Ultimate Punishment: A Lawyer's Reflections on Dealing with the Death Penalty

Scott Turow was one of 14 members of a Commission named by the then Governor of Illinois, George Ryan to study and make recommendations on the state's death penalty law. This book is a result of that study. Turow discusses the usual arguments for and against this ultimate penalty. Some of his findings conclusions are expected; others were surprising, at least to me. The usual conclusions are here-- the vast majority of individuals convicted of crimes are guilty. Whether you get the death penalty or not depends on where you live. You are much more likely to get the death penalty in rural areas than in large urban areas. To quote Turow, other factors are ". . . race, gender, geography, who the lawyers and jurors are, and the sheer serendipity of circumstances. . ." Some people are guilty of the crime of having the wrong defense lawyers, and, of course, of being poor. Turow discusses the case of Chris Thomas, a death row inmate, who had been defended by two private attorneys under contract with the local public defender's office that paid them $30,000 per year to defend 103 cases, one of which had to be a capital case. The two attorneys worked together on Thomas' case. One of them had never had any role in a death penalty case; the other had been standby counsel for a defendant, already under a death sentence in Ohio, who had represented himself. The attorneys therefore mounted a six hundred dollar defense for their client. I had always thought that black people are more likely to get the death penalty than whites. Not so, according to Turow; black people just get convicted more. In Illinois 70% of all persons convicted and sentence for first-degree murder are black; their victims have been 60% black. Once convicted, however, white murderers are sentenced to death at a rate two and one half times that for black murderers. Turow's conclusion is that white people tend to kill other whites and that "choosing a white victim--turns out to be the controlling variable." Turow also points out though that because wealth, power and status for the most part still is in the hands of white people, that race of course is a factor.Some of Turow's chapters are "Convicting the Innocent","Bad Faith", "The Victims","Deterrence", "Redemption", "Will They Murder Again." I was blown away to learn that some death penalty advocates can live with the notion of occasionally executing the innocent and make the comparison of childhood inoculations and driving an automobile. The overall good outweighs the risks. Turow disagrees with this logic, saying that the prospect of executing someone who is "blameless cases a special pall over the death penalty." Turow discusses with great compassion the plight of victims' families and loved ones. "What made the deepest impression on me was my eventual recognition that losing a loved one to a murder is unlike any other blow delivered in our often-cruel lives." He concludes, however, that the expressed desires of survivors should not be permitted in deciding who gets the death penalty.Turow, who described himself as a "death penalty agnostic" when he began this study ultimately became a believer against the death penalty although he respects the judgment of the greater number of U. S. citizens who believe the death penalty should be given for the most horrific of crimes. Turow's conversion certainly came not for religious reasons. Unlike Sister Helen Prejean, he maintains if his job called for it, he could "push the botton" if the crime were heinous enough. Even though Turow comes down ultimately against the death penalty, he says "I admit I am still attracted to a death penalty that would be available for the crimes of unimaginable dimensions. . . The pivotal question. . . is whether a system of justice can be constructed that reaches over the rare, right cases, without also occasionally condemning the innocent or the undeserving." It is Turow's belief that the answer to that question is "no."As you would expect from someone who is also a novelist, Turow writes with a great deal of flair in this insightful, well-reasoned book. Whether it will change anyone's opinion, who's to say? Everybody has opinions on abortion, gun control, gay marriage, the death penalty, etc. although people cannot express any logical reason their their views. Regardless of whether this book changes the way you think about the death penalty, you will come away from it better informed and should have an opinion you can back up with facts.

This definitely proves that author Scott Turow's resume is even more impressive than I first realized. It's a true account of the man's work on a commission appointed by then Illinois Governor George Ryan to study the state's capital punishment system and recommend changes to fix its problems. With over two hundred capital convictions, twelve executions, and thirteen exonerations since 1976, things certainly needed to be looked at. For your reference, this commission was appointed in 1999. Not far into the book, you'll notice what looks like Turow flip-flopping a lot when it comes to his feelings about capital punishment. That's not entirely the case. While his feelings are definitely there, it goes far beyond that. Turow explores the feelings about capital punishment from various points such as deterrence, victims' rights and feelings, the race and financial status of the condemned, nature of the crimes, etc. He includes accounts of his work on the capital appeals of Alejandro Hernandez and Christopher Turner, one of whom was ultimately exonerated while the other, having been sentenced under Illinois's "felony murder" statute, a broad piece of legislation that allows prosecutors a number of opportunities to seek a death sentence for murders that might otherwise not qualify, had his sentenced reduced to 120 years in prison. He also discusses meeting Henry Brisbon, one of the state's most despised killers whose acts rival those of Richard Speck and John Wayne Gacy, in the supermax prison where the man was being housed at the time. I praise Turow for not only doing things like these before, during, and after his work on the commission, but also for using these events to offer us these greatly varying viewpoints on a system that's clearly broken but where no one truly knows what repairs need to be done. During his work on the commission, one of Turow's colleagues, a hardened opponent to capital punishment who knew that total abolishment would and could not be accomplished by that particular group, nevertheless put forth the question of whether or not the practice should be quashed altogether. Turow, like all the others, voted on this, though that vote never made it into their later recommendations to Governor Ryan. To know and understand what Turow's vote was, you have to read the book all the way through to the end...to the very last word. Enjoy.

Having been a human rights 'activist' for some time, while holding specific views on crime and punishment, I was intrigued when I saw Scott Turow's book and bought it on impulse. I thought it would be a book weighing up the ethical rights and wrongs of capital punishment, almost from a religious perspective, and I was interested to see another point of view. I'm always on the lookout for alternative points of view on many subjects (how else do you grow and understand?) and this was another opportunity. However, as I quickly realised, the book, sub-titled "A lawyer's reflections on dealing with the death penalty" did not go down the spiritual route. Turow, a very experienced prosecuting and defending lawyer, was selected in 2000 to be part of a commission set up to determine what reforms, if any, would ensure that the Illinois capital punishment system is fair, just and accurate. Turow uses the book to skilfully look at some case examples and outline the thinking and research of the commission, as well as their findings. The main point is really that cases which appear to be black and white, even with confessions from the accused in some instances, turn out to be unsound and in need of deeper investigation. Turow exposes some myths - for example the idea that it's cheaper to execute someone than keep them in prison for life - and puts forward some very interesting and thought provoking views. It's interesting to note that he's not against capital punishment, but wants to be absolutely certain that the accused is guilty beyond doubt, something that can be difficult to achieve. My only criticism, and it's the reason I never awarded five stars, is because he lapses into a spot of jargon now and again, and UK readers don't always understand US terminology. However, this was a minor point - overall a very interesting and thought provoking book.

Thought provoking, as it sets out to be, and a useful record of this time of reform, and its undoubtedly civilizing effects.

Although somewhat naive to state at the beginning that the justice system could not be wrong, a view that he came to change. It is a book that provokes some thought.

lu d'autres livres plus convainquant sur la peine de mort, celui-ci est un peu superficiel, il est donc étrange qu'il soit recommandé par un universitaire.