Today The DAILY LEADER concludes a special question-and-answerseries with candidates in some of the county’s top races in theNov. 4 general election. Today’s race is House of Representatives,District 53. Both candidates participated.

During a special legislative session in 2002, lawmakersenacted tort reform measures in an effort to improve the state’slegal climate and its reputation for “jackpot justice.” Many nowsay the legislation is not strong enough. What, if anything, wouldyou do to strengthen tort reform?

Richard Baker: First of all I would neversupport limiting actual damages or losses. Nobody wants to limitthe truly injured from being compensated and sometimes people andcompanies should be sued, but our state’s legal climate has gottenout of hand.

Last year’s special session did improve our legal climate. Ibelieve though, that more does need to be done in certain areas.During the special session, more reforms were made in the medicalmalpractice area. I believe that caps should be placed onnon-economic damages for all businesses just as they were forphysicians. I would, however, support a provision that would allowpunitive damages to be increased if it can be proven that a partyintentionally or maliciously injured another. I believe in asimplified joint and several statute that forces parties foundpartially responsible to pay only their proportionate share of theaward. I also would support a system that forces the losing partyin civil litigation to pay the costs of the winning party.

Bobby Moak: There’s always room forimprovement. We’ve done some good work. I spent months on thespecial committee on tort reform.

I do believe we need a special screening committee, set up bystatute, to help protect our doctors and hospitals from frivolouslawsuits.

The state’s “truth in sentencing” law requires allinmates to serve at least 85 percent of their sentence beforebecoming eligible for parole. Since its enactment in 1994, thebudget for operating the state’s prison system has more thandoubled. Prison Commissioner Christopher Epps recently urged thelegislature to revise the “truth in sentencing” law so it would notapply to first-time or non-violent offenders. Do you agree? Why orwhy not?

Richard Baker: Our state just passedlegislation creating a statewide “drug” court modeled after the oneinstituted here by Judge Keith Starrett. With approximately 80percent of all crimes drug-related, we have just taken a major stepto helping first-time non-violent offenders to be in a strictdisciplined setting with weekly meetings, drug counseling, regulardrug testing and automatic incarceration if they do not abide bythe rules. This keeps them out of prison, allows them to work (theymust work to stay in drug court), and also allows them to providefor their families which also saves the state money. We need timeto see if this program will help reduce our state’s prisonspending. I think this is a great way to give people a secondchance and to minimize the cost to the state.

Effective use of other options like RID (Regimented InmateDiscipline) programs (a boot camp style program) and House Arrestcan also reduce our state’s prison population but also hold peopleaccountable for their crimes.

If none of these alternatives are effective with a particularinmate, or if they are second-time or violent offenders, then theyshould be sentenced per existing state guidelines.

Bobby Moak: No, I don’t believe the law shouldbe changed. The 85 percent rule was enacted because the publicwanted to ensure criminals were not walking our streets — thatthey served time for the acts they committed. The local judges weelect can evaluate these cases. Our judges determine sentences withthe full knowledge of the 85 percent rule and we don’t need to tiethe hands of our elected judiciary.