This book is valuable for anyone interested in the debates about justice, but particularly for readers of Helen Prejean's Dead Man Walking. I also advise reading Debbie Morris' Forgiving the Dead Man Walking, and the Bourgue family's Dead Family Walking, both written by victims of the murderers for whom Helen Prejean was such an eloquent advocate. This is not as appealing as Dead Man Walking, not as warm and fuzzy, but it is an unflinching, indeed horrific, look at the reality of murder and vicious cruelty.

I believe that if we, as a society, release someone whom we have good reason to believe is dangerous, we are responsible for future acts of violence. Not as a responsible as we are for executing an innocent person, but still bearing a burden of guilt. What I like best about the book is that he talks about the reasons that keep me from accepting the abolition of the death penalty. Varnado points out that the arguments that are advanced against the death penalty could, with slight editing, be advanced against any punishment; at 53, I can remember when they were. Executing the murderer doesn't bring back the victim, but neither does anything else. Many of the leaders of the abolition movement, currently begging us to be content with life-without-parole (LWoP), are the same people who have been opponents of any long-term imprisonment. I don't think that we would have LWoP if we didn't have a death penalty. Given the arguments against three-time loser laws, will people who don't accept LWoP for three felonies, even if they are all violent, continue to support LWoP for a murder, however heinous? I think they'd revert to their earlier and more sincere opinions.

It's not an easy question. The legal system is simultaneously too harsh and too soft. Innocent people have been convicted. Chills go down my spine when mayors, governors, etc., announce that heads will roll if someone isn't accused within 48 hours. "Testilying", i.e., false information by the police, is apparently all too common, but the defense is no better. Obviously our legal system is not too concerned about public safety: convicts are given probation, violate it, and are simply given probation again. I hear horrifying tales of the carelessness of parole boards.

I havee also come to think less of Helen Prejean, the more I know about her. I finished Dead Man Walking not convinced, but with great respect for her. As she has become more famous, and more information is available, it has become clear that she feels her cause justified lying and general carelessness with the truth. As Varnado and Debbie Morris point out, she simply accepted what Willie told her without any investigation. It was fine as his spiritual advisor to deal with the world as he saw it, but when she crossed the line into legal advocate and author, such sloppiness became irresponsible. Further, she apparently was knowingly telling a lie when she claimed Willie was remorseful. Not only did he contradict her in his own interview, but Debbie Morris told us that she admitted that she didn't think he was capable of remorse. She has now written a book about people who were supposedly innocent of the crimes for which they were executed; I suppose that I will read it, but at this point, I wouldn't take her word for it. She has co-founded a program for victims, but as Varnado points out, she remains extremely insensitive to them as individuals. Her prayer condemning the participants in an execution, including the victim's parents, is a case in point. She topped this off by not considering how they would feel about appearing in her book, let alone the movie! She's great at touching apologies, but they only mean something if one tries to do better.

Readers concerned about valuing the murderer over the victims may also be interested in reading The Victim's Song by Alice Kaminsky; The Yale Murder by Peter Meyer; and The Killing of Bonnie Garland, a Question of Justice by Willard Gaylin. ( )