updated 11/16/2005 10:23:37 AM ET 2005-11-16T15:23:37

Guest: Bob Peters, David Hans Schmidt, Drew Pinsky, Claire Ciliotta, Mary Fulginiti, Eugene Fraise, Curtis Sliwa

JOE SCARBOROUGH, HOST:  Right now in SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY, jailbreak.  Two Iowa inmates escape, just the latest criminals to go on the lam from prisons around this country. 

Now, the question tonight is, are budget cuts making these escapes possible, putting your neighborhood and your family at risk?  You may be shocked at what you‘re about to find out. 

Plus, she married the father of her unborn baby.  But there‘s a catch.  She‘s 37.  He‘s 15.  Now the honeymoon is over and she‘s behind bars.  We are going to have the latest sick story of teens at risk. 

Welcome to SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY, no passport required, only common sense allowed. 

ANNOUNCER:  From the press room, to the courtroom, to the halls of Congress, Joe Scarborough has seen it all.  Welcome to SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY.

SCARBOROUGH:  Hey, thanks so much for being with us.  Hope your Tuesday is great. 

Now, we‘re going to have all of those stories in just a minute, plus porn to go.  New video iPods have opened a new market for the adult entertainment industry.  The question is, how can we protect our kids before yet another new technology, which, by the way, I bought—I mean, I bought these iPods for my two children.  I have got them myself.  This is a real danger for parents, because it‘s going to be porn on the go.  What do we do to protect our children, my children, your children, before these portable video devices that are taken to schools, taken on buses, taken wherever our kids go, is taken over by porn producers? 

But, first, is the American prison sentence breaking down in front of our eyes?  At least 12 violent criminals have escaped in the last four months, stealing cars, even killing guards. 

Now, friends, budget cuts, crumbling facilities and increasingly daring inmates, heck, they even have a TV show on fox about it, they‘re making prison breaks more common. 

So, the question is, how safe is your neighborhood from escaped prisoners?  You may not like the answer.  Take a look. 

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SCARBOROUGH (voice-over):  August 10, Kingston, Tennessee, prisoner George Hyatte is leaving the Roane County courthouse.  A woman, his wife, Jennifer, drives up, opens fire, killing a prison guard. 

The two are on the lam for more than 24 hours before they‘re finally captured in Columbus, Ohio. 

November 1, Johnny Brewer and Jimmy Causey escape from a South Carolina maximum security prison.  Causey, convicted of holding a family at gunpoint.  Brewer killed his sister-in-law.  The two, serving life without parole, they were free for 48 hours before they were caught. 

November 4, death row convict Charles Victor Thomas dresses in civilian clothes and walks out of a Houston jail.  He‘s caught two days later, drunk on the streets, in Shreveport, Louisiana. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  He did appear to be intoxicated.  The officers approached him.  They asked him what his name was.  And his response was, “You know who I am.”

SCARBOROUGH:  And, on Monday, at about 7:00 p.m., two convicted murderers, Martin Moon and Robert Legendre, walked out of Iowa‘s only maximum security prison.  They‘re considered extremely dangerous. 

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SCARBOROUGH:  You know, friends, there is the amazing thing about it. 

Here, we live in a country where we have got politicians in Washington, D.C., and around the country wasting your tax dollars.  I mean, in Washington, D.C., we have got one of the most powerful people in Congress spending about $100 million on a bridge to nowhere, just to bring more money back to their district. 

At the same time, we have got other politicians coming forward saying we don‘t have enough money to keep these prisons up to code.  We don‘t have enough money to keep things up to date, to keep you and your family safe from them.

I mean, it‘s absolutely insane.  The question is, what can we do about it? 

Well, let‘s bring our panel tonight.  We have got Curtis Sliwa.  He‘s the founder of Guardian Angels and a radio talk show host.  Also with us, we have got Sheriff Joe Arpaio.  He‘s from Maricopa County, Arizona.  And also with us on the phone, Democratic Iowa State Senator Eugene Fraise.  He represents the area where the two convicted killers escaped. 

I will tell you what, let me start with you, Curtis. 

It seems to me, again—and you know about all these spending projects, not only in Washington, but Albany and in all these other state capitals across the country.  We have got politicians whining that we have got deficits, they don‘t have enough to keep us safe, and yet they‘re wasting millions and billions of dollars on projects we don‘t need.  What is the problem?  How do Americans fix it? 

CURTIS SLIWA, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST:  Well, number one, they never visit the prisons, unless they happen to be cutting a ribbon on one of those rare new prisons that are developed. 

They don‘t understand what correctional officers have to deal with.  Now the guys are doing 20, 30 years maximum time, no parole, and I‘m in favor of that.  You have got correctional officers who get recognition, no attention, sometimes thrown in a dormitory with 40 of the worst enemies of society imaginable, and all they have is a body alarm.

And by not giving them the recognition and attention and the resources they need and the state of technology that could be used to track these miscreants when they‘re within our midst, you‘re bound to get these breakouts. 

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH:  Why is it happening, Curtis?  You have been following this stuff.  You were riding around the subways of New York when nobody else would, protecting people.  You understand the criminal element.  You have for years.  Your life has been on the line. 

(CROSSTALK)

SLIWA:  Well, because we‘re locking the...

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH:  Go ahead.

SLIWA:  ... felon who needs to be locked up, so that they don‘t come back out on to the street and become a one-man crime wave in a neighborhood.

But because they‘re a hard-core criminal, you have to be on them 24-7, 365.  You have to become their worst nightmare.  And if you don‘t have the resources and you don‘t have the man or woman power to do, they‘re going to slip through the cracks. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Let me bring in Senator Fraise. 

Senator, This happened in your district.  What happened and why is it that Iowa and other states aren‘t spending the money that needs to be spent to keep our prisons and to keep our neighborhoods and to keep our communities safe? 

EUGENE FRAISE (D), IOWA STATE SENATOR:  Well, in our particular situation here, about four years ago, the then director of corrections decided that we could put this taut wire around inside of the facilities.  Anybody that touched that would set off alarm.  That would mean that we had no need for people in the guard towers. 

We didn‘t like that.  We argued with it.  We finally came up with a compromise that, OK, if you have people in the towers when people are out in the yards, that is—we will settle for that for now.  But I have never felt comfortable.  Those facilities were built with those towers for a reason.  And that is security.  And so we have now we don‘t have those towers manned during the nighttime.

And, you know, these people going over the wall, it‘s something you make a movie out of.  They had a grappling hook, a rope, threw it up on the wall, scaled the wall. 

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH:  It‘s unbelievable.

And, Sheriff, let me bring you in here.  Again, obviously, we‘re talking about serious problems when you have budget cuts that don‘t allow you to man these guard towers, but you say the problem even goes beyond that, that we‘re just way too kind to our prisoners inside the prison cells.  Talk about that.

JOE ARPAIO, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, SHERIFF:  Yes, nobody wants to address that situation.

We treat these prisoners like they‘re in a hotel.  We should be punishing, taking away all their privileges.  They take advantage of all these good things that they get in the prison system and take advantage of the corrections, detention officers.  We‘d better start face facing that issue and not keep complaining about a tower. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Sheriff, why don‘t politicians understand that?  Why don‘t Americans understand that? 

ARPAIO:  Well, I don‘t know why.  I have very few escapes.  Maybe they‘re too weak to escape.  My meals are 30 cents a day.  Try to find that in the prisons.  They get steak and everything else.  So, why don‘t we get tough with these inmates? 

SCARBOROUGH:  Curtis, I will ask you that same question. 

Are we being—actually bending over backwards for those prisoners that are inside the prisons, like the sheriff says? 

SLIWA:  Oh, there‘s no question, particularly these guys who have already signaled to us that they will slit your throat without thinking twice.  They‘re doing 20 to life and then we‘re providing them with amenities. 

But you would figure these are the kind of people we don‘t want in our neighborhoods, we don‘t want in our cities, our suburbs, our rural areas.  And yet sometimes we give them the control of certain portions of the jail.  That‘s why you need human beings, with their boots on the ground, well paid, well recognized, well trained, to keep guard on them around the clock. 

As mentioned, why wouldn‘t you have a human being in a guard tower?  Why would you leave it to Robby Robot or some new form of satellite technology to keep track of individuals who spend their whole day in the rec room scheming on how they‘re going to break out or misuse and abuse the system? 

Sheriff Arpaio has seen every trick in the book.  And he gets it down to the basics, watch them 24-7, 365, and make them responsible for every minute that they breathe in the day on taxpayers‘ time. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Sheriff, I want to ask you, because there are a lot of Americans tonight wondering why this keeps happening in states across Middle America and when is this going to happen in their neighborhood or in their community.  What needs to be done?  Let‘s fix this problem right now.

What do politicians in their home state and in Washington, D.C., need to do to protect communities from these jailbreaks? 

ARPAIO:  Well, you know, we‘re having a big issue about torture in prisoners, secret prisons.  And, you know, these prisons are like country clubs anyway.  I‘m not saying we should torture people.  Treat them in a humane manner.

But let‘s face the fact.  They‘re criminals.  They should be treated like criminals and take care of business and protect our officers and back our officers up by working in a tough environment. 

SCARBOROUGH:  I want to look at and have everybody look at the number of prison breaks that have happened just—now, this is just since August.  It‘s happened from Texas to South Carolina to New Jersey, to Michigan, from Georgia to Iowa.  It is a problem that appears to be affecting prisons and neighborhoods all over the country and it‘s happening at a growing rate.

And, Senator, let me bring you back in here.  There‘s actually a FOX TV show that follows—that‘s following a prison break right now.  And I guess there‘s something in the water.  What‘s going on?  What needs to be done not only in Iowa but across the rest of Middle America, again, to protect our citizens? 

FRAISE:  Well, I think we have to, for one thing, realize that we have to have adequate correctional officers to deal with it. 

When you run with—our director of corrections told us at our budget hearing this last year that, I cannot stand one more nickel cut.  I‘m at the brink right now.  And so he said that to us, and we tried to fund him with what money we had.  But once you get into it, we‘re no different than the federal government.  When you do tax cuts and do your drops and you have got to stretch the money out to deal with education, human service stuff and all of those things.

And so we just try to do the best we can with what money we have. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Curtis, final question to you.  What needs to be done?  Send a message out to Americans.  What do they need to tell their politicians in Washington and across the country? 

SLIWA:  Oh, I would say bring that congressional delegation and put them in a dormitory with 40 cons who sleep in their racks overnight and leave them in there by themselves, the way you would a correctional officer, with only a body alarm, no pepper spray, no gun, no nothing to protect themselves, and watch how they come back to Washington, D.C., and the beltway with an entirely different viewpoint of what it‘s like to be a correctional officer and how much tactical air support we have got to give the men and the women in the system, so that they can protect us from the criminals that they guard 24-7. 

SCARBOROUGH:  No doubt about it.  Thank you so much, Curtis.  Greatly appreciate it.   

State Senator Eugene Fraise, thank you.

And, Sheriff, as always, we appreciate you being here. 

And, friends, I just want to tell you this again.  You look at the budget in Washington, D.C.  You look at your state budgets.  I promise you, I have been there.  I have seen it year in and year out.  They waste so much money.  And I, of course, was talking about $100 million bridge to nowhere that serves two or three people in Alaska.  Those projects happen across the country, and they happen because, well, they want to bring money back to their home states. 

At the same time, you have got prison systems that are crumbling.  We don‘t have the people inside the prisons manning them that we need to have in there.  We don‘t have the technology that we need.  And, my gosh, we have these prison towers, prison towers, which really is the last line of defense.  If somebody makes a break for it, you have got eyes, you have got boots on the ground and you have got eyes up there in the tower that can see it. 

But now, because of budget cuts, we‘re bringing our guards down from the towers, and what‘s happening?  It‘s allowing these jailbreaks.  And it‘s a problem.  I promise you, it‘s a problem that is going to continue until our politicians figure it out.  And I think Curtis‘ idea of making them spend a day in prison to see exactly what it has come to is a great place to start. 

Now, when we come back, President Bush is using the Democrats‘ own words to go on the offensive about the war in Iraq.  You‘re not going to want to miss this.

Plus, a soldier‘s letter editor, I would say censored, by “The New York Times,” is it a case of media bias?  We‘re going to get the real deal from the woman, the girlfriend that that soldier was writing to. 

And did secret love turn into a double murder?  The latest on the case of a teen accused of killing his young lover‘s parents.  Was his companion a victim or an accomplice? 

We got a big night in SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY and we‘re just getting started. 

Stay with us. 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCARBOROUGH:  IPods, these portable musical devices are the hottest selling item for your kids and the rest of America.  Unfortunately, bad news for you, friends.  They are going to be filled with porn soon, another problem for parents in Middle America—when SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY returns. 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCARBOROUGH:  President Bush spent the day in Japan, part of his four- nation tour through Asia.  But things remain heated at home. 

Today, Senate Republicans beat back a Democratic attempt to make timetables for U.S. troop pullouts of Iraq a reality, this as the president continues his counteroffensive over prewar intelligence.  Now, twice in recent days, he has ripped into Democrats.  Take a look. 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:  Many of these critics supported my opponent during the last election, who explained his position to support the resolution in the Congress this way: “When I vote to give the president of the United States the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat and a grave threat to our security.”

That is why more than 100 Democrats in the House and the Senate who had access to the same intelligence voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power. 

Yet, some Democrats who voted to authorize the use of force are now rewriting the past.  They‘re playing politics with this issue.  And they are sending mixed signals to our troops and the enemy.  And that‘s irresponsible. 

They spoke the truth then.  And they‘re speaking politics now. 

(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE) 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCARBOROUGH:  With me now, MSNBC political analyst Pat Buchanan. 

Pat, conservatives have been sending me these quotes from Clinton, from Kerry, from Gore, from Hillary Clinton, from everybody, Ted Kennedy, for two years now.  Why is it that George Bush waited almost two years to say what his own people have been begging him to say, that they saw the same intelligence as the president saw before the war; they supported the war based on that intelligence; now they need to shut their mouths about prewar intelligence and WMD?

I mean, all we hear, Pat, is George Bush lied, George Bush.  If he lied, everybody lied, didn‘t they? 

PAT BUCHANAN, NBC POLITICAL ANALYST:  Well, Joe, you have got a very good point. 

Why has the President Bush, or, rather, his men, his surrogates, why haven‘t they been out there beating the daylights out of these Democrats, who are all saying, you know, we were misled, etcetera? 

SCARBOROUGH:  By the way, Pat, we have got to tell everybody—everybody knows—but you were against this war as much as Ted Kennedy or anybody else.  Continue. 

BUCHANAN:  Right. 

But why the president has not had his people out there making this case long before, and they have—letting these Democrats get away with beating him up, to the point where two-thirds of the country wants to get out of Iraq and most of the country believes the president deceived or misled them on the war -- 57 percent think he‘s not honest or trustworthy. 

Why he waited for Veterans Day, I don‘t know.  But I do think—I heard part of his speech today, Joe, not only from you, but on other radio programs.  The president is really coming out tough.  And I will tell you what he‘s doing now, is he‘s saying, look, you guys accused me of deceiving, lying, misleading.  I am accusing you of knowing all the same things, of voting for this war, and now you‘re undercutting the American troops in Iraq, in other words, giving aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war. 

(CROSSTALK)

BUCHANAN:  This is like the Vietnam debate at its roughest.

SCARBOROUGH:  It really is.

And let me read for Americans what Teddy Kennedy said about Saddam Hussein in 2002, “We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”

And let me read to you what Al Gore said about Saddam Hussein.  He said, “We know that he stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”

Let me read what Hillary Clinton said in 2002: “In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, his nuclear program.  He‘s also given aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.  It is clear, however, that, if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare.”

I could go on and on.  John Edwards said the threat was imminent. 

Now, again, I have known this for two years.  You have known it for two years.  I don‘t know what the Bush White House was waiting for.  Were they weak?  Were they slow?  Were they stupid?  Were they clueless? 

BUCHANAN:  I think they were waiting, Joe, for Democrats to do what they are doing basically since Cindy Sheehan‘s August, when the Democrats started turning on the president, saying he misled, he deceived, he lied to us. 

I think they‘re only two months late on that.  Basically, the president was saying, look, as long as these guys are sticking basically with me, I‘m not going after them.  But, for the last two months, he‘s let them beat him to the pulp.  But he has got the Democrats in a position where they‘re going to have to say, look, we were misled, we were deceived, we were brainwashed. 

I mean, what is their defense, to say they were duped and that they got information?  Why didn‘t they question the president thoroughly before giving him the authority to go to war?  I mean, the president has got a powerful case against them.  But I will tell you where they‘re going now, Joe, from today‘s vote. 

They‘re saying, look, the country is out in front of us.  We are going to catch up with them by demanding the president give us a timetable to get out, because that is where America is going.

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH:  That‘s what I was going to ask you, Pat.  Is it too late?  Did the president wait two-and-a-half years too late to get the truth out? 

BUCHANAN:  I think when this—here is what happening, Joe. 

I think he has for his own credibility.  But I will say this.  If those Democrats give a deadline and we go out and that thing goes down and there‘s chaos and civil war, we are going to have a night, a dark night of recriminations over who lost Iraq.  And the president is setting his premise out.  He is saying, you, in effect, are undercutting our boys and you‘re undercutting the war effort.  And, if we lose this war, I‘m going to take it right to you. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Yes.  You know, Pat, I have got a prediction here.  And I will be honest with you.  Every—well, I will just give you my prediction.

And that is, I think we‘re going to stay in Iraq.  I think the president is going to keep us there.  He doesn‘t care how low his poll numbers go.  He believes in this.  He believes it‘s the right war at the right time.  And I think, ultimately, we are going to prevail. 

Do you think I‘m overly optimistic on that front? 

BUCHANAN:  I think you‘re right about the president. 

I think he knows—look, he believes in it.  His presidency is there.  His legacy is there.  But I can tell you this.  In that Republican Party, those guys are up in 2006.

SCARBOROUGH:  They‘re scared, aren‘t they? 

BUCHANAN:  Oh, yes.  A lot of them were moving—look, this resolution the Republicans have is sort of basically, you know, demanding that we have an exit strategy and the president give us the exit strategy, you know, no deadlines for getting out, but we are going out. 

So, I think this is where you‘re going to have the conflict between the Republicans who are at risk in 2006 and the president, who wants to stay the course. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Pat, you talk to conservatives.  You talk to the president‘s base.  They seem to slowly be coming back on board.

But, my gosh, he really is at the low point of his presidency, isn‘t he?  I talk to people that love this guy, that fought for this guy, that worked for this guy for five years, and, gosh, in Washington and so many other places, there seems to be contempt, almost open contempt for him.  Can he turn that around? 

BUCHANAN:  I don‘t know, Joe. 

When you get up to 57 percent that say you‘re not trustworthy and you‘re not honest and they don‘t believe you, and there‘s a feeling that he is really just not competent, I agree with you.  You see contempt is the right word on the part of an awful lot of people.  It‘s going to be very tough to turn around, unless we can see something bright coming out of Iraq. 

I think Iraq is behind it all, because the economy is in pretty good shape.

SCARBOROUGH:  Yes. 

BUCHANAN:  It‘s not—I mean, 2-1 say he‘s doing a bad job on the economy.  But the economy is in pretty good shape.  I think Iraq is draining it all across the board for this president.

SCARBOROUGH:  I think you‘re right, Pat Buchanan.  And I think so much of that is the fact that the president is just not able to sell this war, and there are a lot of great things happening in Iraq.  And if you don‘t believe me, just talk to the men and women with boots on the ground.  They tell you every day they‘re proud of what they‘re doing.  And, for some reason, that message isn‘t getting to Americans. 

Pat, thanks so much, as always, for being with us.  I greatly appreciate it. 

BUCHANAN:  Thank you, Joe. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Coming up, new details in the case of a teenager accused of killing his young lover‘s parents.  The question is, was the homeschooled young girl a victim or was she along for this ride? 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JUDY HAYLES, GRANDMOTHER OF 15-YEAR-OLD BOY:  And had that been a man and a young girl, they would have had him hung already. 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCARBOROUGH:  And the bizarre story of a 37-year-old and her 15-year-old lover, how it turned into marriage and then an arrest.  You‘re not going to believe the details on this one—that and much more when SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY returns. 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCARBOROUGH:  Porn goes portable on your kid‘s iPod.  It‘s the latest, gravest danger for parents in Middle America.  I will tell you about that and much more when SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY returns. 

But, first, here is the latest news you and your family need to know. 

(NEWS BREAK)

SCARBOROUGH:  She married the father of her unborn baby.  She‘s 37. 

He‘s 15.  Now the honeymoon is over and she is locked up behind the bars. 

We have got the latest.

And keeping your tech-savvy kids safe from porn downloaded to their iPod—that and much more coming up.

Welcome back to SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY.  We are going to be talking about those stories in minutes.

But, first, the latest on the shocking double murder out of Pennsylvania.  Indiana state officials have sent accused teen killer David Ludwig back to Pennsylvania. He is facing murder charges for allegedly gunning down his girlfriend Kara Borden‘s parents.  Police say Kara is just a victim right now and is not suspected of being involved at this time. 

But, right now, let‘s bring in former federal prosecutor Mary

Fulginiti and Dr. Drew Pinsky.  He‘s the author of the book “Cracked:

Putting Broken Lives Back Together.”

Mary, let me start with you. 

My gosh, how do you even begin to investigate a case like this?  How do you work with a young woman who has just lost her two parents, but may be a suspect in this case? 

MARY FULGINITI, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR:  Yes. 

You know, it‘s a terribly traumatic situation.  And it‘s always difficult when you have devastating circumstances to have to sit down and then interview whether it be the spouse of the child of somebody that was just murdered.

But they‘re clearly going to need to try to at least sit down and speak with her.  I understand in Indiana that wasn‘t possible because juveniles aren‘t allowed to be interviewed without their parents or guardians present.  And, in this situation, unfortunately, both of them were deceased.

But now she‘s been declared a ward of the state and, presumably, back in Pennsylvania, where there‘s hopefully a different law that applies, which will allow them to sit down and meet with her to try to figure out what happened here. 

SCARBOROUGH:  If you are the prosecutor in this case, how do you figure out what happened?  How do you figure out whether she and her boyfriend worked together to shoot both of her parents in cold blood? 

FULGINITI:  Yes.  You know, that‘s a big leap at this point.  I think you need to first interview her if you can. 

You need to try to determine whether or not this murder was actually a premeditated and deliberate murder or whether we‘re really looking at manslaughter and whether or not she knew he was carrying a gun into the household and all of those sort of facts and circumstances, because she was clearly carrying on a secret relationship with him that was against her parents‘ wishes, which many teenagers do. 

So, that in and of itself is not enough.  But the fact that she did leave with him after the slayings obviously tends—tends you to think, oh, what is she doing?  But whether or not she voluntarily left with him, that was also an extreme circumstance.  She could have left out of fear for her own life.  So, there‘s going to be a lot more fact-digging to figure out actually what her intentions were and what really happened here. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Dr. Drew, when you try to untangle this terrible, terrible tragedy, what do you look at when you‘re looking at children committing these type of acts?  How does something like this happen? 

DR. DREW PINSKY, AUTHOR, “CRACKED”:  Well, it‘s hard to unravel this one.  But, certainly, you want to look at the previous history of the young man.  Does he have behavioral circumstances preexisting?  Is he himself a trauma survivor?  Does he come from abuse, neglect, these sort of things?

Those kinds of kids sometimes will sort of drop into fugue states, in which they emerge in rages and will do things they don‘t even remember doing.  Is this young man using drugs?  Methamphetamine is a drug of violence.  Methamphetamine, as we all know, is a really serious and common drug right now.  Even modest amounts of methamphetamine, crack or—they call it crank or speed.  Modest amounts of that could induce a state where people could easily become violent. 

SCARBOROUGH:  And what about this young woman?  Obviously, again, it was a secret relationship.  Parents looking at the situation obviously horrified that their children may be carrying on a relationship with somebody as dangerous as this young man.  What do you tell parents?  What do they look for?  What are the warning signs? 

PINSKY:  Well, in this case, I can‘t quite unravel this one.  I don‘t understand quite what was going on with this young girl that she would have done this.

But warning signs would be obviously a change in their behavior, a change in their grade, a change in their dress, a change in their hygiene, more secretiveness, lying.  Any of those sort of things, you want to be on the lookout that something is up, whether they‘re doing substances, whether they‘re engaging in secret behaviors.  You really have to be hypervigilant.

And, God knows, it sounds like this young woman was kept at home for the most part.  You have to wonder what was going on at home that she needed so desperately to get away?

SCARBOROUGH:  And that‘s dangerous, sometimes, too, isn‘t it?  Parents sort of—I don‘t want to say squeeze too tight on the children, but keep them in an isolated situation.  That could cause some behavioral problems down the road, couldn‘t it?

(CROSSTALK)

PINSKY:  Absolutely.  There could be a backlash.  The home is not a prison.  And to the extent that it is maintained as such, that is somewhat abusive.  And maybe some parents don‘t understand the distinction.  And maybe this girl was sort of acting out.  We don‘t know.

SCARBOROUGH:  We don‘t know.

PINSKY:  We have no idea.

But this is a horrible, horrible situation.  I‘m sure it will start to make sense as the facts emerge. 

SCARBOROUGH:  And there‘s—yes, and, Dr. Drew, you bring up a great point.  We don‘t know the situation in this case.  We‘re just talking generally.

And, right now, all we can do is talk about all the different possibilities. 

Let‘s bring in right now, though, Contessa Brewer.  She‘s live at the Lancaster County courthouse. 

Contessa, why don‘t you bring us up to date with the very latest in this tragic case?

CONTESSA BREWER, NBC CORRESPONDENT:  Well, Joe, 18-year-old David Ludwig has returned for his arraignment here in Lancaster County.  And he will face that arraignment in the courthouse. 

He‘s facing murder and kidnapping charges.  Kara Borden, his 14-year-old girlfriend, is also returning.  She‘s facing questions about her role in all of this, though police say at this point she‘s still considered a victim.  They still consider the fact that David Ludwig kidnapped her. 

Kara‘s 13-year-old sister says that David Ludwig came to the family home on Sunday morning and he began arguing with Kara‘s parents over the fact that the teens had been out all night before.  And the sister told police that, in fact, he pulled a handgun and shot her father in the head.  She also heard a shot, the shot that apparently killed her mother as well.

And then she heard Ludwig screaming for her sister to leave with him;

600 miles later, across two state lines, after a nationwide Amber Alert, of course, we saw that crash that ended when Indiana State Police caught up with Ludwig and his young girlfriend.  That crash ended the pursuit. 

Now the teens are at the center of this incredible murder investigation, the double murder.  The 14-year-old is facing this crisis parentless.  There should be some decision made here about who to appoint as her guardian.  She does have a 24-year-old brother and a 21-year-old brother.  But right now she‘s considered a ward of the state.  Let‘s talk a little bit about the investigation and where it stands. 

Affidavits show that police have gone into the Ludwig family home.  They found different kinds of shells there from bullets.  They found a large weapons cache.  They found and confiscated a computer, as well as some e-mails that had been going back and forth from David Ludwig to his young girlfriend.  They say that many of those e-mails contain flirtatious and e-mails of sort of a sexual and promiscuous nature. 

They found some pictures as well that were inappropriate that the two children had been sending back and forth to one another.  They‘re trying to get to the bottom of whether David Ludwig had planned these murders and whether Kara Borden knew that he was planning to kill her parents.  That‘s the latest here from the Lancaster County courthouse. 

I‘m Contessa Brewer—Joe. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Hey, thank you so much, Contessa.  I really appreciate that. 

And, Dr. Drew, let me have you respond to that. 

You know, it seems to me that the DNA of just about any relationship, especially for teenagers, can be found on the computer.  This is...

PINSKY:  Yes. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Is this not yet again an example of how if parents know what their children are doing online, then they know what‘s happening in their lives?

PINSKY:  It is so true.  Check your children‘s history.  Install software that blocks inappropriate sites. 

The—to me, the computer is the most dangerous domain in the household right now.  It‘s really interesting.  I always see schools as our partner in taking care of our kids.  And I go to my kids‘ school and I say, how much time should they I.M.ing?  How much time should they be on the computer?  Can we have some guidelines?

They tell us how long to stay on TV, what time they go to bed, what they should eat, what time to be at school.  But the computer, everyone has decided, well, that‘s a personal matter.  It really isn‘t.  We need to come up with some guidelines for this.  And it needs to be highly, highly supervised.  This is just one more example of how dangerous the computer can be for young teenagers. 

SCARBOROUGH:  All right. 

And, Mary, I will ask you, regarding the computer, is that probably where the investigators are going to figure out whether this young woman was responsible for her parents‘ murder or not? 

FULGINITI:  If she was involved, I think e-mails are probably and can be the most damning evidence against any individual, because even if you attempt to delete an e-mail, a computer expert can go in and retrieve it, so—unless they delete it from the hard drive, which most computer users don‘t know how to do. 

So, if there was any discussion, talk, contemplation of this in any way, shape or form, you may just see it on an e-mail.  So...

SCARBOROUGH:  They will find out. 

FULGINITI:  ... it will be interesting to see how the facts unravel. 

SCARBOROUGH:  All right.  Thank you so much, Mary.  Greatly appreciate it. 

And, Dr. Drew Pinsky, as always, we appreciate you being with us tonight. 

Coming up next, family outrage after a 37-year-old woman gets pregnant by a 15-year-old, and then she marries him.  You‘re not going to believe how close this came to being a legal marriage. 

And, parents, beware.  Wait until you see what your kids may be downloading onto their new video iPods.  You talk about problems with computers.  You ain‘t seen nothing yet. 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCARBOROUGH:  Last week, in Gainesville, Georgia, a 15-year-old boy married 37-year-old Lynnette Clark in the driveway of the judge who performed the ceremony.  But Clark is pregnant.  And now she‘s in jail and she‘s in jail on charges of child molestation, while the boy is in a juvenile detention center. 

Let‘s go right now to Valerie Hoff of WXIA in Atlanta for more on the story. 

Valerie, what do you have today? 

VALERIE HOFF, WXIA REPORTER:  Well, Lisa Lynnette Clark is still here in the Hall County Jail.  She‘s not been able to make that $10,000 bail. 

As you said, Joe, she‘s accused of sexually molesting a minor, who is now her husband.  The boy‘s grandmother says that the two had a relationship ongoing for the past year.  When she found out about it last month, the grandmother says, she called police.  And, in the meantime, the two of them ran off and got married. 

Now, that is legal here in Georgia, because there‘s a loophole to the age of consent marriage law that says you have got to be 16.  It says, if the female is 15 -- or the female is pregnant, rather, then you can still get married, even if you are underage.  Of course, the boy‘s grandmother, who is legal guardian, is just furious and wants the book thrown at her new daughter-in-law. 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HAYLES:  I have never heard such sickness in my life.  And had that been a man and a young girl, they would have had him hung already.  That‘s what they ought to do to that skanky thing. 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HOFF:  And, ironically, even though those two are married, police say that once Lynnette does make bond, she will not be permitted to go anywhere near her 15-year-old husband/alleged victim—Joe, back to you. 

SCARBOROUGH:  All right, thank you so much, Valerie.

Greatly appreciate it. 

With me now to talk about the case are former federal prosecutor Mary Fulginiti and psychologist Claire Ciliotta.

Mary, let me go to you first. 

There are actually laws on the books in states across America that allow this sort of thing to happen if the woman is pregnant?  I mean, I can understand why we have a very angry grandmother here. 

(CROSSTALK)

FULGINITI:  Yes, no, I can, too. 

I mean, apparently, in Georgia, obviously, there appears to be that sort of law.  You know, what‘s interesting here is, there‘s really an inconsistency in the law.  On the one hand, it‘s unlawful to have any sexual relations or sexual acts with a minor under 16 years old.  But, on the other hand, it‘s OK to marry one without parental consent if that individual is pregnant or they have a child together. 

So, clearly, the latter seems to condone in some way the sexual acts just by authorizing a marriage license.  So, it is quite unusual here and it will be interesting to see if the defense tries to use it as a viable defense to fight the criminal charges.  I think it might be very difficult, given that the sexual act here occurred prior to the marriage, but there clearly is a loophole in that criminal statute that needs to be tied up. 

SCARBOROUGH:  There is.  And there are loopholes in other state statutes, too. 

But, Mary, you also have a double standard here that the grandmother was talking about.  Let‘s show a picture of this woman again, this 37-year-old, attractive lady who‘s having sex with the 15-year-old kid.  There‘s no doubt if we were showing you right now a picture of a 37-year-old man who was having sex with a 15-year-old girl, the guy would be buried.  He would be thrown in jail. 

There‘s been a double standard here, Mary.  The question is, do you think, with all of these stories, coming one after another, that that double standard may soon disappear and an attractive 37-year-old woman may face as much jail time as a man who did the same thing? 

FULGINITI:  Yes. 

We are seeing it already, Joe.  Look at the woman in Albany who is a schoolteacher, especially in a schoolteacher-student situation.  We‘re seeing women be criminally charged with, you know, statutory rape, actually, and/or child molestation.  So, we are seeing it happen more and more.

Clearly, there‘s more of an outrage, I think, when it‘s a man, you know, an older man, obviously, and a young female, but you‘re seeing obviously women who are adults being charged more and more with these criminal acts.  So, I think the standard is starting to erode somewhat. 

SCARBOROUGH:  And, of course, there‘s a mom in Colorado that, boy, she had the book thrown at her by a judge, going to be spending up to 30 years in jail because of sexual acts she had with her son‘s friends. 

Doctor, let me bring you in here and ask you the question that a lot of people ask in these cases.  If a 15-year-old girl is molested by a 37-year-old, raped by a 37-year-old man, it‘s a tragedy.  If it happens to a boy, then a lot of people laugh and say, gosh, that guy sure was lucky. 

I mean, that‘s not the case, though, is it?  It‘s damaging for young men, as well as young women, right? 

CLAIRE CILIOTTA, PSYCHOLOGIST:  Absolutely. 

There‘s no question, though, that there is a power differential here and that one would need one—I have no information on this woman‘s background, but often in these cases, these women have experienced not good relationships with older men when they were younger.

And so they choose, they select soft, young men that they can control. 

This is not about love at all. 

SCARBOROUGH:  It‘s just about control and power, because, again, you say that they may have been abused themselves when they were younger women? 

7

CILIOTTA:  Yes.  Yes, control, power and the need to feel loved and in control.

And the fact that she got pregnant as well furthers that hypothesis, because, of course, when she has the baby, the baby will love her and not leave her either. 

SCARBOROUGH:  OK, thank you so much, Doctor. 

Thank you, Mary Fulginiti.  As always, we appreciate it. 

Now, coming up next, the new iPod comes with a video screen.  And that sounds great for tech dorks like myself.  But porn producers have already swooped in.  And the dirty downloads are big sellers.  The question is, what can you do to protect your tech-savvy kids from this new scourge of high technology? 

That and much more when SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY continues. 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCARBOROUGH:  It‘s the new apple of the porn industry‘s eye.  Video iPod is seen as a new avenue for big bucks.  How big is porn on the go?  Well, one sex-related show is downloaded on Apple‘s iTunes more often than a movie review show hosted by Ebert and Roeper.  And porn‘s big rise has parents scrambling to protect their kids. 

With me now to talk about the hot topic, we have agent and producer David Hans Schmidt.  And we have Bob Peters of Morality in the Media. 

David, let me start with you. 

This is for purveyors of porn.  All right, we‘re talking about iPods, but also, my gosh, cell phones also provide an incredible new market for the porn industry, don‘t they? 

DAVID HANS SCHMIDT, CELEBRITY PORNOGRAPHY BROKER:  Well, they do, Joe. 

I had to hustle down here and make this.  I was at Christopher‘s Restaurant and Brasserie in the Biltmore in Phoenix.  So, if you get here, best French food in town. 

Anyway, bottom line, Joe, straight up here today, why pick on iPod?  There were no leaders in the industry.  This is a technological disingenuous ploy on behalf of this so-called Morality in the Media company, with my opposition here on this...

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH:  Well, it‘s cell phones, too, also. 

HANS SCHMIDT:  Well, yes.

SCARBOROUGH:  You are going to have people downloading porn on cell phones around the clock. 

HANS SCHMIDT:  Joe, you have got—the capability to get this on cell phones now, on laptops, computers, iPods, BlackBerrys, etcetera, is ad infinitum.  And you can not get away from it.

SCARBOROUGH:  So, if you‘re a parent, all of a sudden, just watching your kid on the computer ain‘t going to do anything.  They‘re going to be able to take porn with them, download porn wherever they go. 

HANS SCHMIDT:  Joe, I got two daughters here in town.  One is at Xavier Catholic girls school.  Now, she can pull it off of her laptop or on her cell phone as soon as she gets out of class.  There‘s no way to stop this stuff.

And to do so is a bastardization of the First Amendment.  It‘s censorship in its purest form.  And for this company to step up here today and to say that just iPod is the guilt monger here in this situation is not only disingenuous, but it‘s a moot technical point.  Thank you. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Bob Peters, the genie is out of the bottle, isn‘t it? 

There‘s nothing you can do about it now.

BOB PETERS, PRESIDENT, MORALITY IN MEDIA:  I don‘t think that‘s true, particularly whether we‘re talking about iPods, cell phones.

Two types of law certainly should apply.  First of all would be the adult obscenity laws, which I think the Justice Department is moving forward with enforcing those laws.  Secondly, I suspect we might need an amendment to existing laws, would be to restrict children‘s access to at least obscene for minors material and/or indecent material by means of cell phones or iPods. 

(CROSSTALK)

PETERS:  There‘s still going to be pornography around, but... 

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH:  David says that‘s a First Amendment violation. 

HANS SCHMIDT:  Joe, those laws are already in place, OK?

It‘s against the law.  When you hit a down—when you hit my Web site, which is hansnews.com, OK, when you get on my Web site, like any other porn site, it says on there, if you‘re 18, you can‘t visit this site.  That‘s the only disclaimer that we can run.  If a kid is going to violate that, there‘s nothing we can do about it. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Bob, what do you say to that? 

PETERS:  Well, I tell you, there are a lot of different ways for age verification. 

We may need a new law that puts some requirements on credit card companies, so that when somebody gets a credit card and it‘s held by a minor, that‘s going to show up.  But there are age verification companies.  Now, will they keep all of the kids away?  No.  But they probably keep 90 percent of the companies away.  But, of course, if they have age verification, that will cut down on some of the traffic with adults and children. 

The pornographers don‘t want to lose a dollar.  So, they say, oh, you have to be 18 or over to enter this site.  And all the kid has got to do is press the button and he or she is on the site without restriction.  That‘s ridiculous.

SCARBOROUGH:  David, final word. 

PETERS:  Well, you can‘t do that, though.  Like I said, again, it‘s a moot point, because you can‘t censor someone‘s age when they‘re being interviewed over a computer.  What is the computer analogue going to do?  Is it going to sit here and objectify somebody being 18 or 17?  It‘s an impossibility, Joe. 

SCARBOROUGH:  All right, thank you so much, David Hans Schmidt.

And, thank you, Bob Peters. We appreciate it.  This debate will be continued and we will invite you back for that. 

Now, we are going to be back in a second, so stay with us. 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCARBOROUGH:  Happy birthday to Harriet the tortoise. 

She turned 175 years young today.  And, my, how she‘s seen the world change.  When she was 13, Samuel Morse patented the telegraph.  The United States annexed California when Harriet was 15.  And, in 1865, Abraham Lincoln was shot when she was 34.  And now she‘s lived to see the Red Sox and the White Sox win a World Series.  Remarkable stuff. 

Well, that‘s all the time we have for tonight. 

“HARDBALL WITH CHRIS MATTHEWS” is next.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

Watch Scarborough Country each weeknight at 10 p.m. ET

Discuss:

Discussion comments

,