Customer Reviews

Who Owns Death? Capital Punishment, the American Conscience, and the End of the Death Penalty

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Lifton and Mitchell do a great job of not only explaining the vast problems with capital punishment - from its bias against blacks to its immorality - but they also delve into the psyche of everyone involved. Whether you are pro-death penalty or a strong opponent, this book opens your eyes to everything that is wrong with capital punishment.

But, you also learn why you either favor or object to the practice though detailed psychiatric analysis that most people don't even consider when weighing in on the issue.

Sure, the authors are fierce death penatly opponents, but that does not stop them from putting a critical eye on both sides of the debate and providing strong arguments for the end of this process.

I found this book a good read and would recommend it.

One major objective of this book is to show capitol punishment from all angles. They talk about he prosecutors, the jurors, the judge, the executioners, the governors, and all other cogs in the system. By the time they are done, they make a convincing argument that this process is so fractionalized that nobody feels ultimate responsibility for this grave action (which helps keep it alive).

It also explores people's "support" for capitol punishment. You come to realize that the *objective* of a lot of supporters is keeping the criminal off the street, not vengeance. Thus, when given the option of life without parole, the support for capitol punishment drops below 50%.

I feel that there was a lot of "On one hand... then on the other hand... but you have to remember... and it is important not to discount...".

Although they referenced many polls and facts, I would have preferred this to be a little more 'scientific' and less philosophical. Also in their effort to explor all sides of this issue, many of their statements are pretty obvious -- for example, victim families what vengence and 'closure'. Duh.

I found the style to be a little odd. One of the writers is a journalist and the book is written accordingly. One one hand, they try to be even-handed showing all sides, while on the other, they write with the base assumption that capitol punishment is wrong. I did not find this confusing, but it was a little odd.

I don't wish these comments to discourage people -- it is a worthwhile read, but it does have a few shortcommings.

The book does a great job in providing an overview of the death penalty and why it should be discontinued. The authors use an anecdote style and good documentation to debunct the death penalty on moral, religious, and pragmatic reasons. Nearly everyone has heard the DNA argument and the lack of competant legal representation for death row prisoners as a reason for discontinuing capital punishment. Lifton and Mitchell present original ideas such as "death dynamism" which promotes a cycle of death(i.e. domestic terrorism martyrs), how the death penalty actually prevents emotional healing, and that who dies can depend on locale and a particular judge. The authors present somber examples throughout the book, one in particular about how one judge may agonize over the penalty and another may draw a "happy face" on a death warrant. A minor point; I wish that the authors had explored the character of American violence more deeply particularly the current culture which is currently evolving via graphic video games, music, and of course movies. I say this not from a moral basis but in a pragmatic sense that these influences may make society less sensitive to the loss of human life. I highly recommend this book and feel it will be a excellent resource for years to come.

Regardless of how "biased" or "unbiased" these authors are, or whether or not the paperback edition costs less than the hardcover, and just what Amazon's marketing intentions really are, this IS an important book that should be read by anyone concered about, or who participate in, the debate about the "death penalty." My own belief is that it's really easy to argue "for" killing as the ability to do so lies in the "nature" of each of us. As an old 3-Dog Night song goes, It's "easy to be hard...to be cruel!" Taking an honest look at forgiveness and mercy is what's difficult - I know it is for me, the belief in an "eye for an eye" notwithstanding. Actually, Jesus Christ, speaking As and For GOD "struck down" this particular belief (eye4eye) in favor of a not-so-natural way of behaving. (Matthew 5:38) Anyway, Take Care & Stay Well!

I read this book for a class and I really liked the book! I thought it was one of the best books that I've read on the issue of capital punishment.

I was a bit disappointed in this book because the dust jacket states the authors attempted to write a unbiased book covering the people that are part of the capital punishment process in America. Maybe it is that the authors stance on the death penalty is so strong that it is all they could do to be as objective as they were, but I was still looking for an unbiased account. With that said I did learn a lot from the book, I also agree with the author's position on the death penalty so their position was not that hard to take. I just wanted more of the other side represented so that I could learn more about that point of view.

The most eye opening part of the book is just the raw data on how many people are currently on death row and how many people have been taken off death row after being proven innocent. The authors also take the reader through all the people associated with the death penalty for interviews. From Judges and juries to the prison guards and executioners, all get a say in the book. What was interesting is that the authors did not present any really gun ho, hang them high types, all the people seamed down to earth and a little uneasy about the whole process. I think there is such a primitive law and order feeling associated with the states power to end a life that I do not think the authors are correct that the death penalty is coming to an end in America - it just appeals to too much of the population.

Overall this is an interesting and eye-opening book. If you are interested in the personal side of the death penalty then this is a good place to start. It did slow down at the end and again I would have liked a little more unbiased writing if only to hold the book out as an example of an unbiased report pushing for the end to the death penalty.

I am primarily offended that the authors and Amazon publish the almost the exact same book in both hardback and paperback with different titles in order to sucker folks into buying both. Amazon outright recommends the purchase of both books - but you should only buy the paperback. It has all the text of the more expensive hardback plus one additional chapter.

The book graphically displays some of the problems with the justice system; it fails, however, to examine the proponents' take on the death penalty. By failing to make such an examination, people with little or no opinion or those who are pro-death penalty will likely make changes to their political thought without the necessary logical underpinnings.

A very interesting subject. As the sub-title makes plain, the authors' goal is the abolition of capital punishment, or at least a moratorium on it. To that end they make an examination of they system of justice which permits the executions of criminals, bringing up every sordid fact and opinion that they can find to marshal on their side. The argument i have with the book is not so much the content ~ after all, i am in two minds about capital punishment ~ but the methods the authors use to argue against it. They write deceptively, as though they themselves believe their arguments are not strong enough and must be bolstered any way they can. For example, a very common habit they have is to make throwaway lines, little tag comments at the end of a paragraph, giving their opinion of someone they've just quoted, as though that opinion were fact, not mere pop psychology or deliberately inflammatory; a great example occurs when. during the course of a discussion of methods of execution, the authors suggest, as the last line of a paragraph, where it really has no link to the rest of the paragraph, that a botched execution could be "God's way of saying that killing a person should be difficult to do." A second deception is the selective use of facts, without giving the reader any context; for example, suggesting though never actually stating, that the Supreme Court was wrong to allow public opinion to play any rôle in deciding the legality of capital punishment: In actual fact, naturally, the Court was correct to use polls, since part of what they had to determine was whether the standards of society had changed ~ the very thing the polls measured. The book is full of quirks like this, designed to sway the mind through emotion. I would find it interesting to read a version of this book not put together by blind abolitionists, people who could take an unbiased view; the end result of such a version would have more meaning. Overall, not a bad book, just not as good as could have been.

In its 16 December 2000 edition [p109], "The Economist" reviewed this book favourably. Haven't read it, but - based on the review - am ordering it now. (A bit puzzling that the publishers have not bothered to stir, failing to put a blurb here. Slack!)

The authors of _Who_Owns_Death?_ make a valiant attempt to focus public debate on capital punishment and persuade their readers for its abolition. Those predisposed towards expanded criminal rights may well agree with the arguments presented. Skeptics will likely remain unconvinced.

There are more shortcomings to the book than practical to enumerate, and my primary objection is both philosophical and rhetorical. One exception is in the introduction where the authors mistakenly neglect the distinction in homicide between authorized (military combat, executions) and permitted (self defense). At any rate, the authors' arguments are flawed: legally, morally and politically.

One of the definitions of a sovereign state is the authority to take life-and in our society, that authority is tempered by a requirement of due process. From the neolithic age onward, governments have been charged with two primary responsibilities-overland communication and transport routes and killing people: subjects for domestic order and aliens for military hegemony. A state may temper judgment with mercy, but denial of this legal power usurps the public's right for retribution against its assailants. Although some relatives of victims may be willing to forgive, wholesale abandonment of capital punishment would encourage unlawful retribution in the form of vigilante clan-warfare and undermine remaining state authority and encourage greater injustice since individuals lacking the power of subpoena would have fewer means (and less patience) to distinguish culpable murder from involuntary manslaughter. Furthermore, if the state lacks the authority to execute those judged accordingly, an ordinary citizen could have no vicarious right to use deadly force for self defense or defense of others.

The moral argument against capital punishment is compromised by three issues-the absence of any comment regarding abortion, the repeated comparisons of capital punishment supporters with Nazi atrocities, and obligation of victims' families to pay perpetual room and board to their assailants. By completely ignoring the slaughter of unborn children sacrificed on the altar of convenience solely for the crime of being unwanted, the argument against capital punishment against persons found guilty of first-degree murder loses all moral balance. By following arguments in favor of criminal justice with Nazi extermination policies as political vengeance, the polemic exhausts its rhetorical power without gaining cohesive persuasiveness. (Also, why are atrocities behind the Iron Curtain never used for comparison in the psychological bait-and-switch?) By focusing on the convicted murderers, the families of the deceased victims are glossed over save for appeals of unreasonable compassion towards the criminals.

The authors express their presumption that capital punishment may be politically doomed, not by popular acclaim but through elitist jurists and lawmakers. Their confidence may be justified by the manner in which the elite powerbrokers in foreign countries have eliminated the death penalty. However, the United States is not like other countries, and our electorate is not nearly as accepting of the socialist welfare state and confiscatory taxation as the rest of the world. Furthermore, while the Supreme Court held that unborn children are to be accorded no legal protection, such victims have no independent political voice to reply against the feminazis demanding their deaths. Murder victims often have families that may insist the perpetrator's life be forfeit. Even tyrannical justices recognize the ballot box.

The arguments against capital punishment-supposed arbitrariness in jurisdictional application, sympathy for sociopaths who grew up without teddybears as children, imperfect evidence for a death sentence, alleged lack of deterrence, apparent pain and suffering of the executed-are all canards. All we're entitled to is due process. Hopefully DNA tracing will reduce doubt regarding guilt to a reasonable level. Maybe convicts in the penitentiary can be taught C++ or other useful trade and eliminate poverty. Perhaps life imprisonment without parole may actually means geriatric prisoners shuffling in their cells until buried on prison grounds with no chance of escape. If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

While _Who_ presents a thoughtful analysis in readable prose, its contribution to the debate will likely change no minds that had a firm basis. Advocates for justice (as opposed to "compassion") will remain unpersuaded.