Riley Cavanaugh

Criminal Law
Book Report
Ultimate Punishment: A Lawyers Reflection on Dealing with the Death Penalty by Scott
Turow was an interesting and easy book to read. This paper will discuss a few things. First, I will
summarize the book. I will say what the authors position on the death penalty and if he supports
it or not. I will next say two arguments each that he has for it, against it, and why those
arguments are his opinions. This book was an interesting read and gave me a new perspective of
the death penalty.
The book was about Turow explaining all the factors that affect or cause the death
penalty. He talked about a few parts of it. One of the parts he talked about was how different
races and genders showed different results in the death penalty. Along with race and gender,
geographic location of the murder will also show which places receiver the death penalty more
often. He talks about other things like the parts of the death penalty being used on someone who
is actually innocent. The other idea they talked about was if the murderer was given life
imprisonment then they have the chance of killing again, such as it was discussed about the killer
Henry Brisbon. Turow would discuss both the misconceptions of the death penalty and the
possible factors that should be considered to where it would deem to be the right way. So while
discussing all the contributing factors of whether or not the death penalty should be legal, he was
on a committee with other qualified individuals to present new legislature, by my understanding,
on what should constitute when the death penalty should be implemented. I will discuss this
further in saying why he is for or against it.

I believe that the authors position on the death penalty is that he is for it, but only
if it is absolutely certain that the person being sentenced is the person who committed the murder
and that the crime was heinous enough that the death penalty is justifiable. As he stated in the
book, some of the kinds of murder that could end with a death sentence is killing a police officer
or firefighter and killing someone after committing torture. He does not want innocent people to
be sentenced to death. The example of this is towards the beginning of the book when men,
Hernandez and Cruz, that were pardoned of the murder they were convicted. According to the
book, he states: Hernandez and Cruz are two of seventeen men in Illinois who were absolved of
the murder they were convicted. They were then absolved of their death sentence, as well.
I believe that Turow supports the death penalty, and he wants the system to be more
certain of convicting the right person to the death sentence; additionally, I think he supports it
based on some examples he gave. He supports it based on ideas that some crimes are egregious
enough to warrant it, such as Henry Brisbons murders or the rape and murder discussed in the
first chapter. He may not agree with it in some regards and think that the system should change
their requirements in certain areas, but overall, he provides examples where he thinks that the
death penalty is appropriate and never fully says that he is totally against the death penalty. To
sort of think the other way, he does not exactly say whether he is for it or against it, but just
presents the facts in an objective point of view. He does not want anyone robbed of their right of
life for a crime they did not commit.
I would say he supports it, but he mostly looks at the death penalty, in the book, in an
objective way; furthermore, I will name two arguments he makes for the death penalty and why.
One of the arguments he makes that is for it is the one under the chapter When They Murder
Again. This chapter gives the example of the murderer Henry Brisbon. He was infamous as the

I-57 murder. He and some others he was with killed people on the highway in brutal ways.
Then when he was in prison, he kept on killing and killing. He killed other inmates and had to be
transferred to another prison that gave him less freedom. Turow later discussed how it has never
been a guarantee that he will not kill again even though he is already in prison. Another argument
he makes for it is from the chapter The Victims. He states in the book: Even if we guarantee
that life sentences will include no possibility of parole, anxieties remain for survivors. Those
who committed the murder and were sentenced could even attempt to escape from prison. This
would make it hard for the victims family to feel safe after a loved one was killed by that person
attempting to escape prison.
Two chapters that Turow made an argument for the death penalty was When They
Murder Again and The Victims; in contrast, he makes arguments that are against the death
penalty. One of these arguments is if the wrong person is convicted, and the death sentence is
carried out. This would be killing an innocent person and be a wrong killing instead. He explains
that the death sentence for the wrong person has been happening too often, so the system should
change to address this. The next argument is the idea of deterrence, how it does not go hand-inhand with the real purpose of the death penalty. Turow says, If the death penalty is a deterrence,
that fact is not visible to the naked eye. Murderers would not think before they commit the
killing that they should not because they could receive the death penalty.
This book was an interesting book to read. I like how he explained all the different points
of view of the death penalty. He also gave good insight in factors that could determine it, why
some are correct and incorrect. Overall, this book was fun to read and provided me a lot of
information on the death penalty.

Extra Credit: Justifiable. Certain.