perish in another holocaust. and this, this beloved feeling he has for his father really was the engine that drove him to the personal parts of it and then, of course, you know, his whole character was based on, we have to build this museum. we have to have a place where new yorkers can go, children can go and see what has happened, and can never happen again. >> we are near the end. you have been wonderful and very generous. what question have we not ask you that we should have asked you? [laughter] >> i don't know. you have been pretty thorough. you have been and invested -- an investigative reporter. >> the book is "timeless." the author is lucinda franks.

it's been wonderful being with you again, lucinda. spent thank you so much, dan. you are amazing. you are amazing. [applause] >> and thank you, all of you, for coming. [applause] >> you are watching booktv on c-span2 with top nonfiction books and authors every weekend. booktv, television for serious readers. >> first let's just start with your name and the title of the book. >> anne wilcox, with p. j. wilcox. the name of the book at west point -- "west point '41: the class that went to war and shaped america." >> how did you come across this project is? >> my husband and i were working with the general on his memoir and he invited us to 73 union at west point. he was in the class of 1941,

which was the last class to graduate before the u.s. entered world war ii. we went to the reunion and we start hearing stories of other officers that was classmates that were just astounding stories of closing the bulge in the bow of the bulge, and other historic incidents in world war ii they went on to the korean war and vietnam. so when we were hearing these stories we said that we really need to record this history, these are amazing stories and if we don't recorded it's like library spring down because the history these men have in their minds of the things they did will be like library spring down if we don't put it down in the written word. so we wanted to share with future generations and we are very, very honored to work with people like lieutenant general rouhani. >> general, can you tell me what made you want to write your memoirs of? >> all, i wanted people in the next generation to know that

it's important to keep your strength up when i went to work for president reagan. our forces were way down any other policy of peace through strength. so i wanted the new generation to know that you can't just let your guard down. you have to be a determined vigilant if you're going to be secure. >> general rowney fought in three wars. world war ii, korea and vietnam. he was a chief negotiator the end of the cold war with the soviet. indigo should nuclear disarmament that i can't help but point out the ribbon around his neck which is the korean medal of honor that he just received this past summer for helping to plan the inchon invasion that helped recapture seoul, among other great efforts he made in the korean war.

>> would you say that was the highlight of your military career? >> well, one of the highlights. i think probably the highlight was when president reagan cited me as one of the chief architects of peace through strength. i thought that was another highlight of my career. another highlight was introducing the helicopters into vietnam, a very controversial item. and we finally got armament on the helicopter which change the way we fought ever since that time but it made a great difference in vietnam and in the gulf wars, and in society and military ever since two of the helicopters. and particularly armed helicopters. >> prior to that, helicopters are primarily been used for

transport and command and control. so it did change the nature of warfare as we know it. and one of his classmates oversaw the development of little something called the black hawk. so it was an exceptional class involved a lot of innovation. the book is not just about war. it's about the innovation that occurred in periods of peace time in between when this class was in, whether it told us west point, go out and do something, do anything, but do it. so during peacetime they did it. they became a director of the apollo test. they worked on armed helicopters. they first put the first indication satellite in space which it was gps and your iphone on my say. unprecedented innovation and duty come honor and country. >> this class of 41, at the end of the book almost you found one more officer in california. i went out to see them immediately. he was jfk swingman for the

apollo space program. he was instability in so many things with our current space program. when the astronauts first went to space, they couldn't sleep. so he was a kinesiology is in the '50s. be understood how the body works. he magnetized the space capsule. jerry was a nutritional as. he designed the food. pampers came about because of them. he was jack lalanne's younger brother. i was invited to give his eulogy at west point. i said, the class of 1950, there were more generals out of that class. jerry reached for the stars. these men we met in this class don't pound their chests. they are selfless. they think everybody else. that's what you don't know anything about them. we tell their story.

general rowney allowed us into their lives and we are so grateful for him. >> well, we like to believe we are in the class that ended world war iii. world war iii of course was the cold war, peacefully, without firing a shot. so we did arms control, and also apollo and other arms, ballistic missiles, missile submarine, which meant we were able to end the third world war without firing a shot. >> windage retired? >> 1992. -- when did you retire the? 1992. i spent 38 years and military from second lieutenant to lieutenant general but i spent

12 more years as arms control negotiator come answered or five presidents during my career on curbing strategic nuclear weapons. >> was it harder to retired? >> yeah, except i was ready and i was working with my favorite charities. it was time to go. >> i would say he has never retired. he continues to advise on national security after september 11. he had the idea to create homeland tiki. because of course we've never been attacked in our homeland, so he had helped launch the effort to create that. and he has continued to advise. so he has more energy than i do at the age of 97 and a half, and works everyday. god bless,.

>> next weekend, december 7, there is pashtun what's going on in new haven? >> we are having a conference of a society where i am the president, called the american advisory council, where we're going to talk about security in central europe, and also how they can help rescue ukraine from falling into the clutches of russia, the old soviet union. ..

>> here are some of the featured programs you will find this holiday weekend. saturday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span supreme court justice elena kagan at princeton university. sunday evening at 8:00 on c-span q&a fact checker offered when kessler and his biggest the nokias of 2014 award. on c-span2 saturday night at 10:00 on booktv's afterwards reason magazine senior editor damon ruse on the long standing

balancing court activism and judicial restraint and sunday at 10:00 p.m. eastern jonathan yardley who recently retired after 33 years of the washington post. on c-span3 saturday at 6:00 p.m. on the civil war historians and authors discuss president lincoln's 1864 reelection campaign and sunday afternoon at 4:00 on real america, tried by fire:1965 film that chronicles the fourth infantry division during the battle of the bulge. find the complete television schedule on c-span.org and let us know what you think about the programs you are watching. said 626-3400. e-mail us at comments@c-span.org or send us a tweet at c-span hash tag comments. join the c-span conversation, like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. >> a look at the death penalty in the u.s. criminal justice system, public-interest attorney

brian stevenson is the author of a new book out this past october just mercy, the stories -- "just mercy: a story of justice and redemption". the director of the equal justice initiative set down for a conversation with him and sister helen prejean, author of "dead man walking: an eyewitness account of the death penalty in the united states," and the new york public library. this is 90 minutes. >> good evening. i am the director of public programs at the new york public library known as live from the new york public library. my goal is to make the lion's roar and defiance successful to make this institution levitate. [speaking french] >> to open the school is to close a prison.

what secured at tsister helen prejean i think anthony romero, and i am pleased to welcome sister helen prejean and bryan stevenson. [applause] >> the extraordinary new book "just mercy: a story of justice and redemption" by bryan stevenson, i have the publisher to thank. last time we worked together, i brought together decoded by j z, an extraordinary night as this one i feel will be. and thank you, london king, a fabulous publicist, and i think

you for insisting brian stephen, in new york library tonight. thank you. i recall her reading aloud, passages from "just mercy: a story of justice and redemption". permit me to quote a few so that you understand and here before the conversation how bryan stevenson's work is excellent and essentials. incidentally bryan stevenson will be signing his book after the event as well sister helen prejean liege please the mercy of "just mercy: a story of justice and redemption," and "dead man walking: an eyewitness account of the death penalty in the united states" which will benefit the mystery against the death penalty. "just mercy: a story of justice and redemption" bryan stevenson writes my work with the poor and incarcerated have persuaded me

that the opposite of poverty is not wealth. the opposite of poverty is justice. in another passage brian writes about his grandmother, the daughter of people who were enslaved in caroline county, virginia in the 1880s. when i visited her she would have to be so tightly i could barely breeds. after a little while she would ask me, bryan stevenson, do you still feel me hugging you? if i said yes, she would let me go. you can't understand most of the important things from a distance. you have to get close, she told me all the time. when spending a few weeks while still a student working for a sudden prisoner's defense

committee brian met the director of the spd see steve wright. brian, steve wright said, capital punishment means men without the capital get the punishment. and finally i would like to read to you the final paragraph of the introduction to this extraordinary book. finally i have come to believe that the true measure of our commitment to justice, the character of our society, our commitment to the rule of law, fairness and equality cannot be measured by how we treat the rich, the powerful, the privilege and the respected among us. the true measure of our character is how we treat the poor, the disfavored, the incarcerated and the condemned. we are all implicated when we allow other people to be mistreated. an absence of compassion can

core of the decency of a community, a state, a nation, fear and danger can make as vindictive and abusive, unjust and unfair and we all suffer from the absence of mercy and we condemn ourselves as such as we victimize others. the closer we get to amass incarceration and extreme levels of punishment, the more i appreciate that we all need mercy. we all need justice and perhaps we all need some measure of unmerited grace. for the last 7 years or so i ask my guests to give me a biography of themselves in seven words. the seven words of each of our guests, and i want you to listen to them very carefully. i could think before i give you

those seven words of no better pairings and having bryan stevenson in conversation with sister helen prejean. i hope they make us think or feel uncomfortable or less comfortable and push us to act. and sister helen prejean's 7 words, human, jesus, activist, a storyteller, writer, traveler, bryan stevenson, broken by poverty, injustice, condemnation, but hopeful, and is an honor to welcome to the new york public library sister helen prejean and bryan

stevenson. [applause] [applause] >> thank you. >> it is up to us. >> that is right. >> we are both southerners, as that -- you can listen if you want to end at the end i will give you that too. i want to say at the outset, the

last word is getting to the people, just getting to the people, waking people up. brian's focus is just coming out. i am in the world tonight, like john the baptist, listening to him. i will be telling my story. don't worry. we won't be able to escape that but to brian's story and what he is standing for is so good. how do you happen to do this book? was it something you automatically wanted to do. >> i was resisting writing a book for a long time. as you know our lives are full. we are spending a lot of time with a lot of people in great need, people who are condemned or incarcerated and weekend meet all the needs of the people who need help and that can make you feel like you don't have time for anything but meeting those needs and i have been privileged over the last 15 or 20 years,

the equal justice initiative has given me a little space to do things and it is on their shoulders i get to do a lot of things, but i was feeling what you and i see all the time. they would think differently about so many of these issues and i do think following your witness and the way you were able to expose people to the ugliness and heartbreak of the death penalty. and for people to join us to go with us in these difficult places and the possibility for justice. >> it was a passive thing. you go in a bookstore because in the south we talk, when you are talking you got the people. you go in the bookstore there is

a book but a little things -- it just sits there. you get the word out about it. you have to choose the book, choose to read it. i resisted too. now that i have seen the power of the book, we are in this library. i went to the periodical room to read is to neat people of the world and have experiences we will never have and so brian, what is so good about what you are doing and we go there with you because i know defense lawyers for poor people in louisiana are not invited to the big cocktail parties. they are not respected for what they do. what you represent, that's gum, it is terrible culture in which

automatically poor people that do crimes are automatically considered guilty and if you represent them have you ever been thrown in jail because -- for contempt of court? thrown into jail because he asked the judge not to call his african-american plan by only his first name. he spent the night in jail. >> i have never been held in contempt but it is interesting. for poor people and people of color going to court is always threatening and menacing and intimidating experience and for many defense lawyers is the same way because you are going to meet tremendous hostility, tremendous anger. i have been practicing law for a long time and i never felt like that is where i belong because you see so much pain and anguish. in a lot of ways i benefited from the presumptions people have because a lot of times they don't expect me to beat the boy.

i tell this story, i was in this court room in the midwest, started representing children. prosecuted as adults. when i talk about the presumption of guilt for the poor people and people of color on board with, that is one of the great challenges in america, black and brown children and this country born with a presumption of guilt and it follows them wherever they go and we were suffering in new york but we have stop and frisk and suffering in ferguson and the states that have the stand your ground laws because it is an opportunity to victimize people covered with this presumption, and i was in court just sitting there to get ready for a hearing, first time i had been in this courtroom and i had my suit on. i was waiting for the hearing to start and the judge walked out and the prosecutor walked out behind the judge and wins the judge saw me sitting at the defense table he said get out of view.

i don't want any defendant without lawyers, go out and wait until your defense lawyer gets here and i stood up and said i am sorry, your honor, my name is bryan stevenson, i am lawyer representing the client today. the judge said you are the lawyers? and he started laughing. the prosecutor started laughing. i made myself laugh too because i didn't want to disadvantage my client as my client came in, young white kid i was representing. and we did the hearings but afterward i was thinking how exhausting it is. these are judges, people who are supposed to be fair and not supposed to ask on presumptions and exhausting to be constantly dealing with that. for a lot of defense attorneys courtrooms are not friendly places, not comfortable places because all of that raid gets directed at you and for our clients it is even more hostile. we have a criminal justice

system that treats you better if you are rich and were secured guilty or poor, and inequality -- big time. >> the culture where you are, have you found that? i have been in seattle law, have been organ a lot. people in the northwest, that is a different culture from new orleans, louisiana, all appaloosa, and what happens, we have d as to run for judgeship by bragging about how many death penalties they got that they give each other these awards called the louisiana creek award which shows the pelican is the state bird and it can cents a pelican flying with hypodermic needles in its talons and it means i have three plaques or

three death penalties and my opponent is weak on crime, i am strong against crime. and in the judge's election, the way politicians talk and the way attorneys entreated, to be a defense attorney i love talking to defense attorneys. >> you talk about that culture, it is a corruptive -- you go to these courtrooms where you see offices where people have electric chairs sitting there. that is one of those things. we had an attorney general running for governor. his whole campaign was organized around his support for the death penalty and he was basically telling everybody if you vote for me i will fly them until their eyes pop out. in the 1980s, you could get bumper stickers that say vote for charlie, fry them until their eyes pop out. this abusive worldview became

part of that culture and it is so demoralizing to see people celebrating their ability -- who are disfavored but it is a big challenge and one of the reasons politics and danger have made our works of difficult. so challenging. getting past that performance, being tough on crime, is one of the great challenges. >> let's take it out of the south. look at the central park five. if you see that documentary and what happened with those kids with the jogger, and you see how young people, how a confession is coerced from young people, tell us what really happened and they want to go home. you can go home and they played them one after the other and cobbled together this thing and

the next thing you know these kids, some of them were sent to prison and it is very disheartening the way that played out. i am not sure prosecutor's office in new york ever took responsibility for what happens to those kids. i find this -- do you find this -- 146 wrongfully accused people and we have to tell the story of walter mcmillan. of those 146 wrongfully accused people who managed to get off of a death row through innocence project, college volunteers, 90% was prosecutorial misconduct. i had no idea how this worked. i thought prosecutors -- i thought the whole system worked and i didn't know people who get invested in winning no matter

what end heighth their ori> judges to be tough, had been on

death row 15 months pre dryland never met anybody or represented anybody sent to death row before the trial took place and that meant newspapers were saying walter mcmillan would be arraigned tomorrow, walter mcmillan will be at pretrial hearings next weekend created this environment. the second thing i could believe when i went to see his family he told me at the time the crime took place they were with mr. mcmillan raising money for his sister's church and the crime was $11 a way. they repair the entire time. they knew he was innocent and was interesting to see the despair that created. they would come up to me and say it would be better if he was in the woods hunting by himself when this crime took place because at least then we could entertain the possibility he might be guilty but because we weren't there with him we feel we have been convicted too. the despair was tangible.

you could feel it. when i got back to my office, this amazing incident where the judge sentenced in to death called me up, his name was robert e. leakey and he said i don't want you to take this case, you have nothing to do with this guy, trying to dissuade me from representing mr. mcmillan and with all those things going on it became a case that was too irresistible. but the final frame, i am still interested in doing a book project because this case took place in monroe ville, alabama which is where harper lee grew up and rode to kill mockingbird. everyone who read to kill mockingbird is a beautiful story, the people in monroe ville love does the story, converted the court house into a to kill a mockingbird museum. there is to read the street, jam the streets, scout street, all of this stuff throughout the

community, and we have an innocent black man wrongly convicted of a crime people have no interest in that. it was a bit surreal to be in this space where they were celebrating this story and watching such an incredibly vicious prosecution take place and if one of the challenges is in american culture, sometimes in american literature, we celebrate for the wrong reasons. we give out these awards, a very famous model the legal profession has in place but the truth of it is -- died in prison, didn't get justice. and changing that, trying to get mr. mcmillan of of death row. one of the few cases we got bomb

threats in our office, one of the few cases we had people following and creating hazards in this space where people celebrate the story. >> what happened to walter mcmillan, the lies that were told, and all the way through. >> what is interesting is these wrongful convictions as you know, we now have 140 some people proved innocent, for every ten people who have been executed we proved one person innocent which is a shocking rate of error and misconduct, prosecutorial misconduct, the key components, that was what we had here. a young white woman was murdered in downtown monroe ville. mr. mcmillan was not somebody you would suspect of committing a crime. a 45-year-old african-american hard worker, never been in

criminal trouble before. his mistake was he was having an interracial affair with a young white woman who was related to one of the police officers in alabama until 2002. our state constitution prohibited interracial marriage. the supreme court decision in 3 genial was something we couldn't get people to take out of the constitution please these attitudes were very real and couldn't solve the crime sister helen prejean seven months, as they were getting pressured a you see this pressure, pressuring our system into the spaces where there are really unjust things. gun scales were increasing, people talked about impeaching the sheriff and they began to put a case together, got a man to testify against him. some bizarre reason they tape-recorded sessions where they were coercing him to testify falsely and even more bizarre they didn't destroy the tape and it was a funny story.

my car in those days i had a little tape player and a rental car and the rental car had a tape player that had on it -- a lot of people don't know what you ought talking about because it you have never seen a tape recorder. it set on a reverse. we went to the court house to pick up these tapes that had these interviews and the first tape, he didn't say anything that was helpful to us, this witness and i was getting discouraged about that. then i heard it click and what auto reverse did was turn it to the other side and let you hear the other side of the tape and that is where we had earlier interviews and the witness was saying you want me to frame an innocent man for murder? i don't feel right about that. the police officer was saying if you don't give us what you once we will put you on death row too and it went on for an hour and we found the state and got the witnesses to recant and it was incredibly exciting to finally see the case moving toward

justice. there were police officers who went to ms. mcmillan's house at the time of the crime 11 miles away, bought a fish sandwich and made notes in their log indicating they bought a fish sandwich, none of that was turned over and he was convicted in a trial but lasted a day and sister helen prejean, got a jury verdict of life that was overridden by the elected judge, 25%. >> jury override is such a terrible thing. >> we are the state as the most use of its common 100 some people have gotten death sentences. what is ironic, that judge, robert e. lee he probably saved mr. mcmillan's life. if he had allowed the jury verdict of life to stand we would probably never have got into his case because at that time we were only working on death penalty cases and a heartbreaking thing about the macmillan story is for every

walter mcmillan on death row there are probably ten serving life without parole and for every ten doing life without parole there are 100 serving a lesser sentence. we picked up the case. >> the great irony if you have a death case chances are you will get more help sell all the people languishing in prison, long sentences in louisiana, the chance of 6,000 people in prison have practical life without parole sentences and most of them never get postcards or anything. just languishing in exile, massive exile of huge segments of the population. when you think of it, 2.3 million people, the biggest incarcerated in the world's. one in every hundred adults. do i have this right? since we made drugs, i heard one in every three young black men

ages 19 to 29 are in the prison system, prison or parole, one in every three, that is more than happened and apartheid in south africa. >> the release scary statistic i am terrified about now is the bureau of justice now reports the one in three black male babies born in the 21st century is expected to go to jail, one in six latino boys is expected, that is not true in the 20th century with the nineteenth century. it became true in the 21st century so we have tremendous work to do to turned this thing around and getting people to be honest and responsible is part of how we do that but we have bigger challenges as well. >> to have a little perspective here, the white woman of

privilege growing up in baton rouge, louisiana, during the days of jim crow gives me compassion in working with people because it took so long, culture gives you eyes and years, that is the way we do things. it is better for the races to be separated. when you get together people fight and all that so they like being with their people and we like being with our people so i will go to sacred heart church in baton rouge and black people had to sit over to a place on the right and when we made our first holy communion which is symbolic of the one miss in the body of christ black kids had to make their first communion separate from white kids. one worked in the house and jesse and the art and they were

trying to give kindness to individuals, daddy helped fund get property, get a house, held jesse get a job at the refinery and then they moved on but never questions the system and i didn't question the system. my whole approach to the gospel, one of those 7 years was there is a way to follow jesus and the way to follow jesus. there are a lot of ways to follow jesus, pope francis follows jesus but it is different from what other popes the way they follow jesus. the bishops or whatever. the institutional church that happened. for me, it was an awakening around the gospel. i didn't even realize i had given up in privilege.

when i joined the nuns, we had african-american people, monroe was the guy who worked in the yard. i never questioned it. it was when we began to discuss the civil rights movements, no matter what was happening in liberation, theology in latin america about being on the side of 4 people and i have always resisted that justice stuff. people have died, they have everything, like my spiritual life was parallel, what we want to do is be in heaven with god, right? i didn't even really know poor people and when i woke up, that the gospel was really about going to and being with people and when i moved into the st. thomas housing project it was like going to another country.

everything was different. i found when i did research for dead man walking there or more complaints to the justice department about police brutality in new orleans, louisiana than any other city. if you are living in the suburbs that could be calcutta. you are so removed from the experience. public schools, kids coming into the adult learning center, dropped out juniors, couldn't read the third grade reader, no one had health care, people were actually dying, young men didn't know they had high blood pressure and was destroying their kidneys and charity on dialysis the rest of their life and selling 3 and depressed and the kidneys are shot. what happens when you don't have health care and was being there with them and when i first went there we had a great sister who started her past and i went there and you don't have to use

this plan about how to eliminate poverty or anything. so here their stories and just be neighbor and let some teach you so african american people then became my teachers. one thing i realized. it is not that i was so virtuous but i had been so cushioned and protected and given good education because when you have education you begin to know who you are and what gifts you have and then you can have agency in the world but if you don't even know what gifts you have you thinks you are stupid. you just think i can't learn, i am not smart, i am not this or that. >> it is so interesting because i do think we have done this horrible thing in america by not questioning the wrongs we have done and the consequences of

those wrongs. this is a country that has never been self critical and self reflective about its mistakes. we don't like to admit mistakes particularly at the national level, at the political level, because of that we have created a world where we can be living in close proximity to tremendous poverty and racism and bigotry and still be comfortable because we have been taught we are not responsible for the problems we see around us and one of the challenges for me right now, one of my burdens i will be honest about is how we correct that, how we change this narratives and our new project is about race and poverty. we are now really focused on real educating this country on our history of racial inequality. it has to start with that history because in so many ways we are still suffering from the

legacy of slavery. i talk about my grandmother lot because my grandmother was the daughter of people who were enslaved. she was born in the 1880s and the experience of slavery shaped the way she was raised and the way she raised my mother and talked to me. is not a distant thing for me and when i think about slavery i think about the fact we had an institution in this country's that was different from slavery in other societies. of the societies were societies that had slaves. america became a country that became a slave society. we did more than a enslave people, we created a mythology about the differences between white people and people of color, we created a religion that tried to reconcile slavery by saying these people are not fully human, their characters aren't involved, there are all these deficits with them and we will help them by enslaving them and we made ourselves feel good about the fact the we own these slaves. that myth, that ideology that

sustained slavery wasn't addressed by the thirteenth amendment or the emancipation proclamation. was dealing with the forced labor part. that is why i am persuaded slavery didn't end, evolve, it turned into something else. we have racial hierarchy that didn't have slavery but still had at this college degrees and we got to decades of terrorism, the period between reconstruction and world war ii which shaped the life of my grandmother, was terror and violence, it was lynching and violence that send her and her friends to the north, fear and threat that was constant and persistent and we never talked about it. we didn't talk about the trauma that we did in creating by lynching people and this is that was followed by the jim crow era. even in the civil rights movement we were so focused on dealing with little issues. they were big issues, where you can eat and where you can sleep and wake can drink and all of that but we never took time to talk about the big issue, the

historical lack of any quality and injustice and it concerns me because because we never developed the habit of being truthful about what we did wrong during slavery, what we did wrong in the year of terrorism what we did wrong during decades of segregation, you can't segregate people, you can't subject people to be humiliation of excluding them from things and excluding them from education day in and day out, you can't injure them in the way segregation injures people and then just move on. those injuries are going to continue and one of my great fear is is the way we talk about the civil rights movement, the 50 third anniversary of a lot of things and i am worried about the way we are even celebrating. will be the 52 anniversary of the voting rights act and the civil rights sister helen prejean, last was the 52 anniversary of the march on washington and we are so happy to celebrate and everybody gets to celebrate. nobody is prohibited from celebrating. as of the civil rights movement was a three day experience when

the first they rose up parks didn't give up her seat on the bus, the next day dr. king led a march on washington and the third day congress signed all these laws. if we think about it like that we will be frustrated and tired that people isil talking about racial violence and the truth is we never committed ourselves to a process of truth and reconciliation and we need to do it. we will not have justice in this country until we tell the truth about what we did to our society, to this country by tolerating lynching, by tolerating segregation and tolerating mass incarceration. the reason we don't care about one in three young black boys going to jail is we haven't cared about this distinction for decades. we have work that has to be done and we got this project, putting up markers to reflect the spaces in america where slave to slave trade flourished. if you come to montgomerie, places in the south where we

live we love talking about nineteenth century history, we have all the confederate monuments and memorials, 59 monuments and memorials in montgomery, two largest hospitals that justin davis high and robert e. lee high. you would finally see the markers and not a single word about slavery so we want to mark these spaces where the slave trade flourished and talk about lynching and mark the places where there were mass public spectacle lynchings where the whole town came out and participated in a lynching and people were not lynch just because they were accused of a crime. a lot of people who were lynched were because of social transgressions. they went to the front door of somebody's house rather than the back door, laughing loudly at a joke. it was all about terrorizing these communities. we have to talk about that. if we don't talk about we will continue to run into these problems. >> you point to something.

i am reading a book called why is my teacher taught me. is the way we treat history and people's history of the united states, usually the one who writes the history are the victors and not the people who were subjugated. i was just a in seattle on the date that the city council changed columbus day to indigenous people day but do you know how long that has taken? most people don't know what christopher columbus did to people with how he cut off children's hands in haiti when they didn't bring him goal. we have no idea. religion is in there big time. the leadership conference, none is in america, nuns on the bus, and people called on pope francis to rescind three papal

bulls. it doesn't even mean what you think in the ballpark. it is just an official fame. we won't go there. but what it said basically oneness indigenous people were considered pagan so if they did not become christian it was okay to enslave them and gave the green light with religion's blessing, slavery, that some people were meant to be what you were saying. you have that blessing of religion non people and i happen to know some northern cheyenne people that live in montana and we were in the sweat lodge and they can remember their grandparents remember how the cavalry would come along with the missionaries and tear down for a sweat lodge is because that was paid in. we still have struggled to, we

don't know it and people who never suffered about it, when i went to st. thomas and began to be educated, there is a great workshop called been doing racism and i remember ron chisholm, one of the great civil rights leaders in new orleans saying institutional racism, never thought of it but you blackball somebody. white is always pure as snow white white, even in the language we have racism in the language and he would say to us you may what cameraman's someone doesn't like what you stand for and may argue with you because of the ideas or whatever but you are never going to walk in a room where people will treat you funny simply because of the color of your skin and i never thought about those things that come -- i had never heard the term white privilege before. >> that is what happens. when we commit ourselves to

telling the truth about the history of racial inequality, you get to hear things you wouldn't otherwise here. if you create a safe space for people to give voice to the things that they really want to talk about. the humiliation, the trauma, we have communities where people are suffering from a kind of communal post-traumatic stress disorder very much related to the trauma of segregation and racial subordination. when i was a little kid my mother, she was a church musician, i love my mom, she was precious to me and i never thought of her as anything but kind and just and she would give anything to anybody. i remember when it was time to get polio shots in the year of 60s and we didn't have a doctor in our county but they told everybody to go to this place, line you up and the black kids had to line up in the back of this building, we were waiting for the nurses to finish giving of a polio shots to the white

kids and took the longer than they imagined until by the time they got was the nurses were tired, they didn't have any more of the sugar cubes to help go down and they were grabbing these kids and being rough with them. i was with my sister and brother and my sister was in front of me, the nurse grabbed my sister and had that need land she just jab my sister in the arm and she started screaming and then i saw her coming at me and i looked at my mom and started pleading and screaming and _ and to me by the arm and was raising the needle and i was terrified and then i heard all of this glass breaking and i turned around and my sweet mother, my church organist playing mother had gone over to the wall and picked up the strays of glasses and was just throwing them against the wall screaming about how unfair it is, she was so angry the we had been out there and was saying stop it, stop it. the doctor came running in and said call the police.

i watched these black ministers negotiate for my mom and safety, we will get out, don't worry about that, please give shots to the rest of our children, had to beg them to continue giving shots and the thing about it is it was traumatizing and hurtful and humiliating and i am still thinking about it now and there are thousands of these experiences and moments that have been inherited. all that suffering follows you around and you go some place and see these big confederate flags, like the holocaust survivor going back to what swastikas. we don't talk about it, don't worry, just get over it, that indifference intensify as all of that grief and suffering and then you are told don't be truthful about this. will not be successful if you talk fruitfully about the burden of discrimination. you won't be successful if you talk honestly about these issues and because we haven't been truthful we have created a country where we are continuing to struggle and sector.

the great thing about truth and reconciliation, you can't say we have truth and reconciliation conference. we have to tell the truth and the truth has got to make people uncomfortable enough that they want to reconcile themselves, when you went to st. thomas the truth was in front of you. you have to have that moment but you are right. the church has a lot to explain. the church -- the church has been complicity in this dynamic. they have been complicity in the lie. we have a generation of white people who were born and taught that they are better than other people because they are white and we haven't helped them recover from that abuse and churches haven't happened so. >> in an ebola in that prison is a dead end at the louisiana

state university. it used to be slave plantations, still called angela and then 75% of our prisoners average sixth grade education, you see people walking out to the field, led by guards on horseback with a gun and then the beginning of the column at the end of the column and nothing has really changed very much. what happened is it changed to imprisonment of its. martin luther king, that book he wrote, where do we go from here, from chaos or community, he said what did it mean to say people were in emancipated in an agricultural society, not give them land. we would never think of doing a homestead act and saying get out there and sees the chamber of

commerce, they have land, a mule and you have to be able to work the land and there's something in human beings that want to be able to work and be able -- so you get out of slavery and move right into what did the plantation owners do? have you seen those black code books in southern states? >> i have seen them. basically it is shocking because it gives you the punishment and crime based on the rates of the offender and the victim so rape of a white woman by a black man is a mandatory death sentence, republic woman by a white man is the $100 fine. it goes on like that. even when the codes were eliminated the thinking persisted and that is how we have that criminal justice system and that is one of the tragedies as well because we don't understand how this

legacy, it is not just a southern phenomenon. millions of people going to the cities of the north and the west and los angeles and oakland and deflate and chicago, new york and philadelphia were populated by african-americans that fled the south not because they were just looking for economic opportunity but they fled the south because they were fleeing terror. >> anyone who knows about terrorism. >> older people come to me all the time, i get so a angry when i hear somebody on tv talking about how we are dealing with terrorism for the first time after 9/11. they say we hate it when people say that because we grow up with terror. the other challenge is we have communities in the north where these populations came here as refugees and exiles from terror and they brought with them all the trauma and stress, never

made to feel like -- we moved around in our cities and when something becomes economically viable in some way we move these communities away because we have never seen them as the longing and the challenge still haunts us all over the country and we have much to do to change this narrative and we are talking about how do you change the narrative, how do you get people to think and talk differently about these issues, why we are putting up these monuments, we want people to think and talk differently about the legacy of thinking and slavery and the civil rights ear and not simply celebrate the grand marches but reflect on what we did by segregating and humiliating people. >> i remember being shocked. i've learned a lot through "dead man walking: an eyewitness account of the death penalty in the united states" and people who were executed and how the whole criminal justice system worked, it shocked me

profoundly. one of the things is when you write a book and do research, i learned for example about the police brutality, more complaints than the justice department but also when slavery was abolished in the 13 commandments it was a except for those who are imprisoned or indentured servants. it has not been abolished completely in this country. i have been amazed, i will just say it out, there racism in the supreme court. there was a study in georgia about how when the death sentence is given overwhelmingly it corresponds to when the victim is white the death penalty is sought, when the victim is black is barely a blip on the radar screen.

i saw that in new orleans when i was living in st. thomas and if one of the people in st. thomas was killed you were lucky if you would find five lines on page 30 and almost always was drug deal gone bad. when a white person was killed is always on the front page of the paper. the picture of the person. i want you to talk about this because you know about the supreme court decision, did i get this right? is it is clear that race plays a role in application of the death penalty but it would be too costly of the criminal-justice system to remedy it? >> it really is astonishing. you are absolutely right. this narrative desperately needs to change. the 13 amendment does exempt people with criminal convictions for the prohibition against

slavery. i have been talking about this with my students, we are so our rage, why would we tolerate is lehman the of anybody. yet we would probably have great difficulty removing that exception to the thirteenth amendment. we think the legacy of racial inequality means we shouldn't be tolerated slavery in any context, we get pushed back for that because we have allowed this idea to emerge, which has fed massive incarceration that when people have been accused of crimes we do what we want to do. people at an ebola until the 90s until the 20 onest century, they were required to pick cotton without getting parole for people who were juvenile sent to life without parole, go before the parole board and some of our clients are having a hard time getting parole because of disciplinary is, they refused to go out in the field.

>> they get $0.02 an hour. most you can get at him and gold is $0.21 an hour. >> that idea has emerged and developed. even the modern death penalty in 1987 was an interesting conversation. since 1972 we strike down the death penalty because it is arbitrary, discriminatory like being -- $0.87 -- 100% of people executed by offenses involving people who were white. the court said no more death penalty. they didn't say cool and unusual punishment. >> they never have. >> in '76 when you had people clamoring for the death penalty face it we are not going to presume the death penalty will continue to operate in a racially biased way because there were legal defense funds, four years, nothing radical has happened with regard to race relations, you still have a

racially biased -- we won't presume that you have to show us the modern death penalty operates in this way and that gave rise to the study in 1987 where we came back with data that shows you are 11 times more likely to get the death penalty if the victim is white, 22 more times if the victim is black no matter what combination of variables you use an all kinds of -- even georgia's model made in 4 times more likely to get the death penalty. the supreme court said four sameness. if you deal with racial bias in the death penalty is just a matter of time for defense lawyers to complain about race disparity for other criminal sentences. the point out race to sperry's for drug crimes and property crimes and other kinds of crimes and justice brennan, i will never forget reading it, he ridiculed the court's analysis

and said the court has reached this decision because of, quote, fear of too much justice and in many ways he was right. the problem is too big but it was the second thing i remember as a young lawyer and almost wanting to practice, i've put in that decision race bias, certain quantities of bias and discrimination is in our judgment inevitable and use that word to characterize that result and i have been to that court and argue bunch of cases and i stand out front and read where it says equal justice under law and i have to believe that but there's something profoundly inconsistent with conceding the inevitability of race bias in the death penalty and being committed to equal justice under the law and it is horrible but my own experience. i am a product of brown vs. board of education. i grew up in a community where black children could go to

public schools. when lawyers came to our community, and 1954 racial segregation is inevitable. white parents don't want kids going to school with black kids, or if we order equal education the conflict will be big. but a different court with a different narrative and a different vision, it was not inevitable. and if they hadn't said that i wouldn't be sitting here and yet this court in our u.s. is talking about the inevitability of discrimination. dreads got of our generation. >> we need to sentences to be sad and depressed and debris before it is going to get better, but just to face the truth i am astounded in my second book, the death of

innocence i go head to head with justice scalia. with my brother louis, and he is a catholic and he is on the supreme court. .. the right to exercise god's

wrath, that the government becomes the minister of god's wrath on evildoers. and the more christian a country is, the more we believe in the death penalty because we know we should be punished for our sins, and the reason europe has gone for this universal declaration of human rights and death penalty is because europe has followed freud more than jesus. but here's what i was astounded in this book, brought out how his argument about affirmative action and from an action and one of the first cases, i guess it must've been the '60s, maybe the early '70s, and his reasoning, he said my grandfather came as an immigrant to this country and worked very hard, and my father worked very hard. the children, we have worked very hard. i am not responsible for slavery

in this country. it's like our people, we came in we made something of ourselves. it's a disconnect, and you hear people making arguments like that all the time, why don't those people go out and get jobs? do you know when i learned to write, is when i would go back to the suburbs living in st. thomas and i would hear, don't they know they should keep their children and school? why don't they pick up the litter? why don't they get jobs? why don't they hold their families together? why don't they, why don't they? i said i got to find a way to tell stories and put faces on what happens to you when you're struggling against all the stuff as a family. >> that's right, everything the absence of shame is the reason why people feel comfortable elevating the narrative of individuals like that, because you don't feel any shame about what your grandfather did or your great grandfather did.

just feel pride in the way they were able to succeed. because we are not telling the truth about how our great grandfathers were lynching people. our great, great grandfathers were enslaving people, and our grandfathers were benefiting from exclusion and the lack of competition excluding people and basis of race, and our fathers were living at a time where they didn't have to do with the complexities of a racially integrated, sexually integrated workforce. because we don't deal with shame very well. we go to the pride narrative which is what we'r we are doingh her civil rights stories. that's the reason why we got in there some way shame. it sounds harsh. >> just to acknowledge. >> but you've got to shame this country into confronting the idiocy of that kind of story. because we haven't forced people to do it, we suffer. the united states supreme court, you know, two years before the

'50s anniversary say we don't need the voting rights act anymore. a case brought by a state, in alabama where they never said we want black people voting. that have been saying we don't want black people voting, since black people first arrived on this continent. there's never been a time when alabama says anything other than we do not want you voting. even when they didn't say expressly, they were saying it implicitly. and yet they're saying because we didn't say we hate black people for a really long time, we now should get the benefit of not having these restrictions and protections. it's a very twisted narrative. i see the same thing in the criminal justice system. i see the same thing in the death penalty. with all these people who were exonerated and we don't own up to what we did. almost killed him. we tried to kill them for 10 years, 20 years, 33 years. we don't take any responsibility for that. we have to create a we're talking to people that i think

fosters a more honest awareness of our obligations to be a little more humble. we've got to develop a sense of humility in this country. i go to germany, and i like what i see. i like that it's a country soberly tried reflect on the legacy of the holocaust. there's an awareness that we can't go back, we can't repeat. in this country we are don't do that. that allows eric and people, sometimes arrogant judges to say prideful things that add to the injury. it's hurtful the are some of these narratives. we've got to change that narrative, but still be helpful because you're right, this conversation will make you discouraged, make you worry. i think one of the great challenges that we have, and this is why the church should be more vibrant, the other leading companies we start to find ways to be hopeful. i am persuaded that injustice

prevails where hopelessness process. idiocies for people to convince themselves there is nothing they can do to advance a racial justice in this country. nothing they can do to end mass incarceration. nothing they can get great a different conversation whether it means to be helping the poor. and when they do that they allow themselves to get comfortable with these realities. we've got to make them hopeful and be willing to do something that's uncomfortable. >> i had this sense, because i've accompanied six people to execution, and i'm out on the road talking to the american public. here's some hope. that people are good. it's not like they've really thought this through and have come out racist or come up, we have to kill the criminals. they haven't thought very much about it. and my hope is that i don't know if i could still be doing this if i was getting out there and going into all these places,

texas, alabama, everywhere, and people were so close and so rigid and so racist that they couldn't hear. i find they are going to want reflected what we are doing in this library tonight, this kind of community discourse where we have taken something and we are reading about it and talking about it and then we will dig deeper into it, this kind of communal growth in terms of understanding who we are counters, don't you think, bryan, that individualism, when people do something wrong, we said we have to hold that individual accountable. we never look at context. we are not good like europe is or other countries. they ask, what did we do wrong? we blame the individual and punish the individual. >> that's right and that's why contextualizing is key. what breaks my heart, we've been represented, my clients have

gotten younger and younger and younger, and now we are doing this whole effort around children. what motivated us to get involved in this is the age of our clients were getting younger. we have sadly millions of children in this country who were born into violent families. they live in violent neighborhoods and to go to violent schools. they are chased by violent gangs. their life is being shaped by violent. at some point these kids react violently, and that's when the rest of society gets involved. we get involved by jumping on these kids. we call them violent offenders and we beat them up and we want to throw them away. the inability to recognize what that violence has done to them, the inability, unwillingness to talk about what the trauma has a done, what it means to live in a community where you're dealing with violence and poor schools and threats and abuse and violence all the time, that in difference to that is what we ought to be ashamed of. therefore, we've got to find a way to kind of contextualize all of that, and do it with no.

one of the things that's been great for the work we found is that my kids, my clients who are 13 and 14, sentenced to life in prison without parole, our clients eventually are looking for that. they want change. they are hungry for guidance and nurturing all those things that all children want. and our unwillingness to provide it to them is reflection of the way in which these narratives have emerged. we have people going around in the '80s talk about how some children are not children. they look like kids, talk like it but these aren't children. they said they are super predators. we use that word to characterize the soul generation, mostly black and brown kids and then we turned it into law. we lowered the minimum age for trying children as adults. we created mandatory transfer of screens. we now have 250,000 people in uphold jails and prisons who

were convicted of crimes when they were children. we put 10,000 children and adult jails and prisons. we have some 3000 kids who have been sentenced to die in prison. and what's a country like america doing when it sends 13 and 14 year-old children and tells them that they are fit only to die in the prison? a united states and somalia are the only two countries in the work that is not signed the covenant of the rights of the child. we won't sign it because it prettprints the death penalty ad life sentences for children. we ought to be ashamed. it becomes necessary, this is where i think others have to get involved in this, for us to demand something more hopeful from our government than just throw kids would. we build these schoolhouse just by blood, these cradle to jailhouse pipelines. we've got to demand more. and i did with that kind of hope that all of those revolutionary leaders, the hope to great justice isn't that high in the

sky stuff. it's not a preference for pessimism. you need to great justice isn't orientation of the spirit, a willingness to position yourself in a hopeless place. we've got lots of hopeless places in new york, lots of hopeless places in america and we just need hopeful people to go to those hopeless places and sometimes just be a witness. >> yes. >> my favorite story in this book is when we are finally, finally time to go to court, and the black community have been so demoralized by what they've seen and what they had experienced. i was shocked when we go to court the first and all of these people of color showed up and they all came inside the courtroom. we had a great day in court. we have tapes and we showed, played the tapes and the witnesses admitted the trial testimony was false. when i went home that night i remember seeing hope growing in that community. i came back the next day, i saw all these people of color

sitting outside the courtroom. i couldn't understand it. i went over to the committee leader and said why are you outside? they won't let us in today. what do you mean? i walked over to the deputy shirt and said i want to go into the courtroom. the deputy said you can't commit. i said i'm the defense lawyer, i think i have to be able to comment last night case and let me check. he ran and came back and said you can come in. they opened the door and the second the day changed everything around. they put the metal detector inside the door. and behind a metal detector they put this big german shepherd dog that was just sitting there. people had to walk, the courtroom is half filled with people tha that the prosecution abroad in the hostel to his. i was so angry and i said just is not there. they did what any of the black people in the corporate he said she people have to get year earlier to more. i was angry. i went back out to the leaders and i think it's not there but there will not be seized for everybody. they said that's okay. we will be year earlier tomorrow. they started identifying people to be witnesses.

they identified this older black woman, ms. williams, we want you to be one of the representatives for us in court today. i saw this beautiful older black woman get her hat just right, get yourself together and chat a little conduct. she was getting it together. i watched her as she walked over to the door. i was inside the courtroom. i saw her walk through the door with such pride and dignity. she held her head up high. she walked through tha the metal detector and then she saw that dog. she saw that dog, you could see the fear paralyze her. she just did there for what seemed like minutes and she was troubling. i saw her shoulders sag and tears started running down her face. i stood there watching her. then i heard a groan loudly and watched her turn around and she ran out the courtroom, a painful thing. other people made in the court that day. we had another good day and i forgot all about it but when i go to my car that night she was still sitting outside.

she said, mr. stevens, i feel so bad. i let everyone down. i said it's not your fault. they should have done what they did. she said no, i was meant to be in the courtroom. i should've been i in the courtroom but i couldn't do it. i failed. she started crying. i said it's okay. you shouldn't worry about this. she said no, i was meant to be in the courtroom. i should've been in that courtroom. then she said, but when i saw that dog, all i could think about was selma, alabama, in 1965. i remembered how we marched for the right to vote and to put the dogs on the. i wanted to move but i just couldn't do it. she walked away with tears running down her face. the next day i went to court. when she got home that i shouldn't talk to anybody. she was praying all night long. she said lord, i can't be afraid of no dog. when she got up she called the committee ladies and she said that she wanted to be a witness against a she wanted to be a

representative on the trip from house to the court has but she kept saying over and over again, i ain't scared of no dog, i ain't scared of no dog. i was inside already. they still have the metal detector and the dog and i could see her standing there and she was saying over and over again, audibly i ain't scared of no dog. i watched this beautiful older black woman walk through the metal detector, walk up to the dog, she said i ain't scared of no dog and she walked past the dog last night sat down in the front row and she turned and said mr. stephenson, i'm here. i looked at her and i was so proud. i said it is so good to see you here. in a few minutes went by and she looked at me again and she said it loud, she said you didn't need. she said i knew. i was getting embarrassed. i do see you here. i'm glad to see you. i never will forget it. the judge walked in to everybody stood up. inequities sat back down but ms. williams remained standing to the courtroom got so quiet and i just watched her and i saw her say very loudly, for the

last time she said, i'm here. it became clear to me than what she was saying to she wasn't saying i'm physically present. what she was saying is i may be old, i may be poor, i may be black, but i'm here because i'vi have this vision of justice that compels me to stand up to injustice. that's what we need. you may go someplace, you may have to say i'm not a lawyer, i'm from new york, i don't know this, i don't know that but i'm here. i don't know if there's any more words, any word more powerful that can make a difference in the lives of condemned people, poor people and marginalized people than when somebody with a heart full of hope comes and stands next to them and says, i'm here. sometimes that's all we have to do. [applause] >> you know, that story, i think it's so great. [applause]

>> so what do you think, bryan, that if we could turn it over to people? the story is so iconic and says so much. i want to just say this about hope and let's turned over to you, you get to get into conversation. these young people. i speak at a lot of universities and i speak at a lot of high schools, and young people do want to get in there and they do want to make things different. i think we have to find ways, not just to teach, but we have to find a way to build bridges across classes and neighborhoods so that young people can be with each other to sort these things out. >> absolutely. >> because there's so much separation. >> that's probably the final part of that. i think for a lot of the work, you and i have to do things, which if we're honest about are

really uncomfortable. it's not easy to go to some of these places. it's not convenient. but we are not unique. what we're doing is something that anyone can do, everyone can do, and i guess my hope is that we can find a community of people who will choose to do with comfortable things, people like to celebrate the consequences of what happens when courageous people do courageous things. the truth is that we need everybody. to be courageous. we all have to sometimes stand when others are sitting. we all have to speak when others are quiet. and doing something uncomfortable is the legacy that most of us have inherited if we're concerned about social justice and human rights. we need that from everybody, from people coast-to-coast, and sometimes an uncomfortable thing will mean that they will get a little challenging. pick up some cuts and bruises

and some scars, but it's in that that we really honor what it means to be fully human. i'm going to do one more store and then we can open it up because i've been thinking about this all day long. you have this incredible ministry where you've gone into difficult places. you have stood next to condemned people who really just needed somebody to hold onto them, people who were abandoned, people who were forgotten. you go all over the country and you do amazing advocacy. it's been such an honor for me to have this done. we got the chance to share all of it with each other and this is one of my favorite people on the planet earth. and i mean that. i want to say this to end the week it can open it up. >> i do want to say one thing mac. >> that's fine, that's fine. we could talk all night, but i want, you know, i met, i write about this. i remember being in a church giving a talk, and this older

man in the back of the church, and i didn't know how he was reacting to the talk when i was getting it because he just sat there kind of staring at me. he had this stern look on his face, and i remember worrying about it because he was looking real stern. when i finished the talk all the young kids came up and they were nice and said nice things to them. this older man in this wheelchair sitting back there, he got this little book to we limit towards me. pickup in the wheelchair and he pushed his wheelchair up to me and the ultimate came up at me and i didn't what is going to do. he said, do you know what you're doing? i was taken aback. i took a step back. he said can do you know what you are doing? i mumbled something. i don't know what i mumbled. he said, i'm going to tell you what you were doing. and he said to me, you're beating the drum for justice. it moved me. he said, you are beating the drum for justice. he said, you keep beating the

trump are just as. i never will forget, he grabbed by the jacket, pulled into the chair. he said, on. i'm going to show you something. he turned his head, do you see this scar? icas this car trying to get people to register to vote in mississippi in 1954. d.c. this cut? i got that in greene county alabama try to get people to register to vote. i got this marker and the children's crusade in birmingham, alabama. and i never will forget him saying, people look at me and they think i'm some old man in a wheelchair covered with cuts and bruises and scars. and denny said to me, but do you know what? these are not my cuts or bruises or start. he said these are my medals of honor. and i know you go to difficult places, and i know you are beating the drum for justice. and i know you have been cut and bruised and scarred, but i will tell you that for people like me, all i see is a nun with a

full heart of love and a commitment to justice covered with medals of honor. and it's a real privilege to do this with you. >> thank you. [applause] >> i'm writing a book called river of fire, and it's my spiritual journey, like the prequel that led to "dead man walking" and the experiences of being with people who executed. i think of it in terms of fire, and something that happens to us that sets us on fire for justice. and the beginning of my book is going to go like this, they killed a man with fire one night. they strapped him in a wooden chair and pumped electricity through his body until he was dead.

is killing was a legal act because he had killed. no religious leaders protested the killing that night, but i was there. i saw it with my own eyes. and what i saw set my soul on fire, a fire that burns in me still. is an account of how it came to be in the killing chamber that night, and the spiritual crunch that told me there. it could be when we read a book, when we meet a person, when we be in that part enough that knows we were made for more. we were made to do something significant in life for justice, and not just simply to be able to bask in what we have been given, but to be able to really come and to catch on fire, is the greatest gift of all. and when you catch on fire,

bryan, you know this, we have to do what we do. not in the sense of being coerced, but its integrity. it's just like, i must, i must, i must do this. and then when we are on fire then we do what we must do and carry it through to where ever it's going to lead. and one of the spiritual values is we do what we do, mrs. gandhi, mother teresa said something like this, too, we do what we do because it is the right thing. it is a thing of justice, and we don't seek the fruits of our ofr actions. we do it and we turn it over and then let it be picked up. and so that's the word i would like to see. and you were a man on fire, and we are part of it, but it's bigger than us. you feel yourself, don't you? you can feel that destiny or whatever you want to call it.

when i see someone suffering, the man i am a company on death row now on louisiana, 23 years but he was totally innocent, totally railroaded on the eyewitness of one person who put them there. and i see the courage of that man. every time i come away from that death row cell, with man well, i come away with courage to fight because he's facing everyday nsl knowing his innocent and striving for his justice and for his truth. >> its incredible inspiring. people may think it's depressing but there's nothing that may empower and energize you more than to find a prison, just go there, find some of to visit and sign -- find someone to support. you will be surprised how it will change because you will learn something about courage. you will learn something about that orientation but i remember when i was a little boy growing up and i used to play in the church, some of the poorest

people, suffering, they're coming into these testimonies about all of the struggles and suffering and tell you these heartbreaking stories about what happened to them that week. they would always and by looking at the congregation at the new thing, but, of course, i wouldn't take nothing for my journey now. i would not let that turn you around. that's the great power in being proximate to some of these challenges. yes, they break you but they also push you to see great things. and make you want to do things that you wouldn't otherwise want to do. that's the exciting, exciting part. >> we've got to stop talking and turn it over. [applause] >> thank you, bryan. [applause] [inaudible] >> come on up to the microphone.

>> we will sign books for you afterwards. if you have money for one book, get bryans. [laughter] >> i'm sure you've followed and i know you're happy about pope francis recent statements about abolishing the death penalty. >> and mass incarceration. >> and mass incarceration the this official has been the trick for a long time but his predecessor were not as outspoken about i wonder if you see this as a lasting change or is it sort of a flash in the pan? do you see this as something that the church will be more outspoken about moving forward to what is your prediction along those lines? thank you. >> it's great that the pope spoke out, but we are the church. we learned that in vatican ii as catholics. that people are the church. we are the democracy. the supreme court is the supreme court and people are in government. we are the people. the same thing is for being in

the church. and the bubbles that have been coming up on this have been coming up a long, long time, and catholics have made great headway because we have been working our you know what off to educate people like me in the pews, because catholics, in 1998, 78%, look how high this is, 78% of the country supported the death penalty. and in catholics, it was 80%. it was bad, bad. the more people went to church, the morgue they believed in the death penalty. we have been educating the you know what other people, and they're getting there. it's educating the people. so the pope is great, but it's the people. when a pot boils come it's not just one big bubble, up in that pot. it starts with little be the bubbles down at the bottom and then the bubbles keep rising, light we are doing tonight. is what it's all about, and the same is true for the catholic church. >> one of the challenges with

leadership is our political leaders have been intimidated into not being honest about a lot of these issues. you can find politicians of either party to they were each competing with each other to be tough on crime but you won't hear politicians even now use words like habilitation or restoration, redemption or correction when it comes to dealing with people in jail. we've had to change the political culture and make it safe for our leaders, church leaders, political leaders, community leaders to be honest about the need for more compassion. be honest about the need to do something that's more just, more merciful, all of these things. it won't happen until we react in a way that makes it safe for people to do that. leaders have become intimidated by what happened to eye with sx other what we saw in california in 2012 with, you know, public referendum on the death penalty in that state. you couldn't get the legislature

to limit these mandatory sentences that we had in california ever contributing to overincarceration. it was the people who passed a referendum by a landslide in every county in these mandatory sentencing for nonviolent offenders. it was the people who almost passed a referendum that would've abolished the death penalty. in 2012, largest death row in america. so what is possible for our leaders to help us, but it is urgent and essential for us to demand more for our leaders. i hope we don't wait for our popes and our presidents and our elected officials to lead this charge. we got to stand up and start moving and make them follow was. >> anybody else? paul? >> i think there are some really specific things. we've got elections coming up, and i guarantee you at the national level, most of us do not know whether the people running for office believe that

are too many people in prison or this is the right number, or we want more. we don't talk about these issues. we can reduce the prison population by 50% in the next eight years by three simple strategies. if we convert, if we end of this misguided war on drugs and treat drug dependence as a health issue rather criminal justice issue and give people the care and treatment they need. not only will we help families and communities but we will bring down the prison population dramatically. we will save billions of dollars. prison population spending in 1980 was the 6 billion. this year, last year it was 80 billion. we bring the prison digression them by 50%, that's $40 billion that we can use for health and human services and education. that's one thing we can do is push for the. the second thing we can do is to insist, insist that we become a part of the global community. that has to stop putting our heads in the hand and think

we're above everybody else and find things like the covenant of the rights for the child. it's shameful. what will be behind that are reforms that will make a profound difference. finally, what we have to do is to demand from our elected leaders that they not simply be tough on crime but that they be smart, that they care about public safety and that we include in public safety things like the health of our poorest and the quality of education and the opportunities for people to be safe and secure in their neighborhoods and communities. but we have asked the question. sometimes it doesn't take more than someone saying, do we have too many people in jail or prison? let me hear what you have to say about that. create space we can talk about these issues. here's what happened in these executions when people were being tortured, suffering. should we stop? do we have a death penalty that is to air filled? do we have a system that's unfair to the poor? do we have a system that is racist? though so the question we have to introduce into our discourse

on this profound human rights issue that is becoming a dominant issue for our society. >> all i can say is, i'm so happy. think you very much. [applause] >> thank you. [applause] ♪ ♪ ♪ [inaudible conversations]

>> [inaudible conversations] >> and join us tonight when booktv will feature works from african-american leaders.

>> here are some of our featured programs you'll find this holy week in on the c-span networks.

>> up next, journalists and scholars discuss how religious affiliations affect the workings of the supreme court also a recent event hosted by the newseum here in washington. the supreme court prohibited about six catholics and three jews. from earlier this year, this is just over 90 minutes.

>> [inaudible conversations] >> let's see this going. it is going. good evening, everyone. welcome to the knight conference center at the newseum. very pleased to see everyone out tonight. either you don't like football or you really are interested in this topic, one of the two. i'm glad you're here. i myself only heard about this last minute that there was a football game. that's how far out of the i am but i know they're probably some fans here who want to hear this discussion, so thank you for being here. if you're not on our list and you happen in your some of the way but didn't get an invitation to our program, let us know

because we would be happy to put you on that list for future programs. i'm charles haynes and i direct our religious freedom center here at the newseum institute. and tonight we are so happy to be partnering once again with moment magazine, which is a wonderful publication as many of you know and has been our partner on great programs. and we are together, sponsoring a discussion that is about a contentious, murky, but always fascinating topic, religion and the u.s. supreme court, and we have an outstanding panel. i will just note that on this panel we have over 100 years of experience covering the u.s. supreme court, and that's just lyle denniston. [laughter] not quite, but you're going to get there pretty soon if you keep going.

we are really very, very fortunate to have this outstanding panel. i'm going to turn things over to amy schwartz who is the opinion editor at moment magazine, and i will let her introduce the panel. thank you. [applause] >> good evening, everybody. welcome to tonight's panel discussion, "how does religion impact u.s. supreme court decisions?." my name is amy schwartz as charles said, i'm the opinion editor of moment magazine. i would like to welcome you also have a moment, america's premier independent magazine of jewish politics, culture and religion. i welcome you also have of our editor in chief who is here but toiling away on deadlines. such as making an appearance. and wonderful partners, charles haynes and the freedom center of the newseum institute.

we are looking forward to a wonderful evening. thank you also to the staff of both our magazine and the institute have done so much work to bring this evening together. our topic tonight is one that as really passionate result is a couple decades ago would've been considered widely to do. our supreme court justices influence in their decision-making by the religious conviction they bring to the bench? most casual observers and even most legal observers would argue back then that they shouldn't be bringing religious convictions to the bench, if they have them, that as a supreme court justice they would've said, and as john roberts intended at his confirmation in 2000 come as an umpire and far from pipeline assemblies come he can simply call them as he sees them. much has changed since that early consensus and even since i confirmation hearing almost injures ago.

for one the traditional religious makeup of the court has altered dramatically. and for another we know a lot more about those views and beliefs on the court that we used to, whether because the time for more wired and interactive or simply because these justices are more to quote a headline, vocally give out. does it matter what do the justices religious belief have more of an impact they once did? if so, what impact is a? and we see the kibbutz in church state separation? gay-rights? abortion? of the topics we can't even envision? we have assembly to remarkable panel to address these questions. first we have two professors of constitutional law. in the middle we have marshall breger. marshall is a professor of law at the columbus school of law at catholic university. from 1993-95 he was a senior fellow at the heritage foundation, and during the george h. w. bush administration he served as solicitor of labor,

chief lawyer of the labor department. from 1985-91 he was chairman of the ministry of commerce of the united states, and from 1987-89 he served as an alternate delegate to the u.n. human rights convention in geneva. he's been a special assistant to president reagan and his liaison to the jewish community. stephen wermiel is a professor of practicing constitutional law at american university washington college of law. he teaches constitutional law first amendment and, of course, on the supreme court. he's a pastor of the american bar association section of individual rights and responsibilities, and he writes a biweekly column on the scotusblog explain the supreme court to law students. he is co-author of justice brennan, liberal champion. and many other books. he was a reporter for "the boston globe." speaking of which we also have

three reporters who have covered the court long and deeply, as charles said. bob barnes has been washington report reporters and 97 as has covered the court since november 2006 including the nominations of justices sonia sotomayor and elena kagan. he took a break to cover the campaign that he returned to the court. lyle denniston is a senior news reporter covering the supreme court which has been doing since 1958, mostly with newspapers including the washington star, "baltimore sun," "the wall street journal" and "the boston globe." for the past 10 years he has been writing for the scotusblog about the supreme court. he has received members honors, most recently he was the inaugural winner of the prize for legal journalism and has taught at colleges and universities. tony mauro is a supreme court

correspondent for the "national law journal" and american lawyer media. he has covered the court for 34 years for "usa today" and then since 2004, legal times, "national law journal" and supreme court brief, a subscription newsletter. is the author of illustrated great decision of the supreme court published in the second edition in december 2005 by "congressional quarterly" press. he's a longtime member of the steering committee for freedom of the press, and in 2010 was inducted into the freedom of information hall of fame in recognition of his advocacy for openness. we are grateful to all these very knowledgeable supreme court followers for giving us the benefit of expertise, and i'm going to ask each one to begin by speaking briefly on the general question of whether,

whether the changing makeup of the supreme court has had an effect on its jurisprudence. for the first time ever that are no protestants on the court. rather, three jews and six catholics of varying political flavors. does this matter, and if so, why does it matter? how have we seen illustrated? we will go, we'll just g go from this i did outside. i will start with bob barnes, "washington post" story last march have had like a we know reporters are not responsible for their own headlines but this headline was high court with vocally devout justices will hear religious objections to help your law. >> thank you for having me. it's a pleasure to be here. the reason i wrote that story is because i was talking to a former supreme court clerk, now a prominent law professor who pays a lot of attention to these issues, and he told me that when

he was clicking at the supreme court, if anyone had asked him or any of the justices religious, he would have said no, that none of them talked about it. he saw no real evidence of them being religious, and that he thought that this court was very different. these justices have talked about their faith much more, certainly probably justice scalia. he is the most outspoken about it. he said that intellectuals have to be what he calls fools for christ, and to be able to say that there are some things that aren't about intellect, they are about faith. when you think about the justices, they all have an interesting connection to religion, i think. justices sotomayor and thomas talk about how parochial schools really were what lifted them out

of poverty and in situations, neighborhoods in which education was not terribly valued. sometimes justice kagan, who is probably would say she was not, is not that religious, nonetheless says she had religious instruction three times a week. she was the first girl to be bat mitzvah and after synagogue and had to negotiate with that being justice kagan but she said it was good, not great. and all of the justices i think have this connection, and now i don't know that any of us could say how that impacts the way they try cases. i do think, however, it does have a big impact on the way the advocates and those going to them for opinions act. ipod, for instance, that the obama administration and the

recent hobby lobby case about whether there was private owners have a right to say that the religious of chechens we keep them from offering certain kinds of contraception was a very, very sort of respectful of religion delivered from the government. all of those briefs talked over and over again about how it was not at issue, what the challengers to the law believed or how valued that their beliefs should be. and so i think that the difference has come in the way people approach issues to the court. and maybe some of the cases that the court takes itself. we could talk about the count of greece case about prayers before a town council meeting. that's one that the court didn't have to take, but decided to take.

a divided court. i think one thing to think about is how, what the justices have said about religion affects the way people approach the court. >> tony? >> well, i think i would have mentioned some of the same things that bob just has about the justices, although i think there is one quote from justice scalia as i recall it, ma that we must be fools for christ's sake. and i wrote him a note saying are you sure there wasn't a, in there? he liked that thought. but anyway, i agreed they are more outspoken about their religious faith, in general. i think it could be partly because so many people, you know, whenever they say anything, people are watching much more than they used to. i think it's not uncommon for

justices to talk about their faith, but just people weren't listening maybe 20 years ago. maybe it's also the case that, and this may be stereotyping, but protestants speak less about their faith outwardly than some catholics and some juice. but in any event, what i would say general, i think it does have an effect on how they look at cases and look at life in the same way that, you know, coming from harvard or being born in the south might have an impact on their perspectives. it's just one of many cultural elements in their backgrounds, and even justice scalia said, you know, we come to the court, we are who we are. we come to the court with our

upbringing and the elements that our parents brought to us in raising us, and we can't avoid that. but he has, and they have all said, that we keep that separate from our national lives. so i think it's just something that is of interest, and i think that they recognize, too, that this change has happened in the make up with the six catholics and three jews. justice sotomayor just last saturday at yale law school was recalling that she was talking about the kinds of diversity that the supreme court ought to have. it not to have more people from different areas, more civil

rights attorney or two instead of a corporate lawyer. and then she said, plus we all believe in god or and that was kind of striking to hear that, and to think that there is nobody on the court who is an atheist. i think you could argue, we could talk about this later but it would be interesting to think about whether a devout atheist would ever be confirmed to the supreme court. i kind of doubted. >> has there ever been a devout atheist on the supreme court? >> i sure don't think so. and there aren't many atheists in congress either, for that matter spent i think justice cardozo said he was an agnostic, so that's part within. i suspect there were others as well, but i will wait until it's my turn. >> go ahead. >> thank you. in some ways i have decided i'm

kind of at the center because i'm not sure something a catholic, being a jew or even a protestant, that doesn't tell you much about how they're going to make decisions part because there's so many ways of being a catholic comes with being a jew, the ways of being a protestant. i do think that what you bring to the court through experiences, your background tells you something about how you're going to approach cases, and to that extent, i mean not to open up a controversy again, but when justice sotomayor talked about a wise latina, there was some sense to the. that's what she was bringing to the court. there's no doubt thurgood marshall brought a special expense to the court. even if he was out voted i think the justices were quite sensitive to. so i think we shouldn't over

determine the notion of the effect of religion. it's one of many things that are a part of the influence on justices. having said that, i think the topic is very interesting because there's no doubt that it has to do with the selection process. there's a sensitivity but i think it was eisenhower who said finding a qualified catholic. -- fine to me a qualified catholic but it has to do with notions of representation. i mean, the notion that there would be a woman on the court was very important for the notion of representation and i suppose protestants are upset that is not a protestant on the court. and it also raises a lot of interesting i think theoretical issues, because it goes directly to this question of can you bleach out, quote-unquote, to be

a professional do you have to bleach out your personal distinctions, your personal characteristics? and i think that was a notion of what it was to be a professional in the '40s and '50s and before. so you had this view that you're supposed to remove your jewishness on being a lawyer, remove your catholicism from being a lawyer. and i think we have a very different view of the world now, and that raises some interesting problems and solves other ones. but i think we should be aware that we are living in a world where, in fact, it's not just judge justice -- justices, but all politicians are talking about this. when i was working for george h. w. bush, one of my jobs was to sort of take and run the jewish community of it. he could not stand wearing a jar

market. he said i'm like -- it had nothing do with negativity. -- yarmulke. he said he should me making a show of it. whether on not politicians think that in the heart, they have gotten over it because they will talk about it a lot. i mean, that still surprises the justices would do so. there's a lot of interesting issues in this whole question, and i think one of them really goes to this point that justice roberts said, that i'm just an umpire. there's a terrific quote, i should memorize it, taken by general franks who was a law professor and he says, much harm is done by the myth that merely by putting on a black rope and taking the oath of office as a judge, a man ceases to be human and strips himself of all predilections and becomes a passionless thinking machines i think i was in the second circuit opinion.

but the point is that as much as justices say that's what they are doing, we have to have a question mark around at. >> when was that quote, do you know roughly? >> in the '40s. he was in the second circuit. >> lyle, could we use that as a segue? you wanted to talk about how things have changed. i know you're an expert on justice brennan. >> okay. let me apologize first for my voice. this is the voice i was born with, and that's what i'm not a broadcaster. [laughter] when i was in high school i did sing in the choir, but every now and then mrs. peterson would stop and say, let's try it again without lyle. [laughter] which was the beginning to learn humility. thanks, amy, for having this event, and charles, for sponsoring it. this is a fascinating topic. i recently have been reading a

book on the ratification process of the constitution, which is a fabulous work, and it's interesting how often in the ratifying conventions the question of a religious test for public office came up as an issue. and as you know the constitution itself insists that there not be a religious test for holding office in the national government. so to a degree for traditionalist like me, at least a traditional journalist, this topic makes me a little bit uncomfortable because i tend to think that religion is a matter of private choice and private exercise, and that we should not, in fact, audit our public officials in terms of how well they serve their faith. i must tell you that i am married to a baptist who is a

seminary graduate who is about as rigid a separationist as you can find him and a lot of that has rubbed off on me, so i tend to be somewhat wary of this topic. however, there are a few areas where i do believe that the religious preferences of the justices or the religious identities, if you will, do have an impact, and i think the steady movement towards expanding the sphere of religion in the public square is in considerable part of the product of the comfort with which certain dates, particularly the roman catholic faith, has in, if you will, co-opting the government in order to advance the principles of that faith. ..

one cannot read his opinion in the case quoting the act without seeing how he was taken into