-year-old serial rapist was about to be released, but, instead, he was locked up as a mental patient at the Special Commitment Center, or SCC. It's a facility designed to treat Washington State's most dangerous sex offenders: rapists, pedophiles, and child molesters.

JOSEPH AQUI, Convicted Rapist: I think it's understandable that people consider us monsters. I think the things that we have done are monstrous, but there's a difference between a human being and the act. You know, it comes down to that. I feel great pain for the victims I have created, the hurt and the turmoil I have caused their lives, but what about my wife and my children? I mean, they have been victims of a sense too by not having been able to be fulfilled with the promise of me coming home when I was paroled.

ROD MINOTT: Under a landmark law passed in 1990 violent sexual predators can be civilly committed for psychological treatment after they've already completed prison sentences for their crimes. Washington was the first of seven states to adopt a statute aimed at chronic sex criminals. Proving they suffer from a mental disorder is key to locking them away for up to life.

SARAH SAPPINGTON, Asst. State Attorney General: He's still a dangerous sex offender.

ROD MINOTT: Sarah Sappington is an assistant state attorney general.

SARAH SAPPINGTON: The Supreme Court is the body that created this rule that in order to civilly commit someone you have to be mentally ill and dangerous. And if the legislature defines a mental condition that can be understood by experts in the field in such a way that a narrow group of people are defined and affected by that law, it's our view that these people are appropriate for civil commitment and that they are mentally ill under the law.

ROD MINOTT: Critics like attorney Bob Borouchowitz insist the law is unconstitutional.

BOB BOROUCHOWITZ, Public Defender: The problem with this law is they're not mentally ill, and they're not get treatment. The purpose of the law and the effect of the law are punishment that punishes people twice for the same crime. It punishes them more harshly than the law provided when they committed the crime in the first place, and it keeps them locked up when they're not eligible to be locked up. They've completed their sentence, and they're not mentally ill.

JUDGE LARRY JORDAN, Superior Court: Now I realize that Mr. Aqui, for all public purposes, is a criminal.

ROD MINOTT: Joseph Aqui's bid to win freedom triggered a bitter fight in this Seattle courtroom.

JUDGE LARRY JORDAN: Making a decision to release Mr. Aqui is not an easy decision.

ROD MINOTT: Late last year a superior court judge decided the serial rapist could be safely released into the community. With that, Aqui became the first man ever to win release from the SCC after completing a five-year course of therapy for sexual deviancy. Even so, Judge Larry Jordan said he felt the convicted rapist posed a danger, but he ruled prosecutors had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Aqui would likely commit another offense if released under strict conditions.

JUDGE LARRY JORDAN: I feel that my decision and the conditions of this particular conditional release plan are consistent with the laws and the Constitution and are appropriate and will safely protect the community.

ROD MINOTT: The 37 conditions of release for Aqui included wearing a 24-hour electronic monitor, being supervised by an adult whenever he goes out, and continuing sex therapy.

JUDGE LARRY JORDAN: And are you willing to comply with the treatment provider and all requirements imposed by the treatment provider and by the court.

JOSEPH AQUI: Yes, I am.

JUDGE LARRY JORDAN: All conditions contained in this document?

JOSEPH AQUI: Yes.

ROD MINOTT: After the court's ruling, defense attorney Chris Jackson called on residents of Aqui's hometown to put aside their fears.

CHRIS JACKSON, Aqui's Lawyer: We, of course, urge the community of College Place in Walla Walla to accept his return. We understand their frustration and their fears about him coming home. We hope that this will be an amicable situation.

ROD MINOTT: College Place residents were anything but amicable about the release.

OFFICER SMITH: I'm Officer Smith of the College Place police department. We're handing out some flyers in reference to the release of Mr. Joseph Aqui. Are you aware of that?

ROD MINOTT: Police distributed flyers warning neighbors of the serial rapist. At a public hearing many angry residents said they feared for their safety.

WOMAN IN AUDIENCE: How do you expect this man away from colleges when the whole College Place is a college? There are women who are walking around late at night, going to their dorm rooms. I'm sorry, but that scares me to death.

OLDER WOMAN: And, you know, if any one of us should happen to shoot him if he comes near us, are we going to be prosecuted, and he's going to be supported?

MAN: And whether you ladies like it or not, you're going to have to change your living habits. I'm having a devil of a time with my wife. She prefers to put it out of her mind. I've got to convince her. Ladies, pair up.

ROD MINOTT: Aqui's case has renewed sharp debate over whether repeat sex offenders can be cured through treatment. Dennis Lepiane, the police chief of College Place, opposed Aqui's return.

DENNIS LEPIANE, Chief of Police, College Place: If he's successful, I can convince the judge to reduce or modify or do away with some of these conditions as time goes on. That's when I really have some concern about the whole situation.

ROD MINOTT: Lepiane insists serial sex felons can never be rehabilitated.

DENNIS LEPIANE: I don't believe that serial rapists should be back into society under any circumstances, any serial sex offender, whether it's a serial rapist or a serial child molester, it wouldn't matter; I don't think that they should be back.

ROD MINOTT: Why is that?

DENNIS LEPIANE: Because of propensity for reoffending, and there's a lot of documentation out today that a large number of these people will reoffend at some time in the future if the opportunity presents itself. And I'm not willing to risk future victims because a serial sex offender says he's now a changed human being.

STEPHEN RUBIN, Aqui's Psychologist: I think it's somewhere like 35 or 40 percent nationally that sex offenders recommit the crime.

ROD MINOTT: Aqui's psychologist, Stephen Rubin, said he thinks his patient has changed and will succeed.

STEPHEN RUBIN: He lives in my community with my wife and my daughter. I'm partly responsible for him being back in this community. If I wasn't confident, I would not have allowed that. I would not have permitted it. I'm very confident, especially if the supporting people surround him continue to support him, including his wife, including his church.

ROD MINOTT: Rubin has dealt with sex offenders for 20 years, but he admits he has never treated a violent sexual predator before, a class of sex criminal that is considered more aggressive and dangerous. Even so, he said he still believes under special circumstances some like Aqui can be successfully rehabilitated.

STEPHEN RUBIN: I think we can treat some violent predators, yes. I think we need to be very cautious about treating all violent predators in the community because I think there are certain characteristics of this individual which are favorable towards treatment which may not be true of other individuals. Partly is his age; partly is the situation in the community; partly is the support he has.

ROD MINOTT: Psychological research doesn't yet provide a clear measure for the effectiveness of treatment either. Roxanne Lieb is a researcher who has study sex felons.

ROXANNE LIEB, Institute for Public Policy: For serious offenders with a long history there isn't, as far as I'm aware, any research demonstrating a particular technique that can be used. For sex offenders as a whole there are--there have been some studies which have showed some promise, particularly with--as I mentioned--incest offenders--you can get good results. So it's not something, in my estimation, to give up on. On the other hand, it's not something- -it would be foolish to suggest that everyone should be treated and that should be all that needs to be done, and we should forget about any kind of prison terms.

ROD MINOTT: Despite the lack of data on treatment, Lieb still thinks Washington's sex crime laws have been beneficial.

ROXANNE LIEB: We've done a study of community notification, looked at the comparison of recidivism rates between a similar group of offender subject to notification and those that weren't and found that their recidivism rates were actually quite comparable but what the difference was, was that the people who were subject to notification were rearrested twice as quickly.

ROD MINOTT: Lucy Berliner, an expert on sexual assault, says civil commitment may be the best way of finding out if chronic sex criminals can be successfully treated at all.

LUCY BERLINER, Harborview Sexual Assault Center: We would have an opportunity to test whether or not there is such a thing as an effective treatment if the civil commitment statute were found constitutional because, in effect, these guys would be faced with a reality that unless they show people that they are less dangerous, unless they actively engage in the treatment process, they are not going to get out.

ROD MINOTT: The law allows for conditional release only after completing therapy. Even so, most of the special commitment center's 45 residents still refuse treatment. One resister is Richard Turay, a three-time convicted rapist.

RICHARD TURAY, Convicted Rapist: I'm litigating this law. I'm fighting it through the courts and challenging it, and I have no desire to participate in anything here. And I won't.

ROD MINOTT: Are you a sexual predator?

RICHARD TURAY: No.

ROD MINOTT: Why don't you think you're--why don't you consider yourself a sexual predator?

RICHARD TURAY: Because I don't. I'm not. Hey, I've had a couple of incidents in my life. You know, that's in my past. Seventeen years ago, nineteen years ago--I don't owe anybody any explanation for my past.

ROD MINOTT: Washington State residents may have no choice but to live with even more sex offenders like Turay as their neighbors. A federal district judge recently ruled Washington's sex predator law unconstitutional. That decision is on appeal. Meantime, the U.S. Supreme Court is reviewing a Kansas statute modeled on Washington State's. A negative ruling in either case is likely to set free Washington State's 45 sexual predators with virtually no limits on their movements. Sarah Sappington of the state attorney general's office.

SARAH SAPPINGTON: All of these people have been found to present a risk to public safety, so, yes, there is going to be a greater risk to public safety if these people are released. On the other hand, the law enforcement is aware of this problem. They will be tracking each of these individuals as much as they possibly can. They will all be required to register, and so law enforcement will do all that is humanly possible to minimize the risk to the public.

ROD MINOTT: Police Chief Lepiane worries minimizing that risk may be impossible.

DENNIS LEPIANE: We're going to have to monitor them as closely as we can without any help from the courts. And we certainly aren't going to be able to post a man at their residence or in the vicinity of their residence 24 hours a day, so it's kind of a hit and miss proposition, quite frankly, and all bets are off.

ROD MINOTT: Meanwhile, Joseph Aqui said he is well aware that he has the potential for relapsing into his old behavior and of raping again.

JOSEPH AQUI: I think that's a valid fear that I have. And I think what I do with that is I let that motivate me more and more to do everything I can to prevent that from happening. And that's the way I've approached my achievement here--not just to get out but to stay out.

ROD MINOTT: Only a handful of the 45 sex felons at the SCC are seeking therapy as a possible way out. The majority, like Richard Turay, continue to hope that freedom will soon come from the courts, rather than a treatment program. FOCUS - SOCIAL INSECURITY

JIM LEHRER: Now the French elections that have brought a change in government and maybe much more. Conservative President Jacques Chirac will now share power with a socialist prime minister. We start with a report from Bill Neely of Independent Television News.

BILL NEELY, ITN: Sweeping into the president's palace, the man who has swept to power in France. Lionel Jospin is the new prime minster but not the one President Chirac wanted. He has been humiliated. The celebrations are intense. This is a victory against all the odds. Even prospective cabinet ministers were stunned.

BERNARD KOUCHNER, Former Socialist Minister: It was so impossible to think about one month ago.

BILL NEELY: The moment of victory after four years in the political wilderness. It is the size of the left wind that has shot France, the Socialists, the biggest party, the Communists doubling their vote and holding the balance of power. The new prime minister arrived in the capital overnight to herald a new dawn, but he is taking office amid gloom and record unemployment. And Mr. Jospin is promising a tougher stand on Europe and a rougher ride for the European single currency.

PIERRE HASKY, Political Analyst: The single currency will still be on course but maybe on a different course and in a different atmosphere. I think the idea that you're going to impose a single currency with very stringent methods is probably dead.

BILL NEELY: Here in France's House of Commons the Conservatives used to hold four out of five seats. Now they've been swept away. The left has a big enough majority here to govern for the next five years. The name plates of Conservative MP's are being removed; their president didn't appear today. He is beaten and humiliated.

JIM LEHRER: Margaret Warner takes up the story now.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, three perspectives on what these results may mean. Jacqueline Crapin is president of the European Institute in Washington, a think tank that focuses on European-American relations. She's a French citizen and an international economist specializing in European integration. Simon Serfaty is director of European Studies at the Center for Strategic & International Studies in Washington and a professor at Old Dominion University in Virginia. A native of France, he has recently published a book entitled Stay the Course: European Unity and Atlantic Solidarity. And Jim Hoagland is foreign affairs columnist for the "Washington Post," and a former Paris bureau chief for that newspaper. Welcome, all of you. What do you think is the message of this election? What were the French voters saying?

SIMON SERFATY, Old Dominion University: Well, they were first of all stating their displeasure over the policies of the prime minister and by implication that of the president as well. They were complaining about the notion that in a sense the state has not been taking care of the citizens for quite a while and the high levels of unemployment. They were saying, it seems to me--

MARGARET WARNER: We should point out that unemployment is nearly 13 percent there.

SIMON SERFATY: Exactly. They were also stating, it seems to me, again to certain vision of Europe. Europe has become too intrusive of domestic national policies, a Europe too that has tended to erode a sense of national identity. They were finally stating a sense of exasperation about the way France is and about the way France is being governed. It was a massive rebellion against the way the nation has been thwarted over the past many years.

MARGARET WARNER: How do you read it?

JACQUELINE CRAPIN, European Institute: I also think the president, I think that is true. At the same time I think that the French wanted to express their notion that there was an alternative. The campaign of the right was very weak, and obviously the outgoing majority was thinking that there was no alternative to their policies, and what--what has been shown is that, first, the Socialist Party had gotten organized during the two years since they have been defeated in the presidential election in 1995, and secondly, that they are proposing an alternative set of policies, which have been studied and can be conducted.

MARGARET WARNER: Jim Hoagland, explain what those policies are in a nutshell. What does socialism mean in a French context?

JIM HOAGLAND, Washington Post: Well, it's hard to say. The Socialists were first elected in 1981 under President Francois Mitterrand. For two years they followed the policy of nationalizing industries, banks, and major businesses in France. And the franc went--really had big problems, shall we say, in those years. And the economy was on its back. Mitterrand in 1983 suddenly on the course of a weekend reversed his policies, began pursuing austerity, ceased the nationalizations, pegged the franc very much to the German marks, and asked the French people for sacrifices for a better future. Sacrifices remained--Mitterrand remained for 14 years, but the future never really got better. Unemployment continued to rise, and there were no real set Socialist policies at the end of that time. I think it's very important in terms of the election results to emphasize the personal aspect of this. I think it was a very personal rejection of Jacques Chirac and his prime minister, Alain Juppe. In 1995, they promised that they would tackle unemployment as their first priority; that they would reduce unemployment, while continuing to work for a single European currency, and greater European integration. They did not deliver it. Unemployment today is, in fact, higher than it was in 1995; the French people have not forgiven Chirac and Juppe for failing to deliver those promises. They now turn to the alternative party, the Socialists, for a new set of what I see really as promises and not policies. Again, the promises to increase employment, particularly government employment, while reducing the budget deficit, promises really that cannot be kept any more than Chirac's could be kept.

MARGARET WARNER: How can this new government do, as Jim Hoagland just pointed out, both create all these new public sector jobs, and at the same time not raise taxes, without ballooning the deficit further?

SIMON SERFATY: Not easily, and in fact, it's quite unlikely for it to be feasible. This carries two implications. For one, it suggests that the cohabitation, that is to say this kind of shared coexistence--

MARGARET WARNER: With a Conservative President, Jacques Chirac.

SIMON SERFATY: Exactly. And a Socialist prime minister--will be enormously difficult to sustain over time. What happened during periods of this nature earlier was that the Socialists had moved to the center and there prevailed a consensus position on the main decisions to be made by the state; so that, by and large, the president and the prime minister could govern together without too much conflict; it happened twice before. I believe it will be difficult this time, so that after a period of time there may be a new clash as to who ought to take over, possibly toward the presidential elections, say by the year 1999, but the second implication is that to the extent that those new policies require a reassessment of budgets planning and then the ability to meet the criteria of economic and monetary union is compromised, the ability to do so enhanced, the ability to enforce that particular objective as well--

MARGARET WARNER: And we have to point out that to meet the standard for common currency--European currency--all these governments that are part of it have to get their deficit down to 3 percent of the Gross Domestic Product.

SIMON SERFATY: That's right.

MARGARET WARNER: Help us, though, understand a little more. To an American audience you would say here's a country with 13 percent unemployment; their deficit is more than twice as high as the U.S., as the percentage of GDP; and they elect a party that says we're going to create more government jobs, more government spending. I mean, explain that.

JACQUELINE CRAPIN: Well, this is a little bit of a caricature because they didn't say it was going to be government jobs. They said jobs. And also as the campaign was going on, they said progressively--so they didn't say they were going to create next week 700,000 jobs. I think that whatever the government--any government has to work within the same economic frame work, economic limitations, and in the case of France within the same set of treaties. We have many European treaties, agreements, and all sorts of regulations which have to be respected because--just because they've been signed by the country. And so this government will have to abide by that. At the same time, there is a certain margin of maneuver, and I think the implication of the change of government is going to be that the French--in France in general in the next few months is going to insist that the frame work in which the European community is working be more goals-oriented. It is true that for years the Bundesbank has obliged--

MARGARET WARNER: The German central bank.

JACQUELINE CRAPIN: The German central bank has obliged the European countries, of which wanted to be part of the European monetary union, to have a rather deflationary policy, to fight inflation which is not a problem because we have no inflation in Europe at that time, without consideration of unemployment, which is a problem because we have a high level, and for the public it is not clear why we should fight inflation and not fight unemployment. So this is also a heritage of the period which Jim was referring to, this period of the 80's where even the Socialist government like Francois Mitterrand's government was conducting relatively conservative policies in line with Germany. Now you have out of 15 governments in Europe, you have 11 Socialist also-- democrat governments--so it is going obviously to change the policies.

MARGARET WARNER: So you think that's what this is leading to; do you agree that there's going to be some real rethinking among many European governments about what they--how aggressive they want to be, and what the criteria are for this new European currency?

JIM HOAGLAND: Well, there are really only two governments that count on this question, it's France and Germany, and there is a reassessment going on in both countries. I think what we've seen in the French election is that it's easier to change governments than it is to change habits, to really change your standard of living, which is what the French were being asked to do in order to step aboard the globalization express. In Germany you've got quite a debate going on right now between Chancellor Kohl and the Bundesbank over the terms for European monetary union, which is supposed to occur in 1999. Right now, you see the schedule for that beginning to slip. I would agree with Jacqueline that what is needed now by the Socialist government in France is some way to package many of the same things that were being done and will have to be done in a growth label. It will be labeled as a new growth stimulus package, but in the end I think it'll amount to a lot of the same things under a new label. But what has to happen, I think, is a deal now, a political deal, between Germany and France, to try to revive the economy to get the emphasis off of the sacrifices that people are being asked to make for the Maestricht Treaty and EMU.

SIMON SERFATY: I would seem to see three problems with this. One, the main--the second main loser in yesterday's election in France is Helmut Kohl, who's been enormously weakened.

MARGARET WARNER: The chancellor of Germany.

SIMON SERFATY: Exactly. So it's much more difficult for him to make a deal. Second, whom is he going to make a deal with? Will he make it with the president or the prime minister? The two of them don't agree at this point in time on the substance of policies.

JACQUELINE CRAPIN: Perhaps he can make it with the Bundesbank because he also has a problem with the Bundesbank.

SIMON SERFATY: And once he's made his deal with the Bundesbank he will still need to go to Paris and make a deal with the French- -and there's a very rigid timetable. This is the last minute--

JIM HOAGLAND: You can't do it under the current timetable. I think that's the result--

SIMON SERFATY: Exactly.

JIM HOAGLAND: --of the French elections yesterday.

MARGARET WARNER: That's definitely going to slow it.

SIMON SERFATY: The postponement of economic and monetary union may mean its failure or else will have such implications on the balance of the construction of Europe as to make one wonder about the next few years.

JIM HOAGLAND: But I think the situation today is you can delay and fail, or you can fail right now. That's the choice.

SIMON SERFATY: Fair enough.

MARGARET WARNER: So do you agree that we may look back on this moment, or we may be looking on it now and saying this is the moment that European governments even realize the public was saying, hey, the sacrifice is too high; something has to give?

JACQUELINE CRAPIN: We may, but I do not believe it's going to happen because I know that the team which composes the new government is made of people who want the monetary union to happen; just they don't want it to happen any way; they want it to happen with certain conditions. And if these conditions are met, it will happen.

SIMON SERFATY: Except that the Communists who belong to the coalition government and without whom the Socialists cannot maintain a majority in the national assembly.

JIM HOAGLAND: It's important to point out that the Socialists, in fact, do not have a majority in the assembly; they rely on the Communists for about 36 votes to give them a majority.

MARGARET WARNER: Who are unremittingly hostile to a lot of these- -

JIM HOAGLAND: So far they have been. Get 'em to the trough, show 'em some power, and maybe they'll be compromised as well.

JACQUELINE CRAPIN: But what may happen is that we may kind of a parliamentary system appearing in France for the first time because you may have center parties voting with the Socialist Party against the Communist Party on European issues, and that would be very interesting.

SIMON SERFATY: Which would mean, of course, the end of the Fifth Republic and the start of the Sixth.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. And we have the end of this discussion. But thank you all three very much. ESSAY - FAST FORWARD

JIM LEHRER: Now, our Monday night essay. Richard Rodriguez of the "Pacific News Service" considers a new book of Hollywood photographs.

RICHARD RODRIGUEZ: It is the end of the school day at Beverly Hills High: the golden children, not really children at all, in America's most famous postal zip code are headed home in expensive sports cars. A remarkable collection of photographs on the teenagers of Los Angeles has been recently published. The photographs, themselves, are now on exhibition at the International Center of Photography in New York. Lauren Greenfield, the photographer, calls her collection "Fast Forward: Growing up in the Shadow of Hollywood." The brown and black children who live on the dangerous streets across town, we have seen their like before. We have witnessed grief at the gang funeral. We have stared at the vacant-eyed teen with his chest emblazoned with a violent boast. What we have never seen so harshly and brilliantly photographed before are the children of the glamorous West side: Santa Monica, Bel Air, Brentwood. That little girl who vamps in front of a mirror, in front of a camera in a Beverly Hills Penthouse, that little girl is 10 years old. Have we ever seen such children before who ever look so knowing and old? The rest of America likes to disapprove of LA, but LA is at the center of our national imagination. Our dream factory is here--not in Washington, D.C., not in New York. What LA sells America, what LA sells the entire world is a dream of adolescence. LA only sells the idea long before cinemascope or Doby sound America invented the idea of adolescence. There are still many countries of the world that have no notion of adolescence. One day you are a child. The next day you work alongside your father as an adult. In America, we regard the season of pimples and puberty as our defining national moment. We raise our children to leave home, have choices. We expect our children to rebel. Our nation was born in an adolescent act of rebellion against Old Man Europe. From Tom Paine to Huck Finn, to James Dean, the teenage romance has persisted. There are adults in LA who make a very good living selling the idea of adolescence, turning the idea into a movie or a rock'n roll lyric, which raises an interesting question: What do you do if you're a teenager in Beverly Hills and your old man spends the day working dressed in a jogging suit auditioning rap groups? Behold the children of 90210 as seen through the lens of Lauren Greenfield. They are at once at the very center of a national culture that idolizes their youth. But perhaps for that reason they seem very old. The children of Hollywood seem the oldest children around. All over the world from Lima to Bangkok, there are young people who are stirred by our notion of adolescence. They want to drink America. They want to dance to America. They want to be like American teenagers they see on Melrose Place or on Bay Watch. The brilliant, the comic originality of our culture derives from our faith in adolescence, our assumption that it is the right and the duty of every generation to undo the past. The price we pay for our adolescent romance is a perennial immaturity. Here in LA there are no wise elders; there are only jaded teens. Adults jog along the boulevard in Brentwood looking much younger than her age. But children of Hollywood meanwhile dress like adults, audition at 12 for jobs as fashion models. The son of the movie star who has a bad coke habit has tattooed his entire back and jumps through the air, exhilarated by the music of rebellion. The truth in LA is that nobody stays a kid very long in a city infatuated by adolescents. I'm Richard Rodriguez. NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: The lead story of this day was the guilty verdict against Timothy McVeigh in the Oklahoma City bombing. The jury deliberated, the jury of seven men and five women deliberated twenty-three hours and returned the verdict this afternoon. In the other news this Monday there was a 7 percent drop in crime last year in the United States. That was the bottom line result of the report released yesterday by the FBI. The murder rate was down 11 percent, aggravated assault 6 percent. It's the fifth straight decline in serious offenses and the largest one-year drop in 35 years. Betty Shabbah has remained in critical condition in a New York City hospital today. She's the widow of slain civil rights leader Malcolm X. She suffered third degree burns over 80 percent of her body during a fire in her apartment yesterday. Police arrested her 12-year-old grandson. He was charged with juvenile delinquency. He will be arraigned in the New York court tomorrow. In West Virginia today two people were found dead after a flash flood at a creek in a small town 30 miles Southeast of Charleston. Some seven inches of rain yesterday caused flooding there and in parts of Virginia and Ohio. Hundreds of residents fled their homes along several creeks in the Cayuga River. Ohio officials reported one death from the flooding. Highway crews in Allegheny County, Virginia, spent the day clearing roads blocked by mudslides. Most streams were receding today, but more rain was in the forecast. Overseas today, the Nigerian Navy attacked Sierra Leone's capital city. Gun ships anchored off the Atlantic Coast fired on the headquarters of Sierra Leone's mutinous army in Freetown. The Nigerian military was ordered to help restore Sierra Leone's elected president, who was overthrown in a military coup last week. Nigerian army troops on the ground in Sierra Leone were attacked by rebel troops. In Canada, there were parliamentary elections today. Prime Minister Jean Chretien's ruling liberal party was expected to keep its control in the House of Commons. Chretien called for the election 18 months early in an effort to increase his party's majority. And a follow-up to our report last Friday night on the revival of the Broadway musical "Chicago." Well, it won six awards, more than any other show, at last night's Tony ceremonies in New York. RECAP

JIM LEHRER: We'll see you on-line and again here tomorrow evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.