This is a promising book that is thoroughly researched.

Unlike every other supreme court justice that has had the opportunity, neither Justice Brennan nor Justice Marshall ever voted to affirm a death sentence.

The first third of the book covers familiar territory as it recounts the lives and possible influences on Brennan's and Marshall's approach to the law, including their consistent opposition to capital punishment.

The remaining two thirds of the book tries to place Brennan's and Marshall's approach of dissenting for the same reason for about 20 years, in historical and jurisprudential context. It does not fully succeed. In some sense, neither Brennan nor Marshall were writing to recapture the past or to have death penalty cases decided according to established legal approaches; they wrote for the future. They believed that at some point the rest of this country would "mature" and, like them, renounce the death penalty as a legitimate penal sanction. It would have been more meaningful if the book contained a detailed examination of Brennan's and Marshall's influence on capital punishment in the 20th century -- both nationally and internationally, notwithstanding their "relentless dissents." That is, I would have desired that the book look in detail in what occassion their dissents eventually became the law of the land, or the compromises that had to be made by the other justices to accommodate or rebut their views.

The book could use a little more editing, as in several places the thoughts contained in some paragraphs are repeated a few pages later.

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.

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 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.

If you dislike crying from boredom, I would not suggest this book. I found myself very frustrated with the incessantly repetitive nature of his writing. Some paragraphs made no sense at all. I highly reccomend this book to anyone suffering from insomnia!

This book doesn't hold a candle to Von Drehle's "Among the Lowest of the Dead." I picked this book up hoping to be informed and possibly persuaded that the death penalty is a poor system. The author's uninteresting discussions about personal conflicts with people and organizations made me less than empathetic to his point of view.

For Mello, capital punishment is "government-sponsored homocide." He sees the system as being an "unambiguous disgrace to civilized humanity; besides being classist and indecent, it is racist." I couldn't agree more. And that's why I found this book so compelling to read. Mello places his first-hand analysis of "government-sponsored homocide" in a legal, cultural, philosophical, and ethical context. Though our common sense may say that capital punishment is the best, most justifiable consequence for cold hearted murder, we must use our uncommon sense to see the larger picture.

Government-sponsored homocide is not like a crime of murder--even though both seek retribution, but it's a systemic form of murder in which death is seen as a solution to problems in our society and world. As long as we hold to this solution, we'll never be able to understand man's inhumanity to man. We'll simply take the "common sense" route to soloving complex problems with simplistic answers.

Many readers will say that Mello is too biased in his analysis. But with well over 3,000 men and women in this country facing a death sentence (nearly 400 in Florida alone), and with a president who resided over 100 death sentences in Texas, we have to think much more critically about what type of country and culture we're livng in and allowing to develop.

Reading Mello helps us think about this "anathema to civilization." He does it with passion, insight, and years of committed work. Even though he has stepped down from being a capital public defender, I think his book will be useful to generations to come who can join others to take on anti-death work.

The story of Joe Spaziano sounds like an interesting read. Outlaw biker convited of two heinous crimes and there's doubt about the crime for which he is sentenced to death. What SHOULD be a gripping account of the twists and turns of Capital Murder disintergrates into a lovefest--Michael Mello' Self Love and Admiration Society. The book is over 500 pages. If the word "I" were removed, the book would be about 25 pages. This reader wanted to know more about the facts; for instance what was the reason his FAMILY testified against him, why was he a suspect in an out-of state crime. The book is woefully short on facts on the case, and written in a breathless,"Aren't I wonderful and isn't Joe the second most fabulous human being on the earth (next to me, of course" style. Long on pages, short on facts about the crime. No wonders lawyers get no respect.

This book is good reading but Mr.Mello is so anti-capital punishment that he lets that control his opinion. He makes several mistakes about his obsession with "truly innocent". He launches tirades against all law enforcement and judges alike. He lamblasts Ed Carnes of the 11th Circuit for doing everything in his power to deny Spaziano's claims. He forgets to note that 3 judge panels rule on the cases, not just one judge. It takes a 2-1 or a 3-0 to rule on the claims. Also, he claims "The State" hid the audio tapes of the hynotism of DiLisio, but they were found in a detectives attic after he died. If the State wanted to make sure they were never found, they would have been destroyed. Jesse Tafero was not executed wrongly by the State of Florida. Why did Sonia Linder plead guilty to second degree murder when she was granted a new trial? Even the defense attorney conceded in court that the State could prove she was involved. Why didn't Spaziano fight the Harberts retrial and prove once and for all he didn't do it? If I was hell bent on proving that I was wrongfully convicted and sentenced to die, I would go for a acquittal. Again, its a good book, but remember that a die hard anti capital punishment attorney wrote it.

I really enjoyed the story of Sonia and Jesse Tafero.

It was made abundantly clear that Sonia is innocent, based on the sheer extent of prosecutorial misconduct.

My suggestion is that anyone interested in the facts behind the cases represented in this book should do some research on each individual. I feel that Jesse Tafero (if you read the evidence presented posthumously) could not have been the shooter in that particular case. And considering that the prosecution bribed witnesses to lie, suppressed evidence, and conducted a farce of a trial in general, it makes you wonder just WHAT exactly they were trying to hide?...

Great read, worth the expense!