- ISBN13: 9780312423735
- Condition: NEW
- Notes: Brand New from Publisher. No Remainder Mark.
Product Description
A retaining hearing of a box for as well as opposite collateral low mark by a reputable rapist counsel as well as distinguished novelist. In a difference of Harvard Law Professor, Laurence H. Tribe–”Ultimate Punishment is a idealisation matter about a genocide penalty: to review it is to assimilate because law alone cannot have us whole.”
As a reputable rapist lawyer, Scott Turow has been concerned with a genocide chastisement for some-more than a decade, together with successfully representing dual opposite group convicted in death-penalty prosecutions. In this clear comment of how his views upon a genocide chastisement have evolved, Turow describes his own practice with collateral low mark from his days as an ardent immature prosecutor to hi… More >>
Ultimate Punishment: A Lawyer’s Reflections upon Dealing with a Death Penalty
Related posts:
- THE ULTIMATE GUIDE TO YOUR LEGAL CAREER: WHAT EVERY YOUNG LAWYER MUST KNOW TO AVOID THE MISTAKES AND MAXIMIZE THE VALUE OF A CAREER IN THE LAW
- SO CAN A DEFENSE LAWYER ARGUE JOKER OUT OF THE DEATH PENALTY AFTER THIS INFORMATION HAS BEEN SHOWN?
- WHY DO HOMICIDE PROSECUTORS BECOME DEFENSE LAWYERS?
- I HAVE HAD AN ACCIDENT AT WORK AND AM DEALING WITH WK COMP AND LAWYERS. ANY HELP?
- WHAT IS THE PENALTY FOR LYING DURING A DEPOSITION IN THE STATE OF NJ?
5 Comments
Not a bad read…pretty good really. Reasonably thought proving in a moderate way. It might not be a bad idea to have a read of this book yourself. All in all, it’s possible to do other things with your time rather than read this book but if you were to decide to read this book instead of doing the other things, then I can’t see that the decsion would be a particularly bad one.It might be a good decision especially if after reading the book yu decide that you were glad you had read it. That would then have been a good choice decision, and I congratulate you for taking it.
Well done.
Turow opposes capital punishment. He teases the reader so much in the first few chapters about “do I?” or “dont I?” that you quickly get the idea he opposes it. And the last chapter confirms your suspicion.
His chief objection to capital punishment is lawyers. Capital murder cases mean more than life or death to prosecutors and defense counsel; death cases are the ticket to financial wealth and political influence for the lawyers. And while he feels bad that monsters will escape the hangman if capital punishment is abolished, to frolic in prison, mocking the system and everyone, what can you do?
What you can do is make the stakes a whole lot more important to lawyers. And you do this by dis-barring them if they get it wrong and hang the wrong guy. Ditto for defense counsel; if they set the guilty free you dis-barr them, too. Make both sides really interested in getting at the truth.
More importantly, capital punishment dampens the requirement for lynchings. I study lynchings. The American People are very impatient with lawyers and a judicial system that conspires to abort justice in heinous felony cases. Probably the worst example of this conspiracy occurred in 1927 Tampa when a common laborer murdered 5 people with an axe, then 4 more people with a hammer. All of them while they slept. The murderer had no money and gets a former Supreme Court Associate Justice to defend him. The governor activates the National Guard to protect the guy, and the NG kills 3 people near the jail. And the appeals go on forever. The People wanted this monster dead!
Because common people understand that unless you kill a monster, some lawyer-fool is likely to set the monster free. And the courts are full of fools. So capital punishment lessens the enthusiasm for lynchings. Turow doesnt get it, of course.
“Death Penalty….Eh”
Spare yourself reading this book, because well, the above phrase is its basic premise. The book bills itself as an unbiased look at the death penalty by a lawyer with first hand experience, when in reality it reads like a brainstorm of ideas without a conclusive stance by an author who appears to be writing for the purpose of fulfilling some contractual obligation. Let me summarize that: THIS BOOK IS POINTLESS.
First of its 166 pages, only a hundred or so of it is the actual book. An entire third of the book is the transcript of an unreadable report given to Governor Ryan of Illinois. That would be like writing a book on Sept. 11 but then including the 9/11 report as filler for the back half. Don’t forget that every third paragraph seems to mention the fact that the man helped write the report either.
Speaking of George Ryan, the man is revered by the author of this book, despite the fact that he was basically run out of office due to his scandal plagued term of office. I’m not saying that being part of a scandal voids every ounce of your credibility, but to be lectured on this man’s moral achievements is like hearing about President Clinton’s contribution to the re-strengthening of public trust in governmental office.
But let’s get to the actual writing itself. You won’t learn a thing reading this book. Why? Because it lacks decisiveness and clarity. “I disagree with using the death penalty as revenge; however, I don’t agree that the death penalty itself is innately vengeful” Yeah, well thanks for clearing things up. One chapter supports capital punishment, while the subsequent following three work to disparage District Attorneys and Judges who use it.
Basically, the book ends without contributing a single thing to the death penalty debate. It is, at best, a summary of arguments for both sides without any original analysis of either. The only saving grace of the book is, in fact, its shortness in length. If it were much longer, you would no doubt bill the author for wasting your time.
A quick read yet very throrough analysis of the death penalty. Highly recommended to those looking for a starting point in considering the topic.
Being a death penalty agnostic I was pushed to the pro-capital punishment side of the aisle by Mr. Turow’s book. He uses the wrongly convicted and prosecution malfeasance as his main reasons for opposing the death penalty.
The criminals that Mr. Turow choses to highlight are for the most part deserving of termination. The fact that one criminal in a group murder gets the death penalty while others in the group get 45 years is not a reason to say the death penalty is used inappropriately. All of the criminals in the group who participated in a crime where death of the victim was caused should be given death. I was very disappointed in the way defendants of capital crimes were referred to as “Henry” or “Chris” by Mr. Turow. Sympathy for defendants in a controlled environment was ill founded. Advocating proper and intelligent prosecution and investigation of crimes would be a better cause for Mr. Turow.
Mr. Turow is not a death penalty agnostic. He is clearly on the side of anti-captial punishment and trying to appear objective by saying he “would push the button on John Wayne Gacey does not fool me.