May 31
USA----new book
Mercy on Trial: What It Means to Stop an Execution
by Austin Sarat
Cloth | October 2005 | $29.95 / 18.95 | ISBN: 0-691-12140-0
304 pp. | 6 x 9 | 2 tables.
On January 11, 2003, Illinois Governor George Ryan--a Republican on record
as saying that "some crimes are so horrendous . . . that society has a
right to demand the ultimate penalty"--commuted the capital sentences of
all 167 prisoners on his state's death row.
Critics demonized Ryan. For opponents of capital punishment, however, Ryan
became an instant hero whose decision was seen as a signal moment in the
"new abolitionist" politics to end killing by the state.
In this compelling and timely work, Austin Sarat provides the first
book-length work on executive clemency. He turns our focus from questions
of guilt and innocence to the very meaning of mercy.
Starting from Ryan's controversial decision, Mercy on Trial uses the lens
of executive clemency in capital cases to discuss the fraught condition of
mercy in American political life. Most pointedly, Sarat argues that mercy
itself is on trial. Although it has always had a problematic position as a
form of "lawful lawlessness," it has come under much more intense popular
pressure and criticism in recent decades. This has yielded a radical
decline in the use of the power of chief executives to stop executions.
>From the history of capital clemency in the twentieth century to
surrounding legal controversies and philosophical debates about when (if
ever) mercy should be extended, Sarat examines the issue comprehensively.
In the end, he acknowledges the risks associated with mercy--but, he
argues, those risks are worth taking.
Austin Sarat is William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence and
Political Science at Amherst College and Five College 40th Anniversary
Professor. He is author, coauthor, or editor of more than 50 books,
including When the State Kills and Law, Violence, and the Possibility of
Justice (both Princeton), and Divorce Lawyers and their Clients. His
teaching has been featured in the New York Times and on the Today how.
Sarat was the corecipient of the 2004 Reginald Heber Smith Award given
biennially to honor the best scholarship on "the subject of equal access
to justice."
Endorsements:
"Today, more than ever, Americans are asking questions about what role, if
any, the death penalty should have in modern law enforcement. Professor
Sarat makes an important contribution to that debate by demonstrating the
essential role of mercy and clemency in the criminal justice system. This
thoughtful book should be read by every citizen who cares about the issue,
and by every governor and president entrusted with the power to punish or
pardon."--Senator Edward M. Kennedy
"In a very readable style, Austin Sarat's Mercy On Trial contributes
mightily to the study of mercy, rehabilitation, redemption, and the
complexity of the gubernatorial pardon. This work will help reform our
justice system and hasten abolition."--George H. Ryan, former Governor of
Illinois
"As one of America's preeminent scholars of the history and philosophical
underpinnings of capital punishment, Austin Sarat has debunked every myth
used to rationalize the death penalty. Now, with the publication of Mercy
on Trial, Professor Sarat explores the jurisprudence and other factors
surrounding capital clemency in America. He reminds us that, absent
skilled advocacy, innocence offers little protection from state-sanctioned
violence. Professor Sarat sends a powerful message to not only the legal
community, but to every American who cares about human rights and equal
justice under the law."--John D. Podesta, former Chief of Staff to
President Clinton and President & CEO, Center for American Progress
"Should mercy play a role in a governor's decision to commute a death
sentence--to spare a condemned person? The question is important with
regard to what kind of society we want to have. We are indebted to Austin
Sarat for addressing it in Mercy on Trial as well as examining Governor
George Ryan's commutation of 167 death sentences in Illinois in 2003, the
decline of clemency as a result of the 'tough on crime' politics of our
time, and the legal, historical, and philosophical aspects of the clemency
power. This book is essential reading for anyone who wants to understand
executive clemency in the United States."--Stephen B. Bright, Director,
Southern Center for Human Rights
"Professor Austin Sarat has written a compelling, comprehensive, and
persuasive book on mercy and the death penalty--a must-read for anyone
concerned about capital punishment, and one that offers deeply
philosophical and reflective views on one of the most controversial issues
today. Whether you support or oppose the death penalty, Sarat's book is a
powerful, probative, and thorough treatment of the subject, and will be
well-received in many quarters."--Charles J. Ogletree, Jr., Jesse Climenko
Professor of Law, Harvard Law School; and author, All Deliberate Speed:
Reflections on the First Half-Century of Brown v. Board of Education
"A thoroughly approachable and enjoyable read, Mercy on Trial is an
in-depth exploration of the pardoning power and the paradox of a legal
power that is not legally reviewable. With his usual interdisciplinary
flair, Austin Sarat brings together law, current events, political
history, and philosophical theory, and does so in a way that is
illuminating and instructive."--David Garland, New York University, author
of The Culture of Control
More endorsements
Other Princeton books by Austin Sarat:
* Law, Violence, and the Possibility of Justice.
* When the State Kills: Capital Punishment and the American Condition.
Subject Areas:
* Political Science and International Relations
* American History
* Sociology
* Law
Austin Sarat; William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence and
Political Science
Departments of Law, Jurisprudence & Social Thought and Political Science
Amherst College
Amherst, MA. 01002
*******************************
A culture of death
When I was a freshman in high school, I wrote a paper in favor of capital
punishment. When I got it back, the only comment on it was "Who will
execute the executioners?" followed by a big red "C-."
There were no grammar or spelling errors, just the mistake of holding an
opinion. I returned the paper to my teacher and said that she should
execute them. When she asked who would execute her, I promptly pointed at
myself.
I was given a detention.
In an average state like Kansas, the costs of capital cases are 70 %
higher than comparable non-capital cases, jail time included. In North
Carolina, enforcing the death penalty costs $2.16 million more per
criminal than life in prison without parole.
I know that we cannot put a price on justice, but we should look at the
cost and benefits from a less emotional standpoint.
It's obvious that in some cases for victims' families and communities it
is imperative to pursue the higher penalty in order for them to grieve,
feel safe and restore their faith in the system.
However, many of these funds could be better spent. When asked what
programs have best reduced violent crime, 31 % of police chiefs across the
country reported curbing drug abuse. Other favored choices were better
economy, better jobs and longer prison sentences.
Only 1 % chose expanded use of the death penalty.
Now, I absolutely have no moral or ethical problem with the death penalty,
but I think both sides on the issue need some fundamental lessons in
reality.
We have a culture of death and no one will admit it. I have heard those on
the left argue that we should outlaw the death penalty because we can
never be complete assured of a defendant's guilt.
I have heard conservatives argue that we can never know when life begins
and thus should outlaw abortion. Lets face it -- no one has the moral high
ground in our society.
For the record, if one more agnostic philosophy major who decides he's far
more enlightened than his peers shouts "Thou shalt not kill," believing he
has toppled the religious right's entire argument, I am going to shove a
Hebrew dictionary down his throat. The word he has translated as "kill" is
in fact "murder." There is such a distinction that in society "killing" a
murderer would not be wrong.
The world is not that black and white. There have been cases where DNA
evidence has proved those on death row are innocent, or innocence has been
proven post-mortem. There are also enough statistics to convince even an
extreme skeptic like me that there are racial biases in the system. But
any rational person can recognize these are reasons for reform -- not
removal -- of the death penalty.
Much of the problem stems from our prison system. Cells cleaner than my
room, food better than dorm cafeterias', cable TV and weight rooms provide
prisoners with more amenities than college students. Many in our society
believe these convicted felons are getting off easy, evidenced by the
blind eye we turn to the massive amount of rape that occurs in prison.
If jurors felt prison was a tougher punishment than it currently is, more
criminals would be sentenced to life without parole.
Those who believe that we as a society do not have the right to choose
life or death need to wake up to the world around them.
We put a price on life every day - -- health care, fixing "dangerous"
intersections and car safety. We could spend all of societies' resources
trying to keep everyone alive and healthy, but then we would never have
time or money to enjoy what we paid so much for.
We risk killing innocent children for the sake of the community by
requiring innoculations to prevent the spread of disease. Is it any
different to risk killing innocents on death row?
Ultimately, there is no perfect answer. Life in prison without parole is
the best option, but unfortunatly there will always be extreme cases where
the death penalty is just and necessary. For now, we need to better
examine the cost and benefits of rulings so we may allocate more funds for
crime prevention rather than execution and incarceration.
(source: Drew Winship, The UW Daily Online)
