**Expanded Article**

Introducción

Since the dawn of humanity, the State (or the group, horde, tribe, etc., whatever the name given to the organization or quasi-organization that preceded the birth of the State as such) has arrogated to itself the attribution and power to deprive of life some of its members (or not) who had committed seriously punishable acts. And it was not only in such cases, but there was a vast amalgamation of situations that, according to the beliefs of the time, deserved that another person be deprived of life. We can find countless examples of the exercise of such “power” since the first human civilizations (Mesopotamia, Egypt, China, the African kingdoms, the Celtic tribes, Greece, Rome, etc.) and, unfortunately, it tends not to disappear, as it can be seen even in advanced and democratic societies such as Japan and the United States (in fact, they are the only democracies that apply it). In the very Holy Scriptures we find accounts of the application of the death penalty, and a brutally raw account of the exercise of such attribution can be found in the Books of the Maccabees (consult any Catholic edition for this purpose, especially recommended is the Nácar-Colunga version). Even Jesus Christ himself died as a result of the application of the penalty in question under Roman power.

Having said the above, I must say that although the issue addressed is especially thorny and very delicate, John Grisham does it with his usual mastery, even though this book is far from being among his best productions.

Let an initial clarification be made. The book narrates real events, and even the names of the people involved are real. A quick synopsis perfectly demonstrates what the book will offer us: Ronald Keith Williamson, a former baseball star in high school teams, after the abrupt end of his career and a life of drug and alcohol abuse, is accused of the homicide and rape of a young woman. Put on trial, he is condemned to death based on a highly可疑 confession, an inconclusive test of some pubic hair samples, and a misidentified fingerprint. After twelve years on death row in an Oklahoma state prison, five days before the execution date, his ascent to freedom began. As the promotional banner said “Sometimes reality surpasses fiction”.

Having made these clarifications, I proceed to expose what this book has left me, clarifying that this review will be extensive since the topic is one of those that I like.

Desarrollo

To begin and referring to the purely aesthetic aspects of this work, in this book there are hardly any turns or figures proper to literature. For those not accustomed to this type of writing, it might seem a bit... However, the seriousness of the issue addressed, from my humble point of view, deserves a sober and careful language. At times it resembles a long legal memorandum, yet the reading is equally enjoyable.

I must also say that one of the aspects that I liked most about this work is that Grisham portrays the protagonist in all his humanity. That is, he does not pretend to cover up his flaws or make him seem like a “saint”. Ron Williamson was just an ordinary man, and the author portrays him with all his flaws. A victim of his circumstances, accustomed from a very young age to being treated like a star (he was one of the best players on the high school baseball team he attended), and who fell into one of the most common evils that afflict young athletes who enter that world. He grew up in a family where resources were scarce, yet, being as capricious as he was, he always demanded the best from his parents even though they could not give it to him. When he entered the minor leagues, he got used to night parties, drinks, drugs, and always being surrounded by women. This fact is crucial to understand the decline he entered after the failure of his career due to an injury, a situation that prevented him from continuing to engage in sports. After that, he could not keep other jobs, wasted an innate talent for sales, and his problems with drink worsened.

Therefore, the narration of real events is not easy as it can fall into the temptation of idealizing the person around whom it revolves, an error that is not committed in this book.

John Grisham had already dealt with the death penalty with mastery in Cámara de gas (written in 1994, and there is also a movie based on this book starring Gene Hackman and Chris O’Donnell). In this book, the author indicates his position against the death penalty, which I fully share.

Regarding the fundamental issue, for a long time I have been a fervent opponent of the death penalty (a very good movie made me reconsider my position, Mientras estés conmigo [Latin American title], starring Susan Sarandon and Sean Penn, and which earned the first the Oscar for Best Actress). Based on what has been said, I allow myself to bring up some words pronounced by the Spanish philosopher and professor Fernando Savater, whose enlightening publications led to reinforcing my conviction. He points out that when applying the death penalty to a criminal, not only the State but ”the whole society brutalizes itself in its image and likeness to punish them” (”Acerca de la pena de muerte”, available online at http://es.calameo.com/read/0040420275...). (On other occasions he has also pointed out the following: ”I believe that it is a concession to the forces, to the reactionary and atavistic fears of society” [interview granted to Radio Radical, 26/10/1992]; ”The death penalty confuses the abolition of the crime with the abolition of the criminal” [column for the Spanish newspaper El País, 15/07/1993]). Particularly, I could not agree more with what Savater has expressed, as I do not consider that the death penalty is the appropriate instrument to safeguard the security or well-being of the population.

If we observe what are traditionally considered as the ends of the penalty (I am referring to the classical theory still in force in many jurisdictions that apply the common law, not to the modern conceptions of what should be considered the purpose of the penalty, emanating from the influence of the German penal school): prevention, deterrence, and retribution, the death penalty does not fulfill any of them. It does not fulfill prevention because it is not capable of preventing new capital punishable acts (so-called those that are susceptible to carrying the death penalty) from being committed. In fact, the palpable proof of this is the United States. If the death penalty were fully effective, the states of Texas and Oklahoma would be paradise on earth (and not only the United States, but also other jurisdictions, for example, China where corruption acts are punished with the death penalty and yet each year there are executions based on similar motives, or Indonesia where drug trafficking is punished with death and yet that does not prevent the existence of that fact). Observing the local media, this is not the case. There is always violence and there are punishable acts. It should be noted that to live in an orderly society, it is not necessary for the State to arrogate to itself the power to kill. In fact, in North America itself, we can see the two sides of the coin: on the one hand, we have the United States, one of the most violent societies on the planet, where shootings and massacres occur every week; on the other hand, going a little further north, we have Canada, a country that does not have the death penalty (and also does not extradite to countries that apply it, see for all, United States v. Burns, judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada of February 15, 2003. In this case, it was said that extradition to countries that apply the death penalty constitutes a fundamental denial of justice; see also Soering c. Reino Unido, judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, as quoted later).

Deterrence is also not fulfilled by the death penalty because it does not prevent other people from committing capital punishable acts even though they know that, if caught, they will receive the death penalty like others who have committed similar punishable acts and who have ascended the scaffold and died. Here it is appropriate to quote Savater again, who, always with great clarity, points out that such a purpose is not fulfilled because criminals “knowing themselves already legally ‘dead’, do not hesitate to continue killing to escape justice” (Acerca de la pena de muerte, already quoted). Finally, it does not fulfill retribution because this penalty maintains a wrong approach by confusing the criminal with the act committed by him (a deep study of these points can be observed in the dense and fantastic judgment issued by the Supreme Court of the State of Connecticut in the case State of Connecticut v. Eduardo Santiago. I leave the link to my ISSUU page where I published a translated version of it in case its reading is of interest regarding this topic https://issuu.com/verseau_000/docs/st...).
Since it does not fulfill the traditional ends indicated above, it also cannot fulfill the one that is considered as the modern end of the penalty, which is the rehabilitation of the convict and the protection of society (an end that, in the Paraguayan case, is established in Article 20 of the Constitution and Article 39, paragraph 1 of the Penal Code). The reason for this is that, and to explain myself, I quote Savater again: “It identifies the criminal with his crime and destroys the person to end his guilt” (Acerca de la pena de muerte, article already quoted). As a result, the logical consequence of this is, therefore, the impossibility of doing so given what it implies.

All of the above is also an echo of a much deeper disquisition that cannot be fully addressed or exhausted within the limited framework of this review and that lies in the questioning of the very legitimacy of the death penalty. One of the characters (I will use this term because it is the most common, but let us not forget that it is a real person) also imprisoned on death row (Greg Wilhoit) poses this question after the execution of a fellow inmate: ”…If killing was wrong, why did the State arrogate that right to itself? With what authority was the execution carried out?...” (p. 216). In this sense, a great deal has been written about whether the death penalty constitutes a legitimate exercise of state power or not. My approach, since the distant time of university, has always been the following: Is it that at the moment of renouncing a part of his freedom and establishing the social contract, the human being granted the State (or the figure that at that time played such a role) the power over the life and death of people?. Not even the most serious and profound studies that I have had the opportunity to read give answers to this. However, I reiterate my firm opposition to this figure because, if the theorists cannot agree on abstract issues, much more practical reasons lead me not to support it – such as those exposed regarding that the penalty does not fulfill the traditional ends of the penalty nor the modern end of it.

The State obtained its existence from the consent of the people who have renounced a part of their freedom in order to achieve certain rights but also certain obligations. That is, it has existence and legal personality from the consent of its governed. Therefore, it is not the owner of the life or freedom of anyone, from which it follows that it does not have (or should not have) the power to deprive anyone of their life. Another of the reasons that lead me to oppose this figure lies in the fact that it is a complete violation of the most basic human rights. If our reasoning is that due to a conduct carried out, the offender must be deprived of life as a sign of retribution, we are not far from returning to the already arcane times of the lex talionis. The history of the imposition of penalties passed in a first moment through private vengeance (the very relatives of the affected person took justice into their own hands), an attribution later transferred to the tribe. So when applying the death penalty, what actually occurs is vengeance. The only plausible difference is that this is executed by the State in the name of the whole society, with which I cannot but agree with Savater.

So I ask myself, \\n  Is there a difference between the criminal who killed before and the State that kills him legally afterwards?\\n. In my particular opinion, the answer can only be a resounding \\n  NO.\\n

The book read also allows us to consider two of the aspects that surround this penalty: convicting an innocent and populism.

I first address the intrinsic risk associated with this penalty, which is the possibility of convicting an innocent. Amnesty International and the Réseaux internationale pour l’abolition de la peinde de mort frequently publish data related to the number of times innocent people have been condemned to death. Some of them have had the luck of the protagonist of this book – Ron Williamson – of narrowly escaping execution through new tests that demonstrated their innocence, while others have not (the same author – John Grisham – deals with this issue in another book that seems quite good [I confess not having read it yet] La confesión. The treatment of this topic can also be seen in the excellent movie La vida de David Gale, starring Kevin Spacey, Kate Winslet, and Laura Linney. I recommend it to you). In fact, the European Court of Human Rights invoked this possibility, as well as that of the psychological damage associated with the prolonged stay on death row, to point out that if a person were extradited to the United States, their human rights would be violated (case Soering c. Reino Unido, judgment of 7/07/1989, link: https://issuu.com/verseau_000/docs/so...). In the case State of Connecticut v. Eduardo Santiago (link above), it was precisely pointed out that the death penalty does not conform to contemporary standards because it carries within itself the risk of convicting an innocent along with the irreversible result derived from its final nature, and that such a possibility dangerously approaches a simple homicide.

Regarding populism, let us observe only the case treated in this book. In it, not only were there no conclusive proofs that demonstrated the guilt of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt, but the prosecution used various fabricated proofs and declarations that simply constituted a string of lies, such as fabricated declarations by witnesses who simply made up everything they said (needless to say that in almost all the world, lying to the court is a crime).

Other factors also influenced this. Such as being located in a small town where the victim was a beautiful young woman raped and murdered. Many years had already passed since the crime, and the police and the prosecution lacked solid evidence. Nevertheless, that case was a thorn in the side that they had to get rid of at all costs. All these factors together are of sufficient gravity to affect the perception of the work of the relevant organs (in a big city, this would be just one more of many unsolved cases, but as the saying goes small town, big hell). Since in these places the police and the prosecution are still perceived as the strong arm of the law, their word has great value, which constitutes an incentive that conditions the state of mind of the members of the jury (citizens like any of us) against the accused, from where a strong populism can originate.

Besides what is detailed in the previous paragraph, one of the most solid factors that support populism in this type of cases lies in the way in which several authorities involved in the case come to the position they hold, since in many states they are positions of direct popular election. This aspect was developed by the author in his novel La apelación, one of the best on the judicial world that I have read and that, together with El jurado, constitutes the best of this author’s work. There, one can observe in all their magnitude some judicial elections and the way in which the actions of the same can be perceived by the population. Therefore, an unsolved case, especially when the victim is young, beautiful, and of a good family, constitutes an obstacle to a new election to the position since the people could see that failure as a result of a supposed lack of diligence.

In certain aspects, I must say that the case treated in this book, in the sense of having condemned an innocent without conclusive evidence, has reminded me of the Dreyfus case. Captain Alfred Dreyfus was accused in 1984 of delivering military secrets to the Germans. For this reason, he was tried for high treason before a military tribunal, condemned to life imprisonment, and expelled from the army. Later, the arbitrariness of the condemnation and the fragility of the supposed evidence presented were demonstrated (even a secret file to which the defense did not have access). The whole process was annulled by the Court of Cassation, and Dreyfus was rehabilitated (with the right to a magnificent piece by Emile Zola Yo acuso).

Conclusión

After his release from prison, Ron Williamson continued to lead a life as disorderly as the one he led before his incarceration. He continued to be a hardened alcoholic, and in fact, he died of liver cirrhosis caused by drink. But this does not mean that his life was any less valuable than that of other “good” people. Every life

The Innocent Man: Murder and Injustice in a Small Town by John Grisham is a captivating true crime book published in 2006.

It chronicles the harrowing tale of Ronald 'Ron' Keith Williamson from Ada, Oklahoma. Once a promising minor league baseball player, he was wrongly convicted in 1988 of the rape and murder of Debra Sue Carter in Ada and sentenced to death.

After spending 11 years on death row, Williamson was finally exonerated by DNA evidence and other crucial material presented by the Innocence Project. He was released in 1999, having endured a nightmare of injustice.

The story delves into the life of Williamson, who had dreams of becoming a great athlete in Oklahoma. However, injuries, excessive drinking, and drug use derailed his sports career.

When Debra Sue Carter was brutally raped and murdered in Ada, the town was filled with fear and the authorities were under pressure to find a culprit.

Based on flimsy evidence and the assumption that Williamson was an easy target due to his downward spiral, he was arrested and put on trial.

The legal process was flawed, with a blind attorney, a dysfunctional justice system, and corrupt police. Williamson's protests of innocence fell on deaf ears.

Years of imprisonment in the death cell exacerbated his mental illness. But by a stroke of luck, a judge took notice of a request for a rehearing and, after careful study, ordered a new trial.

The new trial, with the help of genetic science and DNA testing, proved Williamson's innocence. He was set free after 12 years, but the damage had been done.

No one apologized to him, no one expressed remorse. He was simply told to leave and not make a fuss.

This book is a powerful indictment of a justice system that can fail the innocent and a reminder of the importance of truth and fairness.

The first book that I have ever stopped reading in the middle was a John Grisham's book. It was The Runaway Jury. The main reason I stopped was its excessive wordiness. Over a hundred pages in, the only thing described was the clothes in a character's closet. So many words, yet so little content. I, who had never DNFed anything before, decided that sometimes it's just not worth my time.

Unfortunately, Grisham continues this style of writing. I gave this book a chance, hoping that as a non-fiction, his talent might be more digestible and the storytelling more interesting. The storyline, which was promising in the first 5 pages, could have been a great book. But Grisham delved into minute details of every person's life and every conversation or investigation. Many of these details bored and tired me, adding little to the story.

It's the story of Debbie Carter's murder and Ron Williamson, a former baseball star wrongly accused. While the story is heartbreaking, much of the book consists of long, word-by-word conversations and events. For example, the exchange between Tommy and the police shown earlier.

There are great books about wrong convictions, like Picking Cotton by Jennifer Thompson-Cannino and The Sun Does Shine by Anthony Ray Hinton. There are also excellent books about injustice in the justice system, such as Just Mercy by Bryan Stevenson. I recommend everyone read a book on these topics. Grisham's book, however, is not to my taste as the story gets lost in the words. 2 stars (and probably no more Grisham for me).

A well-written True-Crime account that is remarkably easy to follow and understand.

However, it does suffer from unnecessary repetition, which means it could have been more concise.

Despite this annoyance, the story was still incredibly captivating, and I found myself completely engrossed, reluctant to put the book down.

I had heard of John Grisham on numerous occasions, but it was through the Netflix Documentary on the story that I learned about this particular book.

My interest in the failings of the court systems to protect the innocent was piqued when I watched another Netflix Documentary, "Making a Murderer."

This documentary told the story of Steve Avery, a man who spent several years in prison for a rape he didn't commit, only to be incarcerated again shortly after for a murder he also claims he didn't commit.

"The Innocent Man" also highlights how little evidence, or sometimes none at all, is needed to send a person to prison simply because some cops had a "hunch" that they were the culprit.

It's truly sad to see how Ron Williamson was mistreated by the judicial system, and infuriating to know how long they ignored his severely poor mental health.

This is just one of thousands of stories about wrongfully convicted individuals, and it's something that I believe is crucial to bring to the public's attention.

I appreciate Grisham's willingness to step out of his comfort zone and write this as a True Crime rather than fiction.

He did an excellent job of presenting the facts objectively, leaving out his personal opinions, while still maintaining the reader's interest.

Kutboek is an important and interesting concept.

It holds significance in various aspects. Kutboek could refer to a specific type of book or a collection of knowledge.

Perhaps it contains valuable information that has been passed down through generations.

It might have unique features or characteristics that set it apart from other books.

The content within Kutboek could cover a wide range of topics, such as history, culture, science, or art.

People may study Kutboek to gain a deeper understanding of a particular subject or to explore new ideas.

It could also serve as a source of inspiration for writers, artists, or thinkers.

In conclusion, Kutboek is a fascinating entity that has the potential to enrich our lives and expand our knowledge.

John Grisham is widely renowned for his captivating legal thrillers. However, in this instance, he ventures into uncharted territory with his first non-fiction novel.

This work delves into the disturbing injustices that occurred in Ada, Oklahoma. In 1982, Debra Sue Carter was brutally slain by a man she was last seen with. Mysteriously, Ron Williamson and Dennis Fritz were wrongly accused and imprisoned. It was only after many years that a legal team from the Innocence Project, armed with concrete proof, managed to exonerate them and identify the true culprit.

Additionally, in 1984, the murder of a young woman, Denice Haraway, led to another two men being jailed despite insufficient evidence of their guilt. One of the accused remains behind bars to this day. Grisham's extensive research into these cases reveals the glaring inconsistencies that were blatantly ignored by the police and subsequent juries. It also highlights how the legal system seemed to railroad these cases.

A few years ago, a Netflix documentary was produced based on this book, and I am eager to watch it and gain a deeper understanding of these harrowing events.

The Innocent Man by John Grisham is an outstanding non-fiction story. It is written with great skill and the research that went into it is truly remarkable. The story is deeply sad, as it details the unjust treatment and false accusations that an innocent man had to endure. It makes one extremely angry to see how the legal system can sometimes fail so miserably. Thank God for the existence of DNA testing, which in this case was able to prove the man's innocence. However, it is also a great shame that corruption exists within the system. It is a reminder that we must always be vigilant and work towards a more just and fair society. This book is not only a captivating read but also a powerful indictment of the flaws in our legal system.

Ron Williamson, a famous baseball player, was wrongly convicted of the rape and murder of Debra Carter in Ada, Oklahoma. The story is told in this book. Williamson was unjustly sentenced to death and it took years for him to be exonerated and set free. His alleged accomplice, Dennis Fritz, had the same fate. In the case of the robbery, kidnapping, and murder of the young Denice Haraway, the scenario is similar. Tom Gooch and Kari Fontenot also faced unjust charges and a long imprisonment.

The full review can be found on Insta @vivliofreneia. You can access it at https://www.instagram.com/p/Cw0KtHZII....

This is not what I expected? The NETFLIX “documentary” seemed rather slow. It is indeed a “documentary,” but I had anticipated more “drama” similar to a typical Grisham movie.

The pacing of the documentary left me somewhat disappointed. I was hoping for a more engaging and thrilling narrative that would keep me on the edge of my seat. However, it felt as if the story was unfolding at a leisurely pace, lacking the excitement and tension that I had expected.

Despite this, I still found some aspects of the documentary interesting. The real-life events and the people involved were captivating, and it provided an insight into a complex and tragic case.

Overall, while the NETFLIX “documentary” did not meet my initial expectations, it still had its merits. It may not have been the fast-paced, action-packed drama that I had hoped for, but it did offer a thought-provoking look at a true story.

IMDb - The Innocent Man review

Netflix - The Innocent Man Trailer

The True Story Behind The Innocent Man's Most Gruesome Murder - website link - 12/14/2018

Really sad and scary is this true story of a man, Ron Williamson, who was unjustly imprisoned for a whopping 12 years for a murder he didn't commit. It's truly unpleasant to even think about how the legal system could seemingly get away with such a travesty. The fact is, there was no real evidence to suggest that Ron Williamson even knew the girl he was supposed to have killed. It's a blatant miscarriage of justice. One would hope that this story has a happy ending, but unfortunately, it doesn't really. After those long and unjust years behind bars, Ron Williamson's life was forever changed. He lost precious time that could never be regained. The system failed him miserably, and it's a reminder of how flawed and unjust the legal system can sometimes be.

Tedious.

Interesting, but nearly boring in tedium.

While Grisham claims that he could have composed a thousand pages about this narrative, it truly could have been related in approximately 100. Moreover, the non-fiction essence of the story forces Grisham to tell the tale rather like a reporter, presenting all of the facts in excruciating minutiae. Many of the details are indeed fascinating, but the sheer quantity of them becomes overpowering. There is very little dialogue (as one would anticipate from a non-fiction report of the facts), and it seemed that there was not a single spoken line for the first third of the book.

The story recounted in the pages is, however, a captivating one. The title is "The Innocent Man", yet it truly touches upon the lives of four innocent men. The "Man" in question has his specific story related in detail, and as the cover elucidates, is sentenced to death row for a crime he did not commit. Perhaps Grisham desired to honor this man in particular, and thus related as much detail of his life story as he possibly could.

Maybe I was in the mood for something more enjoyable, but I found the story of the murder investigation, and the bungled trial that ensued, painful and exasperating. It made me extremely angry at times. I can only envision what it was like for those who were convicted.

The main emphasis of the book is essentially the prosecution that went awry from the outset. Even in our 'just' society, wrongful convictions, even death penalties, occur all the time. It is极其令人悲伤 for these men (mostly men, I am certain) to be incarcerated for years, decades, and even executed... all the while being innocent. Of course, the real killers often evade detection. This book does not delve at all into what could be done about this; it is simply a tale. While I relished the end of the book far more than the beginning, I found that the sad story, the complete incompetence, the frustration of the wrongful convictions... it mostly just upset me.

I must state that Grisham does a commendable job of writing, and the story is engaging. If you are interested in reading the numerous details behind an interesting case, perhaps if you aspire to be a trial lawyer, this is a book worth perusing. But, if you are seeking a fun murder mystery, or intense drama, or something light-hearted... look elsewhere.

Somehow I've managed to avoid Grisham up until now.

But then, by chance, I came across his only non-fiction book. The moment I saw it, I was intrigued enough to take the plunge and start reading.

And I'm so glad I did. This account of a wrongful murder conviction is, by turns, fascinating and infuriating. It left me both seething with anger and filled with amazement.

How could the police, attorneys, and others involved in this case behave in such a way? The corruption, incompetence, and unfairness of a legal system that fails its poorest and most vulnerable members is truly breathtaking.

It's a sad indictment of our society and one that further answers the question of why we're losing trust and deference to those in positions of power.

Overall, this is a great read that will keep you on the edge of your seat from start to finish.