Customer Reviews

The United States of America Versus Theodore John Kaczynski: Ethics, Power and the Invention of the Unabomber

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

Has anybody ever seen a complete list of the contents of Ted's cabin? I need to know the books he had. I've heard he had hundreds of books. What were they? Can anyone tell me what books Ted was reading? Have you noticed how the press squashed that aspect of this man's life?

This book gives a revealing view into he frailties of the US justice system, while being unsympathetic, and rightly so, to an individual who undoubtedly committed unspeakable acts on the obviously innocent, regardless of the readers sympathies to the motive. We can all, I think, sympathise with an anti technology outlook regardless of whether we are users, or rather dependants on said technology. I think everyone of us feel a certain technological duress. The point that struck me after reading this book, and certainly some of the reviews, was a certain unawareness as to the fact that this occurance is not unusual on a world stage. Also that the US justice system is as some pristine model to be held up for all the world to admire, and hold in awe, and this is somehow a breach of norm. In high profile cases of this type, where there is a public indignation, there has always been a urgency to see justice done. Henceforth, there is a zelousness on the part of the prosecution to satisfy the public wish to see a "head in the noose". In all such circumstances it may, can, and does breed a certain departure from ethics, even if it isn't obvious in the midst of the cry for blood. However, in retrospect it is easy to see, and critisize, especially when those breaches are pointed out as eloquently as in this offering. There are legal systems as good and better than that of the US, elsewhere in the world, and those systems are subject to the same influences, especially when an event filled with such horror, and given such media attention is presented to the people. In short, my belief is that we all share the blame for the short comings and lack of ethics in these types of cases. Two cases that spring to mind are those that occurred in the UK during the early seventies. I refer to the case of the Birmingham Six, and the Guilford Four, where innocent men were sent to jail for IRA terrorist crimes, on the basis of obviously coersed confessions, and circumstantial evidence, because of a raging public's thirst for blood. The upside of the UK case was that it was overturned and the errors were at least partially admitted. I don't think this would occur in a US context. The above narrative doesn't seek to claim that Ted Kaczynski was in anyway innocent, which we all believe he was not, and we all believe he should be punished. The point is that, negative bias exists in the face of media hyped horror perpetrated by an individual, and that its created by the paper buying, TV watching public, which vents its anger through a politic motivated by popular opinion. The law, judicary, and prosecuion are just the representitive "Lynching Party". The real question is: Is Uncle Sam Man Enough To Admit His Shortcomings When They Are pointed Out".

The author well states legal points of debate regarding the "non-trial" of Dr.Kaczynski. Provides interesting insight to the legal system and inparticular Dr. Kaczynski's plight. However, the book could have been reduced to 2-3 chapters if such points/observations were concisely and clearly stated once.

If there is a particular strength to this book, it is in the revelation that the man who dared to judge Kaczynski, one of the fed's premier affirmative action judges, failed to understand the processes of his own courtroom. Unwilling to become a joke like Brother Lance, this judge decided that his courtroom would not become a soap box for Ted's deranged philosophies, forgeting, along the way, that the Constitution requires that the courtroom become a soap box for the defendant, his one chance to speak his defense, and for the people to weight that defense. Thank you Michael Mello for reminding us that everyone is entitled to his day in court. Top notch book.

I was expecting a somewhat dry recountal of judicial process and courtroom manuevers when I began reading this title, and was completely surprised to find a book which raises a multitude of thought provoking issues. Mello presents Kaczynski's case clearly and intelligently, and provides a strong argument to support his belief that Kaczynski was unfairly manipulated by his attorneys and Judge Burrell. Yet along the way, Mello also tackles significant topics such as the definition of insanity, media misguiding, euthanasia vs. state assisted suicide vs. consensual execution, personal agenda/ethics in the legal field, diaries and the right to privacy, et cetera. Many of these issues are intelligently discussed within the context of very interesting historical cases. Mello's writing style came across to me as somewhat lacking in personality, at first, yet I soon realized that his straightforward voice is most effective in communicating the issues at hand. In choosing a no-nonsense style, the author does well to include numerous quotes and excerpts from disparate notables such as Anne Frank, Camus, Walt Whitman, Nietzsche, Bram Stoker, Rilke, Socrates, et cetera to pepper the reading with a chorus of voices. By concluding the book with victim descriptions from the Government's Sentencing Memorandum, Mello provides a complete and haunting plot twist....rather unsettling. This book offers not only an incredibly fair, edifying and intriguing view of the behind-the-scenes shenanigans of the judicial players, but also solicits the reader into contemplation of important issues. I highly reccommend this book not only to those interested in the specifics of Kaczynski's experience, but to anyone interested in reading an evolved, well thought and thought-provoking book.

"Chutzpah" comes to mind - a lawyer makes up the facts. Mello claims privileged conversations with a man whom the US legal system defied the Constitution to silence , but Mello himself blots out the most elementary realities of the "Unabomber" story. When Kaczyinski fled Berkeley the university was under the thumb of a rogue cop who went on the become US Attorney General; Niixon had signed an order suspending civil rights in California and "Operation Cable Splicer" was shooting up the University community. Corrupt corporate interests had gained control of at least one environmentally vital professional school. Who would listen to alarms from this ataciturn, over-educated young math professor? Now that's a story worth telling; I don't think Mello bothered to find out what was going on those days in Berkeley.

Mello analysis of the Unabomber case gave me an in depth look at the horrors of the U.S. legal system while keeping it at an accessible level, as opposed to the usual degeneration into "legalese" that many lawyers throw at us.

A very encouraging change from the typical stuff that foams up around high profile cases like Kazcynski's. He keeps away from murky psychological speculations about why he did it and describes the legal system, its tradition and the often personal agendas of its actors with a complexity and sense of perspective that we'll never get on television. Unlike Mello, I don't think that the Unabomber will ever get his day in court. That is sort of shocking, for if violent dissenters like Kazcynski absolutely should be tracked down and punished, society needs to understand that their acts are expressive of something besides mere individual insanity. Neither the extorted publication of a manifesto nor the silence of a coerced guilty plea make any real assessment possible. A trial might have, and Mello is very effective in explaining both why it did not take place, and why basic constitutional and ethical principles were compromised in the process. Of course, he has his own axe to grind, but it is a sharp and sturdy one.

I have followed the Unabomber case from since before it ever came to be known that Kaczynski was the Unabomber. Michael Mello has made me understand a thing or two about the way our court system is more like a political arena than it is a forum for justice. While I agree with Mello as to the fact that Kaczynski is the Unabomber, I wish he'd come out and said that this was a star chamber-like proceeding where the truth was hidden behind the curtain of ideological protectionism (to his credit he does imply it) -- I feel that Mello has done the reader a great service in exposing a farce of a case that was engineered to avert a death penalty at the expense of destroying a potential folk hero of the environmental movement. It is surprisingly a page turner and I can recommend it.

I certainly agree with the reviewer,Dr.Alan A.Abrams, on his review of this book,especially in the area of editing.Although a few of the points in this book were,I feel correct,and well accepted such as the judges refusal to allow Kaczynski to defend himself even though the possibility of recieving the death penalty was being persued by the prosecution, the judges refusal to allow Kaczynski to proceed with the trial and defend himself with no clear sanity/insanity diagnoses determined was flawed. I don't know of anyone who doesn't believe in a defendants right to his day in court.I feel Kaczynski should have been allowed to defend himself not having been definitely diagnosed insane by the doctors and/or the court even though it was obvious that Kaczynski knew what was at stake and was taking advantage of every legal opportunity available to manipulate and delay the inevitable trial.The main point of this book was just that,the denial by the judge of due process, Kaczynski's right to represent himself.I believe most people agree with that even though Kaczynski accepted the plea bargain.This gets us back to this book,the main point of which has been stated above.After laborously enduring hundreds of pages of redundant text,hoping for a few new facts,I finally got to the end and was totally disappointed.There were few new facts in this book that hadn't been already in the news.As Dr.Abrams stated in his review,this book was in dire need of editing.I believe that the complete book could have been reduced to one or two chapters at most and still cover the main points brought out in this book.Definitely not recommended for anyone without a very,very long attention span who is also able to endure endless redundant text.