Just excellent- a thought provoking non- fiction analysis of the death penalty by Scott Turow. Turow is best known for his fictional works with a criminal law context- but he also served on a Commission in Illinois to review issues attendant to the death penalty experience in this state. Its very well done

Some questions probed:

What are the goals of punishment?
What do we think of the perfectibility of human beings and the perdurability of evil?
What value do we place on life of the murderer and of the victim?
What kind of power do we want in the hands of government, and what do we hope the state can accomplish when it wields it?


Beyond the death penalty foes, all agree that " if we execute the innocent or the undeserving, then we have undermined, not vindicated our sense of moral proportion and the clear message capital punishment is meant to send"

On the race issue- the facts in Illinois were counter intuitive, once convicted white murders were sentenced to death at a rate two and one times that for black murders. It turns out, the race card is not based on the race of the killer, but on the victim. Since the apparent bias, based on Turow's rendition of the empirical facts in the system is outrage at the killers of whites, and since more blacks are killed by blacks than whites and vice versa- whites get disproportionate death sentences in Illinois thru the day of his writing- most unexpected- at least by me.

On the other hand, if racial bias and other factors render the imposition of the death penalty uneven, Why not define Murder One carefully, excuse those we deem excusable to a lesser punishment, and more consistently impose the death penalty? Turow explains the Supreme Court is not on board with this- but legislatures could address that point if so inclined.

The pivotal question Turow raises that made me re-think my pre-conceived notions was : Can a system of Justice be constructed that reaches only the right cases without occasionally condemning the innocent or the undeserving?"

If such a system , can be so constructed - we don't have it yet- the error rate is beyond disturbing


this is a quick read- but thought and dialog provoking- a great read.

It's OK. This is a lawyer's contemplation. It should not be confused with philosophical contemplation. As a lawyer, Turow is excellent. He spots issues. He sees different points of view. He even persuasively puts on arguments on both sides, and convincingly reaches his own conclusions using his political and prosecutorial experiences. But don't expect any profound insight and meditative breakthroughs. His use of examples is sparse and a little confusing.

The book raises more subjects than it resolves.

Recommended for readers who want to say they've at least thought about the subject.

Even if you are not a lawyer this is a great book about the death penalty if you have ever been interested in the costs and effect and why it's so controversial.

A good general discussion of the major issues surrounding the death penalty. The author weighs heavily on his personal experience, and most examples and specific policies are taken from Illinois (to the exclusion of other states with different issues).

Many years ago I read a couple of Scott Turow's legal mystery's and a couple of years ago I read "One L" about his experience in law school a wonderful perceptive and descriptive non-fiction piece. I picked up Ultimate Punishment to see what this smart guy has to say about Capital Punishment. Turns out he has a ton to say.

In 2001 or 2002 Turow was appointed by the governor of Illinois to a blue ribbon committee to examine capital punishment in the state. In this book Turow recounts his two year intensive and extensive examination of the issue. He looked into capital cases, talked to defense and prosecution lawyers, victim's families, judges, police, criminals and citizens at large. He gives the broadest and most nuanced discussion of the issues I have ever heard or read. His final conclusion is that he opposes capital punishment not because it is wrong for the state to kill a killer, he believes that there are people on death row that deserve to die for their crimes, but because it is impossible to set up a system of justice that metes out this sentence fairly and impossible to eliminate the possibility executing innocent people.

Very interesting and convincing book.

I felt that this argument could have been summed up much quicker than the author presented.

a very thoughtful reflection indeed. a comprehensive, compelling combination of the analytical, lawyerly groundwork and Turow's own vulnerable and often ambiguous feelings surrounding such a momentous issue. hype!

"I revere the enterprise of the law, but it does not function flawlessly. It neither finds the truth nor dispenses justice with the reliability it is obliged to claim. The law's sharp-edged rules never cut through the murk of moral ambiguity, nor do they fully comprehend or address the complexities of human motivation and intention. And just punishment alone does not render the world one we want to live in."

His views on the death penalty.

A look at what happens when the state of Illinois commuted 167 death sentences to see if the sentencing was done correctly, checking to see if there were innocent people on death row, and should the death sentence be done away with all together. This is Scott Turow's opinion of his time on the committee to look into all aspects of the death penalty.

Usually, such books make me feel intrigued. This one, however, bored the hell out of my soul.

Thoughtful--should be mandatory reading

A fine short book, well worth a couple hours of your time. Turow has spent a lot of time and effort thinking through the death penalty, talking to murderers, their victims, wardens, lawyers... He's a good writer, and concludes that the death penalty is, practically speaking, impossible to apply fairly and should be done away with. Even though there are monsters in our prisons who really should be executed, and he cites some particularly gruesome killings. My thought: figure out a way to execute just the monsters. Hire Turow to do it? You certainly don't want to parole them!