What do you think?
Rate this book
The Killing of Bonnie Garland: A Question of Justice
A powerful and passionate indictment of the use of psychiatric testimony in criminal cases.
--The Cleveland Plain DealerA year after Richard Herrin confessed to killing his girlfriend, Bonnie Garland, he was found not guilty of murder. His crime, he pleaded, was committed under extreme emotional disturbance, excusing him from maximum responsibility. He was convicted on the reduced charge of manslaughter.
In this incisive examination of the murder, the trial, and its aftermath, a distinguished psychiatrist addresses the issue of the insanity defense. He shows how psychiatric testimony can distort court proceedings, and brilliantly analyzes the conflict between the individual rights of the accused and society's right to justice.
--The Cleveland Plain DealerA year after Richard Herrin confessed to killing his girlfriend, Bonnie Garland, he was found not guilty of murder. His crime, he pleaded, was committed under extreme emotional disturbance, excusing him from maximum responsibility. He was convicted on the reduced charge of manslaughter.
In this incisive examination of the murder, the trial, and its aftermath, a distinguished psychiatrist addresses the issue of the insanity defense. He shows how psychiatric testimony can distort court proceedings, and brilliantly analyzes the conflict between the individual rights of the accused and society's right to justice.
- GenresTrue CrimeNonfiction
384 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1982
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
May 29, 2007
This book tells the true story of a young man that killed his girlfriend and later used the insanity plea. The author also gives a brief history of how the insanity defense has been used in the past and how it has been manipulated. In this particular case, I think it helped reduce the sentence of a man that was smaart enough to know he could use the insanity defense to his benefit. Unfortunately, the author got too wordy and stands on his soap box a little too long and could have cut aboup 100 pages out of this book.
June 1, 2007
Non-fictional account of, well, the killing of Bonnie Garland, the trial afterwards, and the general repercussions. Very interesting, especially for an analytic book assigned in class. There are definitely some extremely tense moments, though...
Read
March 4, 2013Made me reexamine some of my own ideas about criminal justice, retribution, rehabilitation and forgiveness.
October 6, 2026
One would assume that this book is about the killing of Bonnie Garland. It is... to some extent. Bonnie Garland's murder and the subsequent trial was the backdrop but I got the feeling that it was more or less a convenient excuse to write a book about the role of psychiatrist and psychologists in the courtroom. "The Killing of Bonnie Garland" is a lot sexier title than "Psychiatrists in the Courtroom".
On July 7th, 1977, in Scarsdale, New York, Richard Herrin repeatedly struck his girlfriend, Bonnie Garland, in the head with a hammer while she slept. He left the scene, went to a church, and confessed his crime. He was arrested, tried, and convicted, but he had tremendous support from the Catholic Church there in New York. Because of that support he was afforded a top notch defense and was convicted of manslaughter instead of murder. The defense was aided by willing psychiatrists to say that Richard suffered psychologically hence there were mitigating circumstances for what Richard did.
That was the backdrop of the book but it was more of an opportunity for Dr. Willard Gaylin to analyze the trial and criticize everyone. With most true crime books there is a certain amount of analysis and critiquing. With the benefit of hindsight and interviewing the jurors one can reasonably attest to what would have been a better defense or a better prosecution. "The Killing of Bonnie Garland" is rife with Monday-morning-quarterbacking. Dr. Gaylin, a psychiatrist, criticizes the defense attorney, the prosecutor, AND THE JURY. But he reserved his most scathing criticisms for Dr. John Train, an expert witness for the defense. He was so critical I couldn't help but think he had professional jealousy of Dr. Train.
The trial analysis was a significant part of the book and it nearly made me put the book down. But eventually he pivoted off of that and began discussing the crux of the book: the role of psychiatrists in a criminal trial. He aptly points out that many psychiatrists, psychologists, and psychoanalysts are nothing more than "hired guns" and they've reduced the profession to a mockery due to the absurdity of their diagnoses just to appease whomever they are working for. One trial example was of Officer Robert Torsney:
In 1976, Officer Torsney shot and killed a unarmed 15 year old black teenager (I know, how familiar). Without the benefit of even his partner to support his claim of, "I thought he was armed", Torsney went to an insanity defense. The defense was able to acquire the services of a Dr. Daniel Schwartz. Dr. Schwartz, after much contemplation and research, came up with the brilliant diagnosis of "involuntary retrospective falsification", a term and diagnosis that hadn't existed before. Dr. Schwartz sold it so well Officer Torsney was acquitted by reason of insanity.
Dr. Gaylin brought the aforementioned example and more to illustrate the harmfulness of being able to hire psychiatrists to testify. Dr. Gaylin was at his worst when analyzing the trial, but he was at his best when he discussed the idea of justice. He wrote at length--citing case after case--about how justice had not been served, or if it was served, how defense attorneys went to embarrassing lengths to get their clients acquitted. So, the book has its peaks and valleys but ultimately it was a good and beneficial book.
On July 7th, 1977, in Scarsdale, New York, Richard Herrin repeatedly struck his girlfriend, Bonnie Garland, in the head with a hammer while she slept. He left the scene, went to a church, and confessed his crime. He was arrested, tried, and convicted, but he had tremendous support from the Catholic Church there in New York. Because of that support he was afforded a top notch defense and was convicted of manslaughter instead of murder. The defense was aided by willing psychiatrists to say that Richard suffered psychologically hence there were mitigating circumstances for what Richard did.
That was the backdrop of the book but it was more of an opportunity for Dr. Willard Gaylin to analyze the trial and criticize everyone. With most true crime books there is a certain amount of analysis and critiquing. With the benefit of hindsight and interviewing the jurors one can reasonably attest to what would have been a better defense or a better prosecution. "The Killing of Bonnie Garland" is rife with Monday-morning-quarterbacking. Dr. Gaylin, a psychiatrist, criticizes the defense attorney, the prosecutor, AND THE JURY. But he reserved his most scathing criticisms for Dr. John Train, an expert witness for the defense. He was so critical I couldn't help but think he had professional jealousy of Dr. Train.
The trial analysis was a significant part of the book and it nearly made me put the book down. But eventually he pivoted off of that and began discussing the crux of the book: the role of psychiatrists in a criminal trial. He aptly points out that many psychiatrists, psychologists, and psychoanalysts are nothing more than "hired guns" and they've reduced the profession to a mockery due to the absurdity of their diagnoses just to appease whomever they are working for. One trial example was of Officer Robert Torsney:
In 1976, Officer Torsney shot and killed a unarmed 15 year old black teenager (I know, how familiar). Without the benefit of even his partner to support his claim of, "I thought he was armed", Torsney went to an insanity defense. The defense was able to acquire the services of a Dr. Daniel Schwartz. Dr. Schwartz, after much contemplation and research, came up with the brilliant diagnosis of "involuntary retrospective falsification", a term and diagnosis that hadn't existed before. Dr. Schwartz sold it so well Officer Torsney was acquitted by reason of insanity.
Dr. Gaylin brought the aforementioned example and more to illustrate the harmfulness of being able to hire psychiatrists to testify. Dr. Gaylin was at his worst when analyzing the trial, but he was at his best when he discussed the idea of justice. He wrote at length--citing case after case--about how justice had not been served, or if it was served, how defense attorneys went to embarrassing lengths to get their clients acquitted. So, the book has its peaks and valleys but ultimately it was a good and beneficial book.
January 25, 2018
Painful to read. Not my cup of tea at all. The guy drowns you in facts (far too many names to keep track of) then peppers in these long theoretical ideations, that aren’t really necessary. Like a chapter on what truth is...I️ mean, I️ speak English and can read, I️ don’t need paragraphs describing what truth is.
The interviews were interesting, but again peppered in with theories, so you just get into something, then your train of thought is lost. He doesn’t give the reader the option to form any of their own opinions.
It’s a bit like reading a professional journal of sorts, has a ton of content, but is a drag to read. I️ gave up.
The interviews were interesting, but again peppered in with theories, so you just get into something, then your train of thought is lost. He doesn’t give the reader the option to form any of their own opinions.
It’s a bit like reading a professional journal of sorts, has a ton of content, but is a drag to read. I️ gave up.
May 11, 2007
A compelling read.
October 31, 2011
True story of the Yale Murder.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews