So. I finished this book late last night, and since then, I've been pondering what I was going to write in this review. How did I feel about this book? I still don't know.
On the one hand, I feel like it should get a high rating from me for telling the story of how fucked up Oklahoma's justice system was, and how unrepentantly it stole years, and lives, from innocent men. For seemingly no reason. I feel like it should get all the stars for bestselling author John Grisham to have gotten that story the kind of attention it deserves, and all the light shined on it that can be.
But at the same time, I have read many other bestselling author John Grisham books, and this was arguably not one of his best written. I have read quite a few other true crime books, and this was not one of the best written of those either. It jumped around between timelines and people, could have used a bit more structure as far as the chapters and sections went, probably could have used a timeline and a "character list" to help track the plethora of lawyers, inmates, police, etc all traipsing around the story. But my main issue with this is that it read like a highschool report, with all of the immature snark one would expect when the irritated teenager didn't really care for the subject they were assigned.
And, granted, derision was warranted when it came to the "investigation" and the prosecutor, and the judge who let this travesty of a trial proceed, and the judges who upheld it on appeal, and all the other people and systems that failed or were trampled on along the way to get a conviction, with no evidence at all. But, the issue that I take with it is that it no longer feels like reporting and journalism, it feels like propaganda.
"Look how evil cruel the prosecution was" vs "this is what happened and this is why that SHOULDN'T have happened and this was how it was wrong."
I expected better from Grisham. He used to be a lawyer, and he still IS a writer, so he should be an expert at objectively explaining the facts of the case, the law and why it matters and, in this case, how the system failed these men, and do so with skill. Let the reader handle the anger and derision on behalf of these guys - you just present the facts for them. Or if you MUST include it, put it in your intro or author notes or something.
Also, it annoyed me that this was called "The Innocent Man" as though only one person had their life ruined. There were two innocent men convicted of this murder. In addition to that, two OTHER presumably innocent men were convicted in Ada, on no evidence, without even a body, of abduction and murder of another woman. And several other men were mentioned with similar stories of wrongful conviction - but Grisham decided to title this in the singular, as though the other men weren't innocent victims of injustice as well.
All that being said, it wasn't a bad book. I read it pretty quickly, though that was likely more because I wanted to know if they were going to be freed and get justice... I needed to know what would happen.
All in all, I think this book had serious flaws, but it was a story that needed telling, and so I'm not sorry it was written. This kind of thing happens all the time, still, though hopefully not QUITE so blatantly. Prosecutors are supposed to work for the people, let's not forget. If they are more concerned with their conviction rate than their accuracy, that's a problem we should all be concerned about. Not just because it could happen to anyone to be wrongfully accused and convicted - but also because that leaves real perpetrator(s) free. Free to rape, or murder, or assault or whatever, again. We should all be concerned with making sure that convictions are based on solid evidence and truth, not a desire for a quick conviction statistic.