Let's Get Free: A Hip-Hop Theory of Justice

by Paul Butler

Radical ideas for changing the justice system, rooted in the real-life experiences of those in overpoliced communities, from the acclaimed former federal prosecutor and author of Chokehold Paul Butler was an ambitious federal prosecutor, a Harvard Law grad who gave up his corporate law salary to fight the good fight—until one day he was arrested on the street and charged with a crime he didn't commit. In a book Harvard Law professor Charles Ogletree calls “a must-read,” Butler looks at places where ordinary citizens meet the justice system—as jurors, witnesses, and in encounters with the police—and explores what “doing the right thing” means in a corrupt system. No matter how powerless those caught up in the web of the law may feel, there is a chance to regain agency, argues Butler. Through groundbreaking and sometimes controversial methods—jury nullification (voting “not guilty” in drug cases as a form of protest), just saying “no” when the police request your permission to search, and refusing to work inside the system as a snitch or a prosecutor—ordinary people can tip the system towards actual justice. Let’s Get Free is an evocative, compelling look at the steps we can collectively take to reform our broken system.

Genres: Nonfiction, Law, Politics, Social Justice, Music, Race, History

214 pages, Paperback

First published May 5, 2009

About the author

Paul Delano Butler is an American lawyer, former prosecutor, and current law professor of George Washington University Law School. He is a leading criminal law scholar, particularly in the area of race and jury nullification.

Reviews

[Bill · Rating 5 out of 5]

As a former student of Professor Paul Butler, I was not surprised to find his book refreshing in its candor, raw in its emotion, and revolutionary in its outlook. At bottom, Professor Butler's analysis is grounded in the radical notion that the government should respect people's right to be secure in their persons and property, a right formerly enshrined in the Fourth Amendment. Even more fundamentally, he argues that we should re-embrace freedom in this country in ways that range from not incarcerating nonviolent offenders to decriminalizing drugs. Our prisons, he points out, have made our lives more dangerous by serving to indoctrinate nonviolent offenders in the ways of violent crime. Not only are we squandering lives that might otherwise be productive, but we are also creating a contempt for law not seen since Prohibition and extending police power in a manner not consistent with a free society.

Ironically, Butler points out that prosecutorial bullying coupled with the indiscriminate use of paid informants ("snitches") has radically undermined the rule of law. Indiscriminate prosecution leads to a fatalistic attitude in some communities that come to regard prosecution more as an inevitable misfortune than an avoidable sanction. Paid informants not only undermine community trust and generate false information, but they also allow some of the worst offenders to carry on a life of crime in the knowledge that the police will protect and excuse their paid informers.

As the book's title suggests, Butler derives a series of principles for approaching the problems of criminal justice that are derived from hip hop culture. No disrespect, but I am about as familiar with hip hop as I am with Russian folk dancing, which is to say, not very. Yet given the immediacy of a genre like hip hop on today's streets and among today's youth, it is all the more necessary to read books like Butler's that serve as a bridge to new ideas. Butler's ideas about selective noncooperation with the police may raise an eyebrow in some, but mostly they constitute standard advice for anyone on the wrong end of an inquiry by law enforcement: do not consent to a search, ask for a lawyer, say nothing more until you have one. Even Butler's signature advocacy of jury nullification in cases of non-violent drug offenses is hardly a notion that would shock James Madison.

Later in the book, Butler raises questions about the possible uses of technology in providing alternatives to mass incarceration. However, he does not attempt to answer them, much less address the broad implications of placing intrusive monitoring devices in the hands of the bullying police and prosecutors he so eloquently decries elsewhere. Such a discussion deserves at least a book of its own, preferably one that examines the commoditization of information technology as a counterweight to Big Brother.

Butler concludes the book with a series of suggestions for citizen action with which anyone who believes we can shape our culture by improving our environment should find themselves in immediate sympathy. While in some ways a pastiche of personal memoir, social analysis, legal primer, and citizen handbook, this book is a compelling read and a call to action for anyone who has ever had a moment's concern about crime or racial justice in America.

[Kony · Rating 2 out of 5]

I'm judging this book against harsher standards than usual, because the author is smart, savvy, and has the resources to do better - and because skating by on thin evidence regarding these issues ends up reinforcing harmful stereotypes.

Despite its subtitle, this book is only peripherally about hip-hop, and it doesn't offer a theory of justice. In effect, it's a drawn-out law review article, written in accessible (non-legalistic) language, that combines anecdote with some token references to hip-hop lyrics, capped off with a summary catalog of other people's policy ideas.

The anecdote bit -- about Butler's brief stints as both prosecutor and prosecuted -- is interesting and thought-provoking. And he does a decent job summarizing the fiscal and ethical problems with mass incarceration.

But his forays into "hip-hop analysis" (theory) and practical proposals (call to action) seem superficial and undeveloped. He trots out long lists of promising ideas; it'd be nice if he picked a few and really fleshed out their nuances. Since he didn't, the last half of the book feels anti-climactic.

[Johnathan · Rating 1 out of 5]

Despite having an interesting premise (a former black AUSA giving his take on the criminal justice system from a hip-hop perspective), this book was extremely disappointing. Rather than writing a thoughtful critique of our current policies using hip-hop as a springboard, Butler merely rambles throughout the book, reciting facts that have been already been presented (and in more compelling ways). He fancies himself a public intellectual, but to do so more is required than merely interspersing a few slang words. Also, while I agree with his critique that good people often should not become prosecutors, I was disappointed that his analysis was so stale and unoriginal. It would've been great if he used his considerable experiences as an AUSA to present a more complex and complicated (and ultimately more realistic) portrayal of that aspect of criminal justice enforcement.

[John Bruning · Rating 3 out of 5]

Sort of a strange, if not bipolar, take on the criminal justice system. Which is not to say that it isn't brilliant at times, but Butler seems to get hung up on some of the very things he sets out to critique. He presents the problems of the criminal court and prison systems extraordinarily well, with great discussions about snitching, jury nullification, and, especially, whether progressive lawyers should become prosecutors. But... he's still in such a pro-prosecution, tough-on-crime mindset that a lot of his solutions seem counterproductive. For example, for all of the criticism of the War on Drugs and the disastrous results that has had on our communities, he still goes so far as to promote drug-sniffing technology that could potentially land more people in jail. And while he considers this to be, at the very least, a means of evening the playing field and limiting some of the racial disparity that exists, he elsewhere acknowledges that the problem already is selective targeting, both by race and by neighborhood. So, why would this technology be used any differently? Why would this technology all of a sudden lead to police putting equal resources into "catching" white drug users?

Butler has some really great ideas, which are given extra force by his background as a prosecutor; but at the same time, the take-away from his book is substantially weakened by that same background. I do appreciate that he has a different (albeit less radical) perspective and hits up some less common but vitally important areas (like snitching, jury nullification, etc) compared to short classics like Angela Davis' "Are Prisons Obsolete?" But, of course, the consequence to that is that some of his observations just seem painfully wrong. Still a refreshing and informative read that you can bury pretty quick (especially if you skim through the last few chapters which are more prosecutorial).

[Riah · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read this book as a follow up after being disappointed by the final chapter of Michelle Alexander's The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. Alexander highlights the problem, but doesn't have a solution other than "now the rest of you figure it out," which bugged me. Butler, on the other hand, assumes that you know enough to be troubled by the racial injustice inherent in our criminal justice system, and sets out to present ways to change it (along with some analysis of it's problems, from a more inside perspective). His argument is that mass incarceration isn't just racist, it also is counterproductive, in that it perpetuates and increases crime by sending too many non-violent offenders though the prison system. The most interesting piece of his strategy is strategic jury nullification, where jurors are legally able to return a not guilty verdict for a person they believe to be guilty, if they see the law as unjust or the prosecution as unfair. This is an important right we have as American citizens, that very few people know about. Definitely worth reading if you're the type of person who knows the system's broken and wants actual ideas on how to fix it. Also, the first chapter, about his own arrest and trial is fascinating. And weirdly, given the title, the chapter on Hip Hop is the weakest. Butler comes across as smarter and more coherent when he sticks to law and politics, rather than culture. But the book's definitely worth reading, especially for anyone who's read the New Jim Crow.

[Audacia Ray · Rating 3 out of 5]

A really smart, engaging, easy to read and thought-provoking book. I wavered between 3 and 4 stars because it's a little uneven, especially toward the end. Though it isn't presented as such, the book really reads like a collection of essays because of its scattered-ness. The opening anecdote of the book, about the author ruthlessly prosecuting a prostitute (with plenty of derogatory slang), made me cringe. Other than the opening passage, Butler mostly focuses on the impact of poverty and policing (especially with regards to drugs) on black and Latino men. He doesn't come back to discussing prostitution - which may be just as well.

That said, I most recommend two chapters. "Jury Duty: Power to the People," discusses the practice of juror nullification, something I didn't know about before reading the book. Jurors may choose not to punish someone who appears guilty - which means that jurors have the power to reduce incarceration rates for non-violent offenses. Just one juror on a panel can create a hung jury, and for many low level crimes, the prosecutor will not seek to re-try the case. More about juror nullification here: http://www.letsgetfreethebook.com/jur...

I also highly recommend the last chapter, "The Beautiful Struggle: Seven Ways To Take Back Justice." Butler has some really excellent proposals, which are written in a very straightforward way.

[Michael · Rating 3 out of 5]

Important topics.

But the author seemed to try too hard to reject conventional academic style. I'm not sure how I feel about his approach--stylistically--to addressing academic issues. Perhaps academics bury their points or obfuscate their points via the traditional approach to academic writing (organization, style, analysis). Perhaps we need a fresh way to address issues that the creators of the academic writing norm haven't experienced. But, as of right now, I'm not comfortable with a new style--and this writing came off as contrived, and the work as a whole rather shallow.

That being said, keep bringing hip hop into scholarship!

[Campbell · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was supposed to read this for a class at the beginning of last semester, but got the flu that week and never got around to it until now. Butler does a really good job of being engaging with his writing while still getting to the point (the first chapter was one of the best openers for nonfiction I’ve ever read). Thus, it’s a great book for beginners who want to get an overview of mass incarceration and the American criminal justice system that’s interesting and written in plain language. However, I’m honestly glad that I read it later than it was assigned because I was able to approach it armed with all of the knowledge I learned over the semester. I’m sure I would’ve also enjoyed had I read it back in January, but I wouldn’t have gotten as much out of it as I did this time because I wasn’t ready yet to read with a critical eye and interpret the text within a broader context.

Basically, this is a really long winded way of saying that this book is good for both people who are experienced with criminal justice scholarship and people who are very new to it LOL. In particular, I really loved the chapters on harm reduction, prosecution as a career, and hip hop music as a driver of social justice.

4 stars because 1) the book was written after Obama’s first election so although the broader themes and ideas are still relevant a lot of the more specific information (especially the technology) is now pretty outdated, and 2) nonfiction just isn’t as exciting to me personally but I understand that’s this is a personal thing so I didn’t want to fault the book itself too much.

[Roope Kanninen · Rating 3 out of 5]

Oli kyllä hyvin mielenkiintoisia ideoita. En kaikista ihan vakuuttunut, mutta hyvä kokonaisuus.

[Catherine · Rating 4 out of 5]

After college, my first job was as an Americorps volunteer working for an organization that served kids who were part of the Juvenile Justice system in Baltimore City. Kids who were coming out of lock-up were generally assigned to our program as a "wrap-around" service and part of their "reintegration" into their communities. As caseworkers we monitored the kids, checking in on them at school (and sometimes going to their homes to drag them into school), meeting with teachers and parents to create viable plans to put them on the path to success. Part of what made the program unique is that instead of having the kids come to us, we brought our services to them. We'd spend most of our time in their neighborhoods, in their homes, and worked to set up the kids AND their families with medical services and social services, job services, etc., all in a herculean effort to help these kids find a different path than the one that landed them in juvenile lock-up in the first place. Part of my job involved working closely with Probation Officers that more often than not, had no idea who their charges were much less what they were up to on a daily basis, so if a kid had a monthly review of their progress in drug court, we were often called to the stand instead of the PO. Most of the time the exchange between myself and the prosecutor would turn into a debate over whether or not I was SURE the kid was REALLY adhering to his court-ordered curfew or was he REALLY attending school on a regular basis. It was not unusual for a prosecutor to ask me to "think again about whether or not so-and-so was really being successful" now that he (or she) wasn't locked up anymore. If my answer was "yes!" the prosecutor almost always look disappointed and frustrated. More than once I felt like saying "Hey, we're on the same side here, right? This kid is holding up his end of the deal, shouldn't we be encouraging him to continue instead of making him feel like it's still not good enough?" All this to say that I've felt for almost ten years like our system of justice is broken.

Paul Butler is a former prosecutor who understands this. While his experience is mostly with adults, the frustration with a system that is too "black and white" with little leeway for any extenuating circumstances, is palpable in his book. And his argument that this broken system is leading our country down a path that leaves us LESS safe is convincing.

Basically, he argues that the justice system is focused too much on locking up criminals, period, even when their crimes do not necessarily justify a hard jail sentence (at least in theory). Putting these minor criminals in jail, giving them access to violent criminals, jail-house gangs, etc., without offering substance abuse counseling, or a clear path to "rehabilitation" (which, let's face it, in this country, "rehabilitation" of prisoners is a fucking joke), leaves these small-time criminals little choice but to go deeper into the world that got them locked up in the first place. In other words, jail breeders more crime, not less.

Butler argues a radical social movement is needed to reverse this trend. The movement icludes Jury Nullification, a process that involves finding a defendant "not guilty" regardless of the weight of the evidence against him. He suggests this tactic be strategically applied to minor offenses that carry big sentences, like possession of pot. He is careful to point out Jury Nullification should never ever be used in violent crimes (i.e. rape, murder, assault (w/ or w/out a deadly weapon), but be reserved for those crimes which are committed by persons who are not yet career criminals. He argues that those charged with these types of "low-level" crimes need alternatives to jail, such as meaningful community service, access to social services, job training, and substance abuse counseling.

Having seen first-hand how lock-up breeds more violence and crime, I have to admit, I am all for this. I am so much in agreement that I already know when I am called for jury duty, I will make it known that I believe in Jury Nullification for certain crimes (Butler actually lays out a fairly easy way in which to do this). Even though I'm fairly certain my background in social work will preclude me from serving on most juries, I have this option in my back pocket for when the time comes.

[Adam · Rating 4 out of 5]

What happens when a prosecutor gets thrown headfirst into the throws of an unjust criminal justice system that he had helped to perpetuate? You get an insightful reevaluation of that system from one of the key players who knows it best!

As a former prosecutor, Prof. Butler examines mass incarceration and how the locking up of 'criminals' is in fact contributing to a more criminalized society. In addressing non-violent crimes, many of which stem from overly ambitious drug laws, Butler extols the virtues of jury nullification, or issuing a not-guilty verdict, a practice preserved in the Constitution as a means by which the populace can protect itself from the ruling body.

Butler also addresses the pitfalls of police and prosecutors using 'snitches,' which incentives criminals to produce information on other criminals, whether or not that information is actually true. He concludes that while subversive measures are certainly praiseworthy, the prosecutors office is no place for someone looking to fight the good fight or revamp the criminal justice system as we know it.

Acknowledging that the down falls of the system are no secret, Butler points to a hip-hop nation that speaks out against injustice. Far from a perfect institution, hip-hop nevertheless raises a number of relevant questions that can, and should, be addressed in light of racially and class biased mass incarceration.

While academic research underpins the majority of the claims made in 'Let's Get Free,' the Butler's writing is down to earth and accessible. His ability to speak on the situation from an active participant and not a passive observer giver credibility to his claims.

My only question would be in his seven ways to 'take back justice,' not one addresses where a budding law student should look for inspiration. Sure, it's not in the prosecutor's office, but, need one really turn to academia to fight the good fight!?

[Nicole · Rating 3 out of 5]

This one came as a recommendation from Will. Overall, it made a lot of interesting points. The title is a bit misleading, as hip hop is really only featured in one chapter. But Butler does a great job of bringing together factual sources with well-formed opinions on the current criminal justice system and prospects for the future. One of the only things I've read that leans pretty Libertarian and *didn't* annoy me (or get strangely racist/xenophobic). Also, I was completely unaware that jury nullification (where a jury decides to give a "not guilty" verdict because they disagree with the law/charges/ethics of the case, whether or not they believe the defendant is guilty) was a legal option. I thought at best it was frowned upon and at worst it was illegal. But turns out it is a completely legitimate option with a rich history that most citizens are completely unaware of.
My only pet peeves with this book: he relies too heavily on news sources (they're fine when you're quoting someone, but less than desirable when you're referencing a fact/study - use the actual source) and he goes on a brief rant at the end about how lead poisoning is the root of all evil/crime (this section came out of left field and I mostly glossed over it). But overall, a very interesting take; I found myself agree with multiple points (police have *way* too much power and should be monitored more closely; putting people in prison for drug addiction and other non-violent crimes is fairly stupid; jury nullification, when used appropriately, is powerful and can reverse some of these social ills; the system of snitches - police paying people to report crimes and rat out others to reduce their sentences - is stupid and mostly leads to terrible injustices; sending criminals, especially non-violent criminals, to jail en masse is stupid and extremely damaging to communities). Would recommend to those interested in social justice, our current prison and criminal justice systems, and social reform.

[Spicy T AKA Mr. Tea · Rating 3 out of 5]

I just finished this. Was on my way to tampa so I thought I'd read something different from the areas I'm researching right now. First, I love Paul's writing voice. He's too the point, accessible, and there is definitely some snark and sarcasm. Great stuff. Second, most of what he had to say was great info and telling regarding the role of prosecutors in the criminal injustice system. Third, while many of his views were left and enlightened, I don't think he went far enough. And he admits as much when he claims that there are some bad people out there who have to be locked up. He wasn't advocating abolishing the prison industrial complex, just reforming the hell out of it and reducing the number of people incarcerated. His chapter on technology, regarding acceptance of even more forms of invasive monitoring and surveillance was disappointing. He advocates low-jacking humanity, but tempers that with the knowledge that people monitored from their homes are less likely to end up in jail. Two problems I had with that was a) he doesn't seem to see the system as one driven by profits--it's good to lock people away--especially for the for-profit prison industry; second, he asks us to assume, passively, tries to sneak it by, that in the future, the current system of "justice" will absolutely still be in place and the police, scientists, and politicians are going to continue to devise new and more extreme laws and punishments for people in society. He writes as if this is inevitable. And because it's inevitable, we should accept that even more invasive surveillance and monitoring technology will be created and used and in response the people should make challenges to these violations. It was a little too much for me to swallow. However, I am curious about his jury nullification perspective. All in all, a pretty interesting and quick read.

[Miri · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a good book and Butler had some really good ideas for improving America's criminal justice system.

However, his theories were clearly incomplete. For instance, the jury nullification that he so worships is also responsible for a terrible murderer--O.J. Simpson--going free. But apparently, it's only bad when innocent African Americans are charged with a crime, not when terrible (African American) murderers go free. This is the sense I got from Butler's analysis of jury nullification.

Also, right as Butler rants against racial profiling of black people by white people, he himself admits to racially profile white people! When he heard of the sniper in Washington DC a few years back, he writes, he told a friend that a "crazy white boy" must've done it because there's just no way a black man could do such a thing.

The fact that it DID turn out to be a black man makes Butler look even worse, but that's irrelevant. Why is it ok to discriminate against white people but not black people? If Butler calls racial profiling "racism" (which, arguably, it isn't, because those aren't quite the same things), then he himself is a racist.

Thankfully, near the end of the book, Butler does admit that the hip hop music he glorifies does have some serious problems (gee, maybe objectifying women as sex objects and bragging about one's prodigious amount of money aren't such great things to do). But he never really mentions the drawbacks of the part of hip hop music that he DOES like--that is, the part that glorifies criminals. To Butler, this is just an understandable rebellion against America's criminal justice system, not a tacit acknowledgement that selling drugs and killing people are acceptable ways of life.

And that really bothered me about this book.

[Josh Cramer · Rating 4 out of 5]

I sort of wish I had read this years ago (published 2009) because much of the information was more relevant to the early 2000s. However, most of the ideas and theories are very useful. Notably the use of jury nullification. A process by which jurors refuse to convict a non-violent drug offender, regardless of the evidence against them, in protest of America's mass incarceration. Butler notes that there are no laws forbidding jury nullification and it can be an excellent for of civil disobedience.

Like Michelle Alexander's "The New Jim Crow", Butler notes many of the same themes. Black and Latino people are far more likely to be arrested, convicted, and serve jail time than whites for drug use even though there is no disparity between drug usage by different races. He notes that 90% of charges result in plea deals rather than ever going to court. That police can legally lie to suspects. And that America has more prisoners than any nation on Earth. While only 5% of the world's population, we have 25% of the world's prison population, despite crime rates going down in the US.

Butler advocates for shorter sentences, but that politicians on both sides of the aisle are afraid to do this out of fear that they will be perceived as "soft on crime." He notes an excellent example of how Tip O'Neill fell into this trap. Butler notes that putting people in jail unnecessarily actually increases violent crime. Most people don't go into jail as violent criminals, but when they return they do.

In all, a great book with some great ideas and things to think about. But how to actually get his ideas into action in a society that is so reluctant to face its counterproductive attitude toward crime is another question.

[Nathan Miller · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good read. Well-argued, as one might expect from a former hot-shot prosecutor. Nice to read an argument that the US is WAY overcriminalized from someone who used to be a part of the law-and-order crowd. Not much here is new. We imprison far far more people, for longer, than any other industrialized nation. Those people are disproportionately poor and black. Draconian drug laws selectively enforced are a big part of the reason for that. He goes into some stuff that I hadn't thought about before, but that is no doubt old news to those who study the problem: the corrupting and corrosive force of using snitches; the impact on a broader community (family units, for instance) when a large percentage of its men are locked up; the decreasing stigma of prison when everyone goes there.

The really intriguing part is the thoughts he sketches about how hip hop, as the dominant art form of the group most intimately familiar with the administration of criminal justice, has an alternative view of justice to offer. He may be rights, but all we get is a tantalizing glimpse in the closing chapters of what that theory might be. Clearly, it de-emphasizes punishment for consensual crimes (those that have no victim) and emphasizes retributive punishment for violence. Butler sold me on the idea that you can find a nuanced view in hip-hop of the right relationship between citizens and 'the system'. But he didn't tease it all the way out, leaving the book feeling incomplete.

If there were a sequel that took a much harder look at hip hop and actually constructed a theory of justice from it, I'd snap it up.

[Anthony · Rating 3 out of 5]

If you've ever given more than a moments thought to the ways in which our legal system is racially unjust, the arguments in this book won't come as much of a surprise. However, it is a nice and concise tour through some important areas where the justice system needs to be reformed, and it comes from the unique perspective of a former prosecutor who grew up on the South Side of Chicago. Butler places his critique of criminal justice in America within the context of his experiences prosecuting poor minorities in D.C., and how that contrasted with his social justice goals. Ultimately, this leads him to some fairly predictable views on issues like mass incarceration (we should incarcerate fewer people, and for less time), jury nullification (we should practice it for non-violent drug offenses), snitching (we shouldn't trust criminals informing for money or a plea bargain) and whether good people should be prosecutors (no). He also has some views which are more contentious, in his chapter on new technologies in criminal justice and their potential for reform - basically, he argues we have to accept technological change, and so we should seriously consider the implications of things like fMRI and gene therapy for criminal justice.

If any of these topics interest you, this is worth a read, especially since you could finish this book in a matter of a few hours if you were committed to it. My major criticism is that these topics are so huge that Butler is invariably glossing over tons of detail to get through everything - but then, I assume this was the point of writing a popular book that will be read more widely than a bunch of law review articles covering the same material.

[Justin · Rating 2 out of 5]

The overarching points of the book are: (1) there are too many people in prison; (2) minorities are disproportionately incarcerated; (3) there is no principled reason to punish drug use so harshly; and (4) the criminal justice system should be limited to harm prevention. Although I am inclined to agree with the message, I very much did not like the messages or how he conveyed the message.

This book has a lot of rhetoric. Butler says stuff that sounds good but that isn't necessarily borne out by the facts and social science - specious is a word that comes to mind. He makes a lot of broad generalizations and accusations that he supports with anecdotal evidence and hand waving. He undercuts the decent points that he makes by over-reaching on other points and making stretch arguments. He argues like a high school kid - high emotion, enough facts to satisfy the teacher, but in the end the argument is not fully supported by the facts.

I feel like his "hip hop theory" is just Paul Butler's theory, but he wanted something to sell a book and make his personal beliefs more sturdy and supported by a superstructure. I am inclined to believe the I could advance a lot of "hip hop theories" and then find rap lyrics to make my point . . . a high hop theory of physics, a hip hop theory of child-rearing, a high hop theory of economics. This is probably a really nice law school lesson plan to emphasize his law school lectures with hip hop lyrics. The law students probably eat it up.

[Craig Werner · Rating 3 out of 5]

The title's misleading. There's nothing particularly closely connected to hip-hop in Butler's cogent critique of the legal system. The chapter which focus on hip-hop is probably the weakest in the book--yes, hip-hop addresses a variety of issues involving the impact of the justice system and incarceration on black communities, but the variety of musical voices doesn't really coalesce into a vision that goes much beyond the obvious of "the police and court systems are deeply biased and put a hell of a lot of young black men in jai."

Despite the market-driven title, there are important and compelling elements to Butler's argument. The one that taught me something concerns "jury nullification," the principle that a jury is legitimately entitled to deliver a verdict which addresses not the facts of an individual case, but the validity of the law. This is particularly important in a context where minor non-violent drug offenses--of the sort that could result in the incarceration of at least half the undergraduates (white middle class) of the university I teach at--are used to target a huge number of young black men. Butler, who was a public prosecutor in Washington DC, isn't a wild-eyed apologist--he clearly believes that violent criminals and drug dealers who target minors should be imprisoned. But he's clear and convincing in his argument that the current system increases the threat to public safety.

[Caroline]

So far I am really enjoying this book about America's criminal justice system. The author was Tom's criminal law prof at GWU. Also the author is friends with Henry Gates of Harvard Law and was one party to the accidental arresting/Beergate shebang.

Anyways Butler, a somewhat arrogant, but brilliant lawyer, was working for the DOJ as a criminal prosecutor in DC when one day he found himself on the other side of the courtroom. He went from prosecutor to defendant because of a lying, crazy neighbor. What he learned going through the process himself, with no special treatment, was how harsh, slow, and nonsensical the justice system is. Very interesting and also sad. Sad because so many people out there in jail or prison need real psychiatric help, but our way of treatment is throwing them in a cell with other mentally unstable criminals. Also sad because the jails are overcrowded with nonviolent offenders. Putting a coke head in jail with other coke heads is not going to make him see the err of his ways.

The authors big thing is jury nullification. The legislature is too slow to react and isn't in line with what is going on in the real world. It's up to the jurors to make the change.

[Marina · Rating 3 out of 5]

What this book lacks in detail and thoroughness it sacrificed for accessibility and ease-of-read, and this seemed intentional, not lazy. Definitely presented some new ideas I hadn't seen before, and had a great discussion of jury nullification. I also liked that towards the end he presented theoretical solutions and practical, immediate ways to ameliorate the impact of the prison industrial complex (but here's the thing - he doesn't actually touch on the prison industrial complex - maybe that would have made the book more complex? But it seemed like a big oversight to not mention how private corporations invest in and influence prisons and jail systems). Overall, he's not too far from the lock-em-up mentality he tries to push back against, and could've benefitted from at least asking whether prison abolition were possible, even if he disagreed. I think he could've also added more about class difference in conviction, in other words, systemic roads to jail rather than the personal irresponsibility narrative only. On the whole, I would still recommend it as a short, thought-provoking read even if I somewhat disagree with a lot of his points about prison reform (like fMRIs as lie-detectors, across-the-board gene therapy, and extreme prisoner surveillance).

[Bryan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Paul Butler writes a persuasive critique of the criminal justice system, building on most of the sociological research out there and bringing his own experiences to play in a forceful way. He writes about a range of topics, including jury nullification, hop-hop, the war on drugs, and why progressives should not be prosecutors. Unfortunately, he almost lost be as a reader near the beginning of his book by getting the holding of a major case in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence wrong and taking the criticism of that case from a judge out of context (Katz v. United States and Justice Harlan, respectively). I was shocked, since Butler is a law professor at the George Washington University, but read the opinion again. That made me question him more fully than I would have otherwise. I have my own personal thoughts on everything he says (especially about how good people shouldn't become prosecutors), but I will not expound here as it would really take pages on pages to flush them out. Overall, a good read for anyone who wants to figure out one person's solution to the dysfunction in our criminal justice system that is accessible to the layperson and an entertaining read as well.

[Naomi · Rating 5 out of 5]

Of all the books I've read addressing the need for reforming the American legal system, this is the one that speaks most clearly to me. Butler has the same statistics at his grasp, but he is also a master at arguing his case, and connecting it to contemporary social critique expressed in music. His work here is four-fold - to educate Americans about the failures of the legal system, to educate Americans as to what they can do to address those failures, to explain and give theoretical underpinnings to the social critique of hip-hop re: the failures of the legal system, and to encourage Americans to remove the social and legal stigma attached to most Americans who have served time in prison for nonviolent offenses. Terrific for small group study.

[Melissa Ooten · Rating 3 out of 5]

It's a good week to be reading this book. I enjoyed it - the three stars mainly reflect that I didn't really hear a new argument here and his writing could be more engaging. Folks like Robin Kelley and Angela Davis write on similar topics but with much more eloquence. Having said that, these issues are important ones that I think a lot of white, middle-class folks know little to nothing about (or know about but don't care to think about) so it's good to get them out there in many different venues. I also thought he got kind of sloppy in the end and reverted to writing chapters in the fashion of a list rather than taking the time to actually construct an engaging narrative. I could see using it in certain undergrad courses.

[Janie · Rating 4 out of 5]

I would pretty much recommend this book to anyone concerned about our IN-justice system. Smart, well written, information packed, often discouraging, yet, ultimately, with a dollop of hope and possibility, "Let's Get Free" presents cogent arguments for a complete overhaul of the criminal justice system : from length of sentencing and over sentencing for non violent crimes, to the use and misuse of the snitch, to racial profiling, and so on. Butler's support of jury nullification was particularly intriguing to me. I am looking forward to hearing the author speak this evening at an ACLU event.

[Jerreed · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very easy, light, and informative read.
A clear picture is painted by Butler of the problems that the justice system is now faced with. I do feel that he was very extreme in some cases of what needed to be done to change the system. His suggestions for change are very wide ranged from complex to simple ideas which I enjoyed. The fall of this book is the title and what it implies. I enjoyed every chapter of this book until the "hip-hop theory of justice" chapter. I felt it lacked the punch needed to send the message home. His theory is so easy to attack, and criticize, but overall the rest of the book is great!

[Amanda Cramer · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a pretty good book, I really enjoyed reading it. There were parts in the middle that lost me, not because the writing was “complicated” it just became very bland to me. I kept pushing through and the ending was very strong. I especially enjoyed his take on prisons and how they are today vs. how they were meant to be used. Very good book, and I’ve learned many things I didn’t know prior to reading this book. From statistics about Americans & prisoners to my rights ! I would recommend this book to anyone who is interested in learning more about our society and justice system.

actual rating - 4.5 stars. (Minus half a star for losing me briefly in the middle of the book) lol

[Tom · Rating 4 out of 5]

14% of drug users are black - about the same percentage of Americans who are black - yet 56% of convicted drug users are black. How can that be? Something is wrong with the system. Is our goal to punish criminals or is our goal to make our communities and our society safer? The author argues convincingly that it should be the latter. He offers more than just the standard decriminalization of possession of small quantities of drugs, most of which I agree with, to accomplish this. A very thought-provoking read.

[Eva · Rating 5 out of 5]

Let’s Get Free is so down-to-earth and so enjoyable to read, seriously addressing problems without seeming angry or radical. My favorite part was every bit where he talked about his own experiences—from getting arrested to his experiences working in the prosecutor’s office. I was a bit skeptical of some of the technological solutions he suggested at the end of the book, but overall, I’m so glad I read it! He brings up some interesting theories about jury nullification and the projected sociological impacts of hip-hop that I am more skeptical of, but overall a great read.

[UChicagoLaw]

This is an unconventional and provocative view on dismantling our country’s addiction to mass incarceration. - Randolph N. Stone