Rating: 
Summary: I wish I didn't have to read this for class
Review: Jack Abbott provides his own individual insights into the criminal justice system he has encountered using personal accounts and evaluations based on his self-guided education. He gives an extraordinary window of vision into a world that those of us on the "outside" will never know. Considering that popular opinion deduces all those incarcerated are of low intelligence and have no desire for academic enlightenment, he forms a new image of at least a percentage of the imprisoned population.
A wide array of subject matter is covered far past the basic account of "a day in the life of an inmate". The rationale of the inmate hierarchy is displayed from the inside with a totality that would take years of research and interview compilation to establish. Solitary confinement, or The Hole, warrants an entire chapter, which is fitting considering the author claims to have spent almost fifteen years of his sentences there. There is no room for doubt left concerning the feelings Jack Abbott has for his jailers and the establishment they represent. He clearly expresses throughout his writings that the corrections system exists to oppress the unfortunate and underprivileged.
This book is an invaluable learning tool for the criminology student, if it can be taken for what it is - a product of an individual who has not had the benefit of common social interaction and compassionate guidance. Not all criminals have been "state raised" or abused by the system. Each issue approached in the book must be weighed against the frame of mind and obvious bias held by the inmate. Although Mr. Abbott has had the benefit of reading great ideas, he has not had the chance to apply those ideas or witness the application in a working society.
Mr. Mailer writes in the introduction that Abbott's letters are "remarkable." I understand that the stories related in the correspondence are depictions of extraordinary events, but I believe that in reading letters from incarcerated individuals it is important to remember from where the letters come. One would not read a letter from a death-row inmate with the same frame of mind as reading a letter from a psychiatric patient although the content may have salient similarities.
For types of social scientists other than criminologists, "The Belly of the Beast" is also a notable source of observations that could never be ethically gathered by social scientists in an experimental situation. To study a subject who has been incarcerated for the overwhelming majority of his life in itself is a great opportunity, but many other aspects of deprivation and human psyche left to its own devices are deep wells of analytical possibilities with Jack Abbott as well. His life patterns could be used to look at questions such as the importance of family interaction or personal relationships with the opposite sex in human development.
I was also very interested in the way Jack Abbott communicates the philosophical and political ideas he has studied without professional guidance. Almost any college student will agree that the professor's, or other professional's, direction regarding certain subjects is invaluable. Abbott admits that he has never heard certain words he has read actually spoken aloud and therefore cannot choose how they should be pronounced. This is an unbelievably intense concept to grasp considering most of us learn to speak most words by imitating others.
Although previous scholars had no proven work to build upon, in this era with tons of data and theory, it seems implausible that a person could write from prison with such confidence in himself on these academic subjects. I'll admit I had to read some passages over several times to connect the philosophical thought or quote with the contemporary idea that Mr. Abbott was trying to convey. Many times as I would begin to follow a concept, I would trip headlong over a non sequitur. Knowing that the letters had been edited for publication, I had to wonder what I was missing.
Even with a very strong passion for what he believes, Mr. Abbott can be very confusing. He rants about racism and making another human being inferior, yet calls correction officers pigs. He likens criminals to a dog by discussing the idea that an animal can learn to do what it's told by punishment by deprivation or infliction of pain. He further explains that if the animal cannot learn that punishment will result in deprivation or pain, that it must be destroyed. These statements do seem to support his views on reform of the criminal justice system.
He goes on to say that a person must have a certain degree of wealth to stay out of jail. A poor man will go to jail for committing a crime, basically at the mercy of the system. Yet the point seems unclear. To argue for the better treatment of prisoners while equating them with animals creates a very ineffective line of reasoning for the reader. There is no rational proposal for prevention of criminal behavior. The main theme states that police will look you up for no apparent reason and once incarcerated, you are forever condemned to remain in the system.
In order to get the fullest effect from the reading of this book, I also scoured the Internet for what others might have to say. I think that one user on Amazon.com was absolutely correct by stating, it "is best experienced by examining what other people say about it, and not by actually reading it. It's more fun to read Norman Mailer's beatification of Abbott than it is to read Abbott himself. In this case, intellectual distance makes the book easier to tolerate." Although I did read the book and feel I am the better for it, I can easily see where non-students may get lost in the propaganda of the book. It is a wonderful tool to spark debate and stimulate the mind.
Rating: 
Summary: The best book yet on the prison experience.
Review: Jack Henry Abbot tells it like no other can. The realism of this book is incredible and frightening. You will never think about prisons, prisoners, law, or the judicial system in the same way again. A must read for everyone.
Rating: 
Summary: a con job
Review: Jack Henry Abbott 's book is a must read read if the reader is interested in the life behind concrete and steel....Abbott is the consumate con, places all blame on everyone but himself, hoodwinking Norman Mailor in the process....this guy is a con, a person who could not adjust to societys norm....i work in a medium security prison in Massachusetts and i will agree that most of his account of prison life is accurate...a tough,dangerous, and care free enviroment is the truth..however abbott attempts to put the blame on the penal system and society...read for yourself....its not hard to see who the con is.......
Rating:
Summary: mediocrity at its best
Review: Poor ol' Jack was subsequently arrested for killing a waiter in a New York hotel after his brief success. He is a career criminal with severe problems. His work is largely based on his Marxist theory, although some insight is derived from the vicious mentality of those he lives with in prison. As an ex-con myself, I believe one must accept their true colours if they are to move beyond their current lifestyle. The book smacks of self-pity but also draws a sociological and psychological profile of recidivism and violence. Jack had it rough, but so did the victims and families. In all fairness, i have just completed a book myself and am probably not the best critic. Keep your eyes open for Turnstiles of Terror. Canadian prisons are just as evil as U.S. ones. Ispent 400 days in solitary myself and feel like a new man. How's that for black humor from down below? Take care folks.
Rating:
Summary: Every issue has two sides
Review: So much debating over what should be so strikingly clear. Was Jack Henry Abbott a bad person? Yes, he was. Was he irredeemable as a human being when he entered the penal system in his youth? Certainly not. Did the brutality of the penal system render him irredeemable? Absolutely. When one enters prison at such a young age and spends a considerable length of time there, it becomes the only world one knows or understands. In the convict's mind, the social structure in prison becomes the social structure of life. When considering how brutality breeds brutality, one should consider the life of Carl Panzram. True, even as a youth, Panzram was "no good"...a drunk and a small-time criminal. But then, so was Huckleberry Finn. After running away from home and hopping a freight train, however, Panzram's life took a detour onto the road which would eventually lead him to death by hanging. On that freight train, Panzram, still a child, was sodomized by two old men. He later stated that this was when he learned a valuable lesson in his life: "Might equals right." After that day, he spent more time in prison than out of it. When granted a day pass into town by one open-minded warden due to his good behavior, Panzram raped a woman, proving that he could no longer function in society for even one day. In the end, he was put to death for the murder of a prison guard, and fought along the way to ensure that he would, indeed, receive the death penalty, as opposed to another life sentence. So, was Carl Panzram evil? Undoubtedly. He was the living personification of evil. But his brutality stemmed from brutality which was perpetrated against him, as with Henry Lee Lucas, Edmund Kemper, and nearly every serial killer in modern history...and also, Jack Henry Abbott. Was Abbott a bad person when he first entered the system? Possibly. But I don't feel that there is any doubt that prison conditions pushed him from a strained bad to an outright evil. If one wishes to make an animal of a man, all one has to do is keep him caged for long enough. I highly recommend the Australian/American film "Ghosts...of the Civil Dead" for an intriguing and potent view of the modern-day prison system. It is a true eye-opener, and a film that may force some to re-evaluate their opinion on this subject.
Rating:
Summary: Every issue has two sides
Review: So much debating over what should be so strikingly clear. Was Jack Henry Abbott a bad person? Yes, he was. Was he irredeemable as a human being when he entered the penal system in his youth? Certainly not. Did the brutality of the penal system render him irredeemable? Absolutely. When one enters prison at such a young age and spends a considerable length of time there, it becomes the only world one knows or understands. In the convict's mind, the social structure in prison becomes the social structure of life. When considering how brutality breeds brutality, one should consider the life of Carl Panzram. True, even as a youth, Panzram was "no good"...a drunk and a small-time criminal. But then, so was Huckleberry Finn. After running away from home and hopping a freight train, however, Panzram's life took a detour onto the road which would eventually lead him to death by hanging. On that freight train, Panzram, still a child, was sodomized by two old men. He later stated that this was when he learned a valuable lesson in his life: "Might equals right." After that day, he spent more time in prison than out of it. When granted a day pass into town by one open-minded warden due to his good behavior, Panzram raped a woman, proving that he could no longer function in society for even one day. In the end, he was put to death for the murder of a prison guard, and fought along the way to ensure that he would, indeed, receive the death penalty, as opposed to another life sentence. So, was Carl Panzram evil? Undoubtedly. He was the living personification of evil. But his brutality stemmed from brutality which was perpetrated against him, as with Henry Lee Lucas, Edmund Kemper, and nearly every serial killer in modern history...and also, Jack Henry Abbott. Was Abbott a bad person when he first entered the system? Possibly. But I don't feel that there is any doubt that prison conditions pushed him from a strained bad to an outright evil. If one wishes to make an animal of a man, all one has to do is keep him caged for long enough. I highly recommend the Australian/American film "Ghosts...of the Civil Dead" for an intriguing and potent view of the modern-day prison system. It is a true eye-opener, and a film that may force some to re-evaluate their opinion on this subject.
Rating:
Summary: Sad
Review: The sad thing about this book, is not only Jack H Abbott's life (if you can call it that), but the system which created him. How can a boy of 12 who is sent to prison, and then spends most of his life there, be expected to turn out any different. He is the product of a brutal part of our society which we would rather not talk about.
Rating:
Summary: the rantings of a convicted murderer
Review: The true injustice about this book is that it was released. Abbott makes some fine points about justice and lack thereof but he is as guilty as sin for his crimes but never apologizes. The book is full of his rantings about the injustices done to him but never once does he talk about the victims of his crimes. Did he ever write more after being re-arrested???
Rating:
Summary: ranting murdering sociopath
Review: These convicts blame everyone else (society, culture, their parents, etc) for their ills but never fault themselves. They have the moral maturity of a 10-year old. The real crime is that Jack Henry Abbott was able to reap the monetary rewards from the sale of this book. One more thing- I found it particularly nauseating that he lashes out at Alexander Solzenitsyn for his criticism of the Soviet penal system. Here was a man that had to endure real hardships, not the luxurious lifestyle in American Prisons (complete with cable television, weight rooms, college classes, libraries, etc). Reading this book made me believe it's time to bring back the notion of punishment in the American penal system.
Rating: 
Summary: The writings of a self-pitying psychopath
Review: This book is interesting mainly in that it shows the psycopathic mind's justifying that all they've done wrong is not their fault. It's the system's fault, Man! Blah, blah, blah. This book probably never would have seen print if introduction-writer Norman Mailer hadn't supported it. Norman Mailer famously stabbed his own wife badly enough to hospitalize her (but she didn't press charges). I wonder if Mailer's excusing Abbott's behavior was an indirect way of excusing his own behavior? So Abbot stabbed a waiter and ended up back in prison. As an example of his lack of a conscience, consider what he said on "Current Affair" when asked if he felt remorse: "I don't think that's the proper word. Remorse implies that I did something wrong. IF I'm the one who stabbed him, it was an accident." He "justified" murdering the waiter/actor by saying "He had no future as an actor--chances are he would have gone into another line of work." Abbot had told the victim's wife in court that her husband's life was "not worth a dime." If you do read this book and somehow find yourself sympathizing with Abbot, I implore you to read WITHOUT CONSCIENCE, THE DISTURBING WORLD OF PSYCHOPATH'S AMONG US by Robert D. Hare (where I got the above quotes of Abbott's). It will reveal to you what psychopaths like Abbott are really like. It may even help you escape, unscathed, psychopaths you run into in the future. (Psychopaths number 2%-3%of the population, so chances are you will run into one sometime.)
|
