Against The Death Penalty--The Relentless Dissents of Justices Brennan and Marshall
Dublin Core
Title
Against The Death Penalty--The Relentless Dissents of Justices Brennan and Marshall
Subject
Book review
Capital Punishment
Description
Dean and Professor of Law, Victor L. Streib's positive review of Michael Mello's book "Against the Death Penalty--The Relentless Dissents of Justices Brennan and Marshall."
Creator
Streib, Victor
Publisher
HIST 298, University of Mary Washington
Date
2000
Rights
The materials in this online collection are held by Special Collections, Simpson Library, University of Mary Washington and are available for educational use. For this purpose only, you may reproduce materials without prior permission on the condition that you provide attribution of the source.
Format
2 JPGs
300 DPI
Language
English
Coverage
Washington D.C.
Text Item Type Metadata
Text
[Start page]
[Title] Against the Death Penalty—The Relentless Dissents of Justices Brennan and Marshall by Michael Mellow.
[Subtitle] Northeastern University Press, Boston, 1996, 331 pp., hardcover--$
[Article Begins] By any measure, the author of this new book, Michael Mello, is the leading law scholar-teacher-litigator in death penalty law and has been for several years. For the many others of us trying to make our marks in this field, Professor/Attorney Mello is both a hero and daunting presence. His most recent book-length effort, Against the Death Penalty, certainly reaffirms his leadership in this field and adds to death penalty scholarly literature a tour de force treatment of the roles of Justices William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall in the current era of death penalty jurisprudence. The result of this first-rate legal scholar having zeroed in on this important aspect of two of the most important Supreme Court Justices of this century is a truly extraordinary volume.
Justice Brennan served on the Court from 1956 to 1990, and Justice Marshall served from 1967 to 1991. As a result, they were there together for the stream of major death penalty opinions from 1972 through 1990. In all but one case, they voted identically; in all but two cases, they even took the same perspective on the key legal issues of the case. As the book title reveals, their opinions relentlessly argued against the death penalty, sometimes in the majority but most often in dissent. Death penalty opponents will find in these opinions (and in Mello’s commentary on them) ample support and encouragement for their positions. Death penalty supporters, while presumably rejecting the bottom lines of the opinions, nonetheless will find them fascinating to read. For those uninterested in the death penalty but students of the Court and the use of dissenting opinions, Mello’s exploration of the history, jurisprudence, and judicial politics of the sustained dissent will be equally valuable in that regard.
The book is nothing if not thorough. In keeping with the traditions of legal scholarship, Mello documents his 210 pages of text with nearly 1,500 textual footnotes. While I tend to join those advocating for abolition of the footnoting style of traditional legal scholarship, in particular law review articles with longer textual footnotes than primary text, the delightful thoroughness of Mello’s work reminds me of the value of such detailed footnoting. In fairly striking contrast, the reader searches in vain for other than the most summary of the table of contents. Given the richness of the volume, a detailed guide to its contents somewhere up front would have been a valuable addition. As it is, the pages of text are divided into four chapters with the simplest of titles. Not that there aren’t subsections in the chapters; they just never made it into the sort of detailed table of contents so helpful to readers.
Mello’s first chapter, “The Two Justices,” gives the reader 83 pages and 554 footnotes of background information on these two Supreme Court giants. This chapter not only documents thoroughly the background and experience of the Justices, but it also provides delightful up-close-and-personal snapshots of such episodes as Brennan’s prodigious notetaking in law school and Marshall’s coy response to notification of his nomination to the Court. This chapter tells us about the human beings inside the robes, while the rest of the book focuses upon their roles as Supreme Court Justices. [End first page]
[Start second page] The second chapter, labeled with similar frustrating economy of words (“Legitimacy in History”), provides the reader with a quite interesting treatment of dissenting opinions in Supreme Court history and with forays into the products of such great dissenters as John Marshall Harlan, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Louis Brandeis, and William O. Douglas. While this chapter largely leaves the focal point of the death penalty, it is excellent. I often have heard law students say they don’t pay much attention to the dissenting opinions because, after all, they are just the sour grapes of the losers in the decision-making process. Mello’s chapter on the legitimacy of dissenting opinions throughout Supreme Court history should be made required reading for such students.
In chapter three, “Legitimacy in Theory,” Mello takes the concept of the dissenting opinion through a tour of a variety of viewpoints on law and legal development, ranging from natural law to sociological jurisprudence to critical legal studies. After comparing and contrasting the perspective upon dissenting opinions in each of these jurisprudential camps, Mello returns to struggle to put meaning into the Eighth Amendment and to “answer definitively the question of what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.” (155) Mello’s conclusion: “Some will find the answer in social or moral certainties; others will find those truths to be subjective. No one can have the ‘last word.’” (155)
The final chapter, “Legitimacy in Judicial Politics,” takes the reader inside the day-to-day workings (and personal politics) of the Court. Noting that all death penalty cases are put on the “discuss” list by the Justices, it is clear nonetheless that Brennan and Marshall argued more strenuously for some cases than for others. This chapter includes excerpts from memo’s to Justice Marshall from his clerks, from other interviews of Supreme Court clerks, and from the intense behind-the-scenes maneuvering that occurred in several key death penalty cases.
Yes, this extraordinary book is about death penalty jurisprudence at the Supreme Court level, but it is so much more. In addition to the detailed and copiously documented discussion of the death penalty opinions by Justices Brennan and Marshall, the volume contributes a major treatment of the fundamental notion of dissenting opinions in the American legal system and in jurisprudential thought. Serious death penalty scholars will find the book to be essential, but any student of the Supreme Court in general or of dissenting opinions in particular must also give this volume a prominent place in their library. The book is superb, and once again we are indebted to an extraordinary scholar, Michael Mello.
Victor L. Streib
Dean and Professor of Law
Pettit College of Law
Ohio Northern University
Ada, Ohio 45810
[in handwriting] 419/772-2000
[End second page]
[Title] Against the Death Penalty—The Relentless Dissents of Justices Brennan and Marshall by Michael Mellow.
[Subtitle] Northeastern University Press, Boston, 1996, 331 pp., hardcover--$
[Article Begins] By any measure, the author of this new book, Michael Mello, is the leading law scholar-teacher-litigator in death penalty law and has been for several years. For the many others of us trying to make our marks in this field, Professor/Attorney Mello is both a hero and daunting presence. His most recent book-length effort, Against the Death Penalty, certainly reaffirms his leadership in this field and adds to death penalty scholarly literature a tour de force treatment of the roles of Justices William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall in the current era of death penalty jurisprudence. The result of this first-rate legal scholar having zeroed in on this important aspect of two of the most important Supreme Court Justices of this century is a truly extraordinary volume.
Justice Brennan served on the Court from 1956 to 1990, and Justice Marshall served from 1967 to 1991. As a result, they were there together for the stream of major death penalty opinions from 1972 through 1990. In all but one case, they voted identically; in all but two cases, they even took the same perspective on the key legal issues of the case. As the book title reveals, their opinions relentlessly argued against the death penalty, sometimes in the majority but most often in dissent. Death penalty opponents will find in these opinions (and in Mello’s commentary on them) ample support and encouragement for their positions. Death penalty supporters, while presumably rejecting the bottom lines of the opinions, nonetheless will find them fascinating to read. For those uninterested in the death penalty but students of the Court and the use of dissenting opinions, Mello’s exploration of the history, jurisprudence, and judicial politics of the sustained dissent will be equally valuable in that regard.
The book is nothing if not thorough. In keeping with the traditions of legal scholarship, Mello documents his 210 pages of text with nearly 1,500 textual footnotes. While I tend to join those advocating for abolition of the footnoting style of traditional legal scholarship, in particular law review articles with longer textual footnotes than primary text, the delightful thoroughness of Mello’s work reminds me of the value of such detailed footnoting. In fairly striking contrast, the reader searches in vain for other than the most summary of the table of contents. Given the richness of the volume, a detailed guide to its contents somewhere up front would have been a valuable addition. As it is, the pages of text are divided into four chapters with the simplest of titles. Not that there aren’t subsections in the chapters; they just never made it into the sort of detailed table of contents so helpful to readers.
Mello’s first chapter, “The Two Justices,” gives the reader 83 pages and 554 footnotes of background information on these two Supreme Court giants. This chapter not only documents thoroughly the background and experience of the Justices, but it also provides delightful up-close-and-personal snapshots of such episodes as Brennan’s prodigious notetaking in law school and Marshall’s coy response to notification of his nomination to the Court. This chapter tells us about the human beings inside the robes, while the rest of the book focuses upon their roles as Supreme Court Justices. [End first page]
[Start second page] The second chapter, labeled with similar frustrating economy of words (“Legitimacy in History”), provides the reader with a quite interesting treatment of dissenting opinions in Supreme Court history and with forays into the products of such great dissenters as John Marshall Harlan, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Louis Brandeis, and William O. Douglas. While this chapter largely leaves the focal point of the death penalty, it is excellent. I often have heard law students say they don’t pay much attention to the dissenting opinions because, after all, they are just the sour grapes of the losers in the decision-making process. Mello’s chapter on the legitimacy of dissenting opinions throughout Supreme Court history should be made required reading for such students.
In chapter three, “Legitimacy in Theory,” Mello takes the concept of the dissenting opinion through a tour of a variety of viewpoints on law and legal development, ranging from natural law to sociological jurisprudence to critical legal studies. After comparing and contrasting the perspective upon dissenting opinions in each of these jurisprudential camps, Mello returns to struggle to put meaning into the Eighth Amendment and to “answer definitively the question of what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.” (155) Mello’s conclusion: “Some will find the answer in social or moral certainties; others will find those truths to be subjective. No one can have the ‘last word.’” (155)
The final chapter, “Legitimacy in Judicial Politics,” takes the reader inside the day-to-day workings (and personal politics) of the Court. Noting that all death penalty cases are put on the “discuss” list by the Justices, it is clear nonetheless that Brennan and Marshall argued more strenuously for some cases than for others. This chapter includes excerpts from memo’s to Justice Marshall from his clerks, from other interviews of Supreme Court clerks, and from the intense behind-the-scenes maneuvering that occurred in several key death penalty cases.
Yes, this extraordinary book is about death penalty jurisprudence at the Supreme Court level, but it is so much more. In addition to the detailed and copiously documented discussion of the death penalty opinions by Justices Brennan and Marshall, the volume contributes a major treatment of the fundamental notion of dissenting opinions in the American legal system and in jurisprudential thought. Serious death penalty scholars will find the book to be essential, but any student of the Supreme Court in general or of dissenting opinions in particular must also give this volume a prominent place in their library. The book is superb, and once again we are indebted to an extraordinary scholar, Michael Mello.
Victor L. Streib
Dean and Professor of Law
Pettit College of Law
Ohio Northern University
Ada, Ohio 45810
[in handwriting] 419/772-2000
[End second page]
Original Format
Book
Contributor of the Digital Item
Dhue, Helen
Student Editor of the Digital Item
Dickinson, Terra
Files
Citation
Streib, Victor , “Against The Death Penalty--The Relentless Dissents of Justices Brennan and Marshall,” HIST299, accessed July 4, 2024, http://hist299.umwhistory.org/items/show/267.