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

Rating:
Summary: What About the Commission?
Review: Before proffering a review for a book like "Ultimate Punishment" it is advisable for the reviewer to let the reader know where he stands on the issue covered in the book. Before reading this book I was firmly against capital punishment. It is no surprise that Scott Turow's book did not shake me from that position since he himself, in the final analysis, comes down on my side of the issue albeit likely for a different reason than I.

"Ultimate Punishment: A Lawyer's Reflections on Dealing with the Death Penalty" essentially resulted from Turow's work on the Illinois Governor's Commission on Capital Punishment. The commission was formed in 2000 by then Illinois governor George Ryan to investigate that state's capital punishment system and to recommend changes that would prevent the system from condemning "innocents".

The need for this commission was plain to most, especially the governor, as Illinois had a troubling history of death row inmates being vindicated, some having nearly exhausted all appeals when DNA evidence or the recantation of eye witnesses or the uncovering of prosecutorial misconduct either completely exonerated the accused or at least brought their guilt back within a reasonable doubt. Of course, this is not just an Illinoisan problem. As Turow points out, as of May 2003, the Death Penalty Information Center states that 108 people condemned to death have been exonerated in America since the reinstitution of capital punishment in 1976.

That being stated, I had expected this work would be a memoir of the commission's work. This is not what Turow has given here. What he has done instead is to give a few pros and cons of capital punishment and then sets down to refute them by discussing cases that he has been involved in or that have been given much publicity in Illinois. What results is an amorphous hodgepodge that reminds me of cotton candy: when you look at it there seems to be a lot there but when you bite into it, it just disappears in your mouth.

I stated before, while Turow and I seem now to be on the same side of this issue, we likely are there for differing reasons. He appears to decide on abolition simply because the system is too prone to error. He believes that you can never fashion a system that is foolproof and that will only execute the deserving. The one man he seems to feel is the poster-boy for the deserving is John Wayne Gacy. As for myself, I don't believe that any government should have the power of death over its citizens.

If you are interested in Scott Turow's personal views on the death penalty and his self-professed pinball-like journey from one side to the other, then "Ultimate Punishment" is for you. If you are looking for an account of the work of the Illinois Governor's Commission on Capital Punishment, then keep looking.

Rating:
Summary: Possibly the most impartial book on the subject
Review: Calling himself a "death penalty agnostic," Turow takes a moderate position on the death penalty. It's a refreshing read inspired by Turow's participation in the post-moratorium, Illinois death penalty commission. Turow lays out an analysis of some very important considerations. While he never really takes a position, he examines the issues from all angles, from a very good discussion of victim rights to a very good discussion of alternate incapacitation of criminals. He candidly admits that this is a book based on his experiences and not necessarily on scholarly study. Overall, I would recommend the book to anyone interested in the topic, with the caveat that you don't limit your reading on the topic to this book.
As far as Turow goes, I'm not even a big fan of his non-fiction work.
Happy Reading

Rating:
Summary: Great Reckoning on Ultimate Penalty
Review: Famous novelist Scott Turow, an attorney by training, wrote a very sensitive, honest and well-thought out book on capital punishment. As a member of Illinois Capital Punishment Commission he had ample opportunity to think about the pro's and con's of the issue.

His bottom line is this: there are indeed those cases (mostly in the cases of pathological serial killers) that might warrant the death penalty. However, there are so many cases of capital punishment dished out erronously or delivered to those defendants too poor to hire top-notch legal representation, that it does more harm than good in the name of justice.

The pivotal question, as he puts it, "is whether a system of justice can be constructed that reaches only the rare, right cases, without also occasionally condemning the innocent or the undeserving." Capital punishment, in Turow's judgement, does not satify these conditions.

He supports his argument by giving appropriate examples like the case of Chris Thomas who is "condemned to die because he is poor and belligerent, while the likes of the Menendez brothers, who shotgunned their parents for their millions, or the Unabomber ... get life."

Only 115 pages but a very good and seminal read. Highly recommended.

Rating:
Summary: Some Florida Death Row History:
Review: First an introduction: From 1986 - 1992 I was employed as an investigator at the Office of Capital Collateral Representative (CCR) in Tallahassee, Florida, where Scharlette Holdman worked as the supervisor of the investigators from October 1985 - March 1988.

I have known Scharlette since the mid-1970s death penalty debates at Florida State University, including the debate between Professor Richard L. Rubenstein (author of "After Auschwitz", "My Brother Paul", "The Cunning of History: Mass Death and the American Future", "The Age of Triage", "Religion and Eros", and other books) vs. Baptist Minister and Philosopher Will Campbell (the debate was circa 1977).

Her office, the Clearinghouse on Criminal Justice, was in the same wing of the Petroleum Building as my office at Common Cause in Florida (where I was a full-time volunteer during the day and worked at the Brown Derby Restaurant at night from 1981 - 1986).

The Petroluem Building was next to the State Capital, the Florida Supreme Court and the State Archives and Library. When it was torn down, the space and the space for the first CCR office became the Mary Brogan Art and Science Museum and a storm water retaining pond. The Petroleum Building was called by those of us who worked or volunteered there the "Forces of Good" (FOG) Building -- as opposed to FOE -- Forces of Evil, such as Associated Industries, the Chamber and other big business interests in Florida. The FOG building also included (not an exhaustive list) the Clean Water Action Project, the ACLU, NOW, Florida Legal Services, Migrant Farmworker's Organization (directed by Cliff Thaell, who has more recently been a Leon County Commissioner for about ten years or more), Mike Vasilinda's television news service.

About every two years at CCR there was a Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist-Maoist purge due to the pressures and dysfunctions of the work and the people. I survived two such purges. With the third, I was the first to go in the spring and summer of 1992.

When Scharlette had essentially declared war upon CCR in 1987 and thereafter, some of us decided to investigate her background given some things that we had heard. Low and behold, Scharlette's claim of a PhD in anthropology from the University of Hawaii and a Master's Degree from (if my memory serves me correctly) the University of Birmingham don't exist.

We used Scharlette's Social Security number, her maiden name and her married name -- with all this information, both universities had no record of Scharlette having received any degrees from these institutions.

As I understand Scharlette, she needed the "degrees" to confer upon her "credentials" that she really never needed as she is indeed then and now a national expert on capital mitigation, litigation, etc. However Scharlette can be deceptive, as her lack of a PhD and Masters so demonstrates. Even today she claims to have the degrees as when she gives presentations regarding capital cases, she is identified as "Dr." A key word search of her name will bring up some of the presentations that she has made in the past several years with the title "Dr." preceding her name.

If she has received any honorary or other degrees since 1990, that would be new information for me. If anyone can assist in this matter, please contact me at [e-mail] or my mailing address: P.O. Box 38458, Tallahassee, FL 32315-8458. Thank you.

Rating:
Summary: Re: Florida cases: Roy Swafford and Peter Ventura:
Review: For those interested in reading the four to three vote Florida Supreme Court opinions regarding two more death sentenced persons whose innocence is an authentic issue, please go to www.flcourts.org, then go to "Opinions and Rules", then chose the correct year and scroll down to the following two cases:

Roy Swafford: April 18, 2002 Case No. 92.173

Peter Ventura: May 24, 2001 Case No. 93.839

These two cases are findable under "Court Orders: Case Disposition Orders" and "Briefs in Other Cases" sections of the "Press Page":

Roy Swafford: March 26, 2004 Case Nos. 03.931 and 03.1153

Rating:
Summary: Governor Ryan's unprecedented commutation death row inmates
Review: Heard ULTIMATE PUNISHMENT, written and read by novelist Scott
Turow . . . it is a sobering, nonfiction account of Turow's service on the Illinois commission that investigated the administration of the death penalty and influenced Governor George Ryan's unprecedented commutation of the sentences of 164 death row inmates on his last day in office.

I remember in 2003 when I read about the above how I wondered,
"What gives?" . . . although not a strong supporter of the death
penalty (then), I still believed that it did serve a useful purpose in certain instances--and it was a definite deterrent to future crimes of a heinous nature.

Now, after reading Turow's latest effort, I'm not at all sure . . . I've become convinced that there are serious flaws in the criminal justice system . . . furthermore, I realize now that too many innocent people have been wrongly convicted of murder with race or lack of income often being the only reason this happens.

The author provides many examples, supporting his analysis
of the issue . . . this one really struck home: [Chris Thomas is]
"condemned to die because he is poor and belligerent, while
the likes of the Menendez brothers, who shotgunned their
parents for their millions, or the Unabomber . . . get life."

Rating:
Summary: REQUIRED READING
Review: I am not the type to offer a verbose review. Suffice it to say that this is an exceptional work of non-fiction that offers arguably the most balanced view to date of the U.S. system of capital punishment. I am a reformed death penalty proponent who went through a period of Turow-esque "agnosticism" before settling firmly on the side of opposition. I am no longer ambivalent. The death penalty should be abolished--period. Though Turow's book had no effect on my change, it did help solidify my current stance. This book should be required reading in any course of study dealing with the criminal justice system, and I do plan to use it in the future in the college criminal justice courses that I teach, along with Scheck, Neufeld, and Dwyer's "Actual Innocence." Perhaps the powers that be will eventually wake up and smell the stench of injustice . . . but I'm not holding my breath. . . .

Rating:
Summary: I LOVED this book
Review: I graduated from Law School 20 years ago and my vexing struggle with the death penalty is a real now as it was then. This is an incredible book that weighs pros and cons by someone who has understood and worked though criminal law on both sides of the issues. I found myself nodding and thinking "this is so eloquently written and ties so many random thoughts I had on the issues for years but never could put into a logical seqeunce".

The most concise eureka moment for me was his disposition on the potential for execution of an innocent person. This has always been my most challenging image. As attorneys we are taught to believe that it is far better for someone guilty go free than someone innocent, punished. Yet the gut wrenching frustrations of the victims' rights and protecting a community by preventing future crimes he discusses fully as well. He answers those questions of the debate by discussing "moral proportion," or excecuting a person who committed an act so heinous that the only justifiably proportionate act is execution but again he reiterates that need to be absolutely certain this is the guilty who deserves the justice.

I really enjoyed reading a book from someone I respect who has seen the bowels of this issue and still also struggles with the implications of America with or without the death penalty.

Rating:
Summary: A Very Valuable Book on a Controversial Subject
Review: I have been a fan of Scott Turow's fiction for a number of years. So, when I was asked to read and review his latest work, a nonfiction book dealing with one of the most controversial topics in America today, that of capital punishment, I eagerly anticipated the opportunity to find out what this bestselling author-lawyer had to say on the subject. I was not disappointed. Turow's very short treatise on the "ultimate punishment" (only about 120 pages of actual discussion) immediately brings the controversy into focus and lays out the arguments on both sides of the issue.

Admitting that initially he was an "agnostic" regarding the death penalty, Turow was appointed to serve on the Illinois Commission on Capital Punishment by then-Governor George Ryan, who had declared a moratorium on further executions in Illinois on January 31, 2000, a decision that was heavily criticized by many both in his own state and also nationwide. Ryan's justification for his action was that the Illinois' capital justice system was "fraught with error." Shortly after he issued the moratorium, Governor Ryan put together a fourteen-member Commission to look into the matter of reforming the system. Former prosecutor and now-defense attorney Scott Turow has used his experience serving on the Commission to examine the very serious debate over the death penalty in "Ultimate Punishment."

Turow's examination of capital punishment is not merely theoretical. He has been directly involved in death penalty cases, including successfully representing two different individuals convicted in death-penalty prosecutions. In other words, he can speak from practical experience and not just from the ivory tower of academic debate. Along the way, the reader will get a brief overview of the history of the capital punishment debate in America as well as insights into the pros and cons that have divided those in favor of the death penalty and those opposed to it. To his credit, I found Turow to be profoundly fair in his analysis of both sides of the argument.

One senses in this book that for the author this has been a very personal quest for wisdom regarding the matter of capital punishment. One can sense a continuing wrestling with the issue over a lengthy period of time. This book seems to be no "rush to judgment" on the part of Scott Turow. His writing at times is very introspective and at points, one might say, it is a clinical study in self-analysis involving very private ethical conflicts over a matter of supreme importance. He discusses the ordinary elements in the debate -- conviction of the innocent, deterrence, recidivism, and redemption -- but he also pays attention to the victims and their concerns, and how these concerns should be addressed in the calculus of the debate.

The death penalty as a form of punishment is not a subject one should take lightly. For decades, I have publicly debated the issue, written about it, and agonized over my position regarding it. Ultimately, I decided that capital punishment as a punitive practice should be discarded by society, not because it was cruel and unusual, and not because it didn't really deter, but simply because, since the right to life as a natural right is not derived from the State, the State had no right to take a human life. While Turow does not address the natural right argument in his book, he does discuss one aspect of the controversy to which I had not in the past given serious thought, namely the matter of "moral proportion" or "moral order." If nothing else, I thank him for bringing this matter to my attention for further thought.

After the Commission finished its task of investigation and discussion, Turow says in the final pages of the text, "when...called upon...to offer a definitive judgment on the death penalty, a number of my fellow commissioners revised their positions. But I appear to have finally come to rest on the issue. Today, I would still do as I did when...asked whether Illinois should retain capital punishment." How did novelist-lawyer Scott Turow vote on the issue? Well, you'll just have to read the book to find out. I'm not going to tell you.

At the end of the book, Turow includes a copy of the Preamble to the Report of the Illinois Governor's Commission on Capital Punishment, issued in April of 2002, with the suggested recommendations of the Commission. If capital punishment is to remain the policy of the day, then the recommendations made by the Commission demand everyone's attention, no matter what state they reside in, simply because the ultimate punishment, if it is to be fairly and rationally applied, needs to meet the highest standards of justice possible. Also, for those who want to go beyond Turow's brief discussion of the subject, the book includes thirty-eight pages of notes with citations to legal cases and text references, many of them available on the Internet.

In summary, this is a book to be recommended to all Americans because the issue is timely and very important. Turow has made a significant contribution to the subject of criminal justice and he is to be commended on his sober and impartial presentation.

Rating:
Summary: Very interesting analysis from someone who's been there
Review: I'm married to someone who has prosecuted death penalty cases, so I'm well aware of the pros and cons. Scott Turow, whom I consider the best legal mystery writer of this generation, recently wrote a fine death penalty novel in "Reversible Errors." This book is non-fiction and a bit dry compared to his novels, but it's very insightful--Turow, who was appointed to a blue-ribbon commission by then-governor George Ryan of Illinois to study death penalty reform in that state, is forthright and honest in sharing his own ambivalence about the government executing its own citizens. Whether you're staunchly in favor of capital punishment, strongly against it or somewhere in between, you'll find this brief book most illuminating--Turow covers every facet of the lengthy appeals process, and he looks closely at the circumstances surrounding several on death row who in his estimation deserve execution and others who don't.

Turow does not attempt to win you over to his side--in fact, there are times throughout this book he seems both for and against capital punishment. The last quarter of the book is footnotes, so you're looking at 120 pages--something you can read in one sitting on a long drive or airline flight. Very thought provoking and honest. You'll certainly want to read "Reversible Errors," since Turow discusses his motivation to write a death penalty novel, and you can't go wrong with any of Turow's six novels from where I sit. I even recommend "One L," which was released in 1977 and is Turow's look at his first year of law school. Well worth your time, like everything else with his name on it.