About book Ultimate Punishment: A Lawyer's Reflections On Dealing With The Death Penalty (2004)
I am on the thin book rampage, a revolution against thick books. I have these thin books. Why shouldn’t I read them? This particular is not only thin (164 pages) but is a spin off from my last book that was also about the death penalty, A Saint on Death Row. That one left me feeling a little flat so I am hoping Scott Turow’s Ultimate Punishment will perk me up.When I start a new book I very often read several GR reviews just to get a lay of the land. And sometimes I need help to get it. In reading reviews for this book, some people think that Turow did what few succeed at, that is giving a balanced and thoughtful assessment of the pros and cons of capital punishment. All I can say is, thank goodness he ultimately came down on the correct side of the issue: capital punishment should be abolished in the U.S. Now I can relax and read the book without fear that one of my long term beliefs, opposition to capital punishment, is going to suffer a setback. However, some points of view in the book helped me understand why some support the death penalty.As many of the other GR reviews suggest, this book is well thought out and well written. This is the non-fiction side of Scott Terow. He certainly comes across as thorough and incisive. He fits a lot of thinking into a short book. Some of his inside stories of the workings (and non-workings) of the legal system made me question the ethics of this field. But, sadly, that didn’t surprise me. He calmly observes that corruption is part of the political landscape in his state of Illinois.This is a summary of what happened in Illinois: Jan 31, 2000 ... CHICAGO -- Governor George H. Ryan today declared a moratorium on executions of any more Illinois Death Row inmates.On May 4th, 2000 Illinois Governor George Ryan created the Commission to study Illinois' Capital Punishment law.Jan 12, 2003 ... Condemning the capital punishment system as fundamentally flawed and unfair, Gov. George Ryan commuted all Illinois death sentences .Mar 9, 2011 ... George Ryan and makes Illinois the 16th state to end the death penalty. There are 38 pages of detailed Notes at the end of the book that are offered by the author with this caveat: This book is a personal reflection, informed more by experience than study, and, as such, is not to be mistaken for a work of scholarship. The following notes are offered solely for the curious, to substantiate the many assertions of fact in the text. When this book was published in 2003, Scott Turow reported that a majority of people in the U.S. supported the death penalty. Now it is ten years later. May 2, 2013 ... WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Maryland became the 18th U.S. state to abolish the death penalty on Thursday when Governor Martin O'Malley signed a bill outlawing capital punishment in the state.Five other states - Connecticut, Illinois, New Mexico, New York and New Jersey - have repealed capital punishment since 2007, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. The number of U.S. executions has fallen from a peak of 98 in 1999 to 43 each in 2011 and 2012, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. The pace has slowed even more in 2013, with 10 so far this year.Texas has by far the highest number of executions since the U.S. Supreme Court restored the death penalty in 1976, at 496, according to the center. It is trailed by Virginia at 110.Dieter said the death penalty had fallen out of favor largely because lawmakers and the public more and more feared that innocent people could be executed. He noted that lengthy legal appeals made it an expensive proposition. Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/0...Goodreads was founded in December 2006. Ultimate Punishment was published in 2003. As a result there are only 280 GR ratings suggesting that by 2007 this book had lost whatever immediate post publication popularity it had. It has not been a book with an extended life. Two-thirds of the GR raters gave it four or five stars. Reversible Errors , a fiction book by Turow about the death penalty, was also published in 2003. It has nearly 2100 GR ratings. It is interesting that Turow was working on this novel while he was serving on the Illinois Governor’s Commission on the death penalty. Turow withheld publication of Reversible Errors because the proceedings of the Commission were not public until its final recommendations were made in 2002. The Commission proceedings and the writing of the book overlapped and Turow “was convinced that the two enterprises did not intersect.” He later acknowledged “I think I was settling some insights that would contribute to my ultimate conclusions” on the Commission. How could he say with a straight face that the book and the Commission did not intersect? I guess maybe it turns out that he is just a crafty lawyer. He can’t help it!Can you have a spoiler in a non-fiction book? Turow says, “Eventually, I expect the Court to conclude the capital punishment and the promise of the process of law are incompatible.” He was part of the slim majority on the Commission, when informally polled, thought that the death penalty should be abolished In Illinois.I like Scott Turow even if he is a lawyer. He wrote a good book and I am going to give it four stars. It is ten years old and therefore somewhat dated but the main debate points still apply and Turow tried to balance the scales of justice, something you don’t see that often on controversial topics. If you agree with Turow that the death penalty should be abolished, you should know that more people are thinking that too. You might enjoy reading this book.
A strangely insubstantial, wafer-thin book, as though any real sentiment the author might have possessed was washed down with a pressure hose. The death penalty isn't a topic I would consider to inspire apathy, and the author indeed indicates that he shares this opinion. I'm not all that clear on why, then, this text is so subdued. I'm not necessarily looking for a diatribe, and I certainly believe in the wisdom of acknowledging the nuances and facets of a debate like this. I also appreciate the candor involved in admitting that you share opinions with the opponents of your position. But this text doesn't really seem to acknowledge so much as flutter blithely from one contradictory position to the next as the wind takes it, all the while never concretely finding a foothold. Effectively, it's a glorified pros and cons list predicated almost entirely on the author's emotions with no legitimate reference to criminological research or consensus. I applaud giving reasoned take on an issue, but this book seems to mistake a complete lack of passion for making a thoughtful and pensive argument. The points that Turow makes in support of either position are not especially substantial, and cannot carry the weight of the page length, even despite its brevity. If you're going to author such a short text, then you need to make those words count. Turow doesn't. Instead, he spends far more time fussing about the personal ideology and demeanor of a politician who appointed him to a committee to discuss the issue, and making half-baked references to two defendants he's represented in cases where capital punishment was on the table without really delving into the implications of his experiences with any conviction. Just weirdly flimsy, perfunctory, and impalpable. As a last thought, this text is one that really could only have been written, and find any purchase in the US. This debate is almost entirely a uniquely American one; no other western liberal democratic state carries out capital punishment, or seems to struggle with this issue. This text is very much a product of the society in which it was written, which probably accounts for many of the problems I had with it.
Do You like book Ultimate Punishment: A Lawyer's Reflections On Dealing With The Death Penalty (2004)?
Scott Turow was part of a committee appointed by then-Illinois governor George Ryan to examine capital punishment and how it can be improved, or if should be abolished altogether. Ultimate Punishment is Turow’s experience on this panel, which spent 2 years investigating capital punishment, coupled with his other experiences as a lawyer. Luckily, Turow is not just another extremist advocating only one side. He approaches the issue by carefully examining the consequences of having a death penalty and the reasons for its existence. He seems to sympathize with the idea that governments should not be allowed to kill its citizens. However, he also recognizes that in extreme cases, like John Wayne Gacy or Henry Brisbon, capital punishment can be justified. Turow’s most compelling points come from a legal standpoint. For one thing, there seems to be no relevancy between sentences. How can one man who committed grisly, pre-meditated murders get a life sentence when another man who shot a store clerk gets the death penalty? Additionally, the number of death sentences that have been overturned due to new evidence proving a convict’s innocence is quite astounding. Defendants on trial for their life have often been underrepresented or misrepresented by state appointed lawyers. In several cases, convictions were based on the testimony of only one eyewitness. In other cases, convictions were based on confessions that were given under torture by law enforcement. Turow looks at the issue from different angles, and in each case reviews it with succinct analysis. Some readers may wish for more data or sociological analysis, and in that case this book may be more of a starting point for understanding this complex issue. As for myself, I felt that Turow presented the facts quite clearly, and his hesitation to land firmly on either side leads me to believe that he is a reasonable person. His years of research on the matter were quite interesting, and there is a lot to learn from his experience. I listened to the audio book version, narrated by Scott Turow. My only complaint is that his voice is so flat and monotonous that it took a lot of concentration not to drift away while listening.
—Paul Eckert
Before Scott Turow was a best selling mystery author he was, and remains, a practicing attorney. He has been a federal prosecutor and a defense attorney, and has first hand experience on both sides of the death penalty issue. In 2000, then Governor George Ryan declared a moratorium on the death penalty after 13 defendants had been cleared using DNA evidence. He then called a commission to study the death penalty system, and make recommendations for fixing the many, many problems. The commission consisted of 12 men and women; attorneys from both sides, judges, and some lay people, and a variety of religious beliefs and races. Turow was one of the members, and this book is a result of that commission, and his personal struggle with the death penalty. Point by point, he discusses all the pro and con talking points, using his experiences and well known Illinois cases as examples. This book should be required reading for anyone working in the various aspects of the legal system. Very well written, thoroughly thought out, and very personal. We do not often get truly good books that deal with ethical questions so personally.
—Kristy Miller
This is an excellent collection of concise essays about various issues related to capital punishment, such as police investigations of heinous crimes, housing dangerous killers in prison, the burden of victims' families, the legislative process that produces death penalty laws, and the author's service on the Illinois death penalty commission. Mr. Turow incorporates into several essays his experience as a federal prosecutor and defense attorney in capital cases. Many of the essays present arguments for and against executions neutrally and even-handedly. Although Turow arrives at his own conclusions, his judgments have a strong basis in facts, logical analysis, and experience. The death penalty ceased to be an abstraction for me when a friend died violently and her killer received a death sentence. This issue evokes such strong emotions and opinions that I wish people who have no direct experience of capital crimes but feel strongly about the death penalty - for or against - would take a few hours to read the reflections Scott Turow has to offer.
—Stephen
