What do you think?
Rate this book
End of Its Rope: How Killing the Death Penalty Can Revive Criminal Justice
It isn’t enough to celebrate the death penalty’s demise. We must learn from it.
When Henry McCollum was condemned to death in 1984 in rural North Carolina, death sentences were commonplace. In 2014, DNA tests set McCollum free. By then, death sentences were as rare as lethal lightning strikes. To most observers this national trend came as a surprise. What changed? Brandon Garrett hand-collected and analyzed national data, looking for causes and implications of this turnaround. End of Its Rope explains what he found, and why the story of who killed the death penalty, and how, can be the catalyst for criminal justice reform.
No single factor put the death penalty on the road to extinction, Garrett concludes. Death row exonerations fostered rising awareness of errors in death penalty cases, at the same time that a decline in murder rates eroded law-and-order arguments. Defense lawyers radically improved how they litigate death cases when given adequate resources. More troubling, many states replaced the death penalty with what amounts to a virtual death sentence―life without possibility of parole. Today, the death penalty hangs on in a few scattered counties where prosecutors cling to entrenched habits and patterns of racial bias.
The failed death penalty experiment teaches us how inept lawyering, overzealous prosecution, race discrimination, wrongful convictions, and excessive punishments undermine the pursuit of justice. Garrett makes a strong closing case for what a future criminal justice system might look like if these injustices were remedied.
When Henry McCollum was condemned to death in 1984 in rural North Carolina, death sentences were commonplace. In 2014, DNA tests set McCollum free. By then, death sentences were as rare as lethal lightning strikes. To most observers this national trend came as a surprise. What changed? Brandon Garrett hand-collected and analyzed national data, looking for causes and implications of this turnaround. End of Its Rope explains what he found, and why the story of who killed the death penalty, and how, can be the catalyst for criminal justice reform.
No single factor put the death penalty on the road to extinction, Garrett concludes. Death row exonerations fostered rising awareness of errors in death penalty cases, at the same time that a decline in murder rates eroded law-and-order arguments. Defense lawyers radically improved how they litigate death cases when given adequate resources. More troubling, many states replaced the death penalty with what amounts to a virtual death sentence―life without possibility of parole. Today, the death penalty hangs on in a few scattered counties where prosecutors cling to entrenched habits and patterns of racial bias.
The failed death penalty experiment teaches us how inept lawyering, overzealous prosecution, race discrimination, wrongful convictions, and excessive punishments undermine the pursuit of justice. Garrett makes a strong closing case for what a future criminal justice system might look like if these injustices were remedied.
344 pages, Hardcover
First published September 25, 2017
5 people are currently reading
98 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
May 30, 2018
In recent years the death penalty has become a rare occurrence in criminal cases. This book celebrates that development and explores all of the injustices associated with capital punishment. Individual cases of innocent people serving years on death row and being exonerated, usually with the help of DNA evidence are heart rending. And yes, we have executed innocent people. Also, descriptions of botched executions drive home the barbaric reality of state killing. The death penalty is applied in a small number of jurisdictions these days. For that reason alone, it is unusual punishment, in addition to being cruel. Mr. Garrett advocates rehabilitation over incarceration, applied on a grand scale. If only I were as optimistic as he that redemption of people accused of violent crimes can be readily achieved.
July 8, 2020
I bought this book knowing in my heart I disagreed with the premise, but also very open to the other viewpoint they would present. I was pleasantly surprised by what I read.
First and foremost, I still agree with the death penalty, and not because the evidence presented in the book didn't convince me of some very valuable and valid points. I agree with the death penalty because in fact the Word of God aka the Bible explicitly calls for its being enacted in very specific cases.
Where I agree with the book is this: 1) there has been very poor work on behalf of many defendants in getting proper representation; 2) there have been heavy handed prosecutors that have a "blood lust" for putting people to death, 3) there have been way too many cases overturned some before the fact and others after the fact in which cases innocent people have either died or been falsely imprisoned. 4) when someone is being questioned by the police we MUST have each and every questioning period video taped and evidence kept secure for the sake of transparency and honesty. 5) a persons mental capacity should definitely have a bearing on the process and prosecution. 6) police departments must have a better way to secure evidence and also to preserve evidence for true justice to be served.
Where I disagree is how the author uses larger states and makes them the "worst offenders" when in fact larger populated areas have more crimes and more convictions for these crimes. They don't compare apples with apples. Another area of disagreement is the author links ending the death penalty to showing mercy, and they completely nullify the need for justice. There is a balance and a reckoning and mercy can be found by executing the guilty; they don't have to be mutually exclusive.
They claim mistakes are made in ANY judicial system and they hold that argument to bolster there case. That can be said about any judgement being made in any jurisdiction, but again, one doesn't cancel out the other. Another problem they had was when they briefly tried to insert gun opposition into the subject saying it makes for a more deadly society. Studies have proven repeatedly that guns don't kill people - people kill people. In the first murder recorded in the Bible cain killed Able with a rock - enough said.
There are other tings I can mention, but needless to say their biggest argument against the death penalty was to instead use Life With Out Parole. When they use this argument then we can agree to disagree. We both agree the defendant is guilty we just disagree with how to punish them.
First and foremost, I still agree with the death penalty, and not because the evidence presented in the book didn't convince me of some very valuable and valid points. I agree with the death penalty because in fact the Word of God aka the Bible explicitly calls for its being enacted in very specific cases.
Where I agree with the book is this: 1) there has been very poor work on behalf of many defendants in getting proper representation; 2) there have been heavy handed prosecutors that have a "blood lust" for putting people to death, 3) there have been way too many cases overturned some before the fact and others after the fact in which cases innocent people have either died or been falsely imprisoned. 4) when someone is being questioned by the police we MUST have each and every questioning period video taped and evidence kept secure for the sake of transparency and honesty. 5) a persons mental capacity should definitely have a bearing on the process and prosecution. 6) police departments must have a better way to secure evidence and also to preserve evidence for true justice to be served.
Where I disagree is how the author uses larger states and makes them the "worst offenders" when in fact larger populated areas have more crimes and more convictions for these crimes. They don't compare apples with apples. Another area of disagreement is the author links ending the death penalty to showing mercy, and they completely nullify the need for justice. There is a balance and a reckoning and mercy can be found by executing the guilty; they don't have to be mutually exclusive.
They claim mistakes are made in ANY judicial system and they hold that argument to bolster there case. That can be said about any judgement being made in any jurisdiction, but again, one doesn't cancel out the other. Another problem they had was when they briefly tried to insert gun opposition into the subject saying it makes for a more deadly society. Studies have proven repeatedly that guns don't kill people - people kill people. In the first murder recorded in the Bible cain killed Able with a rock - enough said.
There are other tings I can mention, but needless to say their biggest argument against the death penalty was to instead use Life With Out Parole. When they use this argument then we can agree to disagree. We both agree the defendant is guilty we just disagree with how to punish them.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews