<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: A good, thought-provoking history
Review: "Crime and Punishment in American History", by Lawrence Friedman, was definitely interesting and thought-provoking. It is just technical enough in detail and substance to give an intimate feel for the specifics of the subject matter, but still geared enough toward the more uninitiated in the field of criminal justice (such as myself) so as to not come off as boorish or formidable. Friedman does an excellent job of documenting the evolution of American criminal justice, both the mechanics of law and punishment, and also the cultural motivations behind the evolution. In places, especially towards the end of the book where he deals with 20th century material, he seems to display somewhat of a "ho-hum" attitude towards the licentiousness that has pervaded American society, especially in his exultations that the laws against "victimless" crimes are being repealed. He also has a low-level, pervasive theme of class struggle as a root of criminal injustices which tends towards socialism. All in all, however, a good read despite the occasional leftist aside. I recommend it to anyone interested in the social sciences, even if these are not your primary field of study.
Rating:
Summary: A good, thought-provoking history
Review: "Crime and Punishment in American History", by Lawrence Friedman, was definitely interesting and thought-provoking. It is just technical enough in detail and substance to give an intimate feel for the specifics of the subject matter, but still geared enough toward the more uninitiated in the field of criminal justice (such as myself) so as to not come off as boorish or formidable. Friedman does an excellent job of documenting the evolution of American criminal justice, both the mechanics of law and punishment, and also the cultural motivations behind the evolution. In places, especially towards the end of the book where he deals with 20th century material, he seems to display somewhat of a "ho-hum" attitude towards the licentiousness that has pervaded American society, especially in his exultations that the laws against "victimless" crimes are being repealed. He also has a low-level, pervasive theme of class struggle as a root of criminal injustices which tends towards socialism. All in all, however, a good read despite the occasional leftist aside. I recommend it to anyone interested in the social sciences, even if these are not your primary field of study.
Rating:
Summary: A good, thought-provoking history
Review: "Crime and Punishment in American History", by Lawrence Friedman, was definitely interesting and thought-provoking. It is just technical enough in detail and substance to give an intimate feel for the specifics of the subject matter, but still geared enough toward the more uninitiated in the field of criminal justice (such as myself) so as to not come off as boorish or formidable. Friedman does an excellent job of documenting the evolution of American criminal justice, both the mechanics of law and punishment, and also the cultural motivations behind the evolution. In places, especially towards the end of the book where he deals with 20th century material, he seems to display somewhat of a "ho-hum" attitude towards the licentiousness that has pervaded American society, especially in his exultations that the laws against "victimless" crimes are being repealed. He also has a low-level, pervasive theme of class struggle as a root of criminal injustices which tends towards socialism. All in all, however, a good read despite the occasional leftist aside. I recommend it to anyone interested in the social sciences, even if these are not your primary field of study.
Rating: 
Summary: a thoughtful essay
Review: This is an illuminating essay on american criminal justice in an historical context aimed at the general reader. I've used it as required reading in my history of criminal justice course, taught annually to a wide variety of adult learners. They have overwhelmingly found it helpful. They bear out my own impression that Friedman's approach is fair-minded and grounded in solid erudition.
Rating: 
Summary: Very poor "history"
Review: This is not a history book; it is one long editorial for a left wing view of the criminal justice system. Even when I agreed with Friedman's views, I found his repetitive political claims, given with no factual support, frustrating in a book supposedly reviewing how we got here. Even when Friedman discussed history, he does so without objective support. Typically, Frieman cites some broad principal and then "proves" it with a single anecdote. Thus, e.g. he claims that police generally "believe in fighting fire with fire", stating "Police brutality was part of a more general system of police power. It rested on a simple credo: the battalions of law and order had the right, if not the duty, to be tough as nails with criminals. Force was the only language the criminal understood." (Pg. 361). Now, this may very well be a true statement (although again typically Friedman is not clear as to the time period in our history for which he is making the claim) but it is hardly proven as a general proposition by the evidence that Friedman provides: a single story about a street cop named McCloy who in December 1914 in Brooklyn apparently knocked out an "eighteen-year old no-good" named Peter Gaimano with McCloy's nightstick after Gaimano struck at the officer with a blackjack and ran. The book goes on for almost 500 pages in this vein, along the way making clear Friedman's hostility to criminal prosecutions of almost every kind. Through it all, he offers no alternatives to the systems that he deplores. Whatever, if the reader is looking for history (as versus social commentary), I strongly recommend you look elsewhere.
Rating:
Summary: Very poor "history"
Review: This is not a history book; it is one long editorial for a left wing view of the criminal justice system. Even when I agreed with Friedman's views, I found his repetitive political claims, given with no factual support, frustrating in a book supposedly reviewing how we got here. Even when Friedman discussed history, he does so without objective support. Typically, Frieman cites some broad principal and then "proves" it with a single anecdote. Thus, e.g. he claims that police generally "believe in fighting fire with fire", stating "Police brutality was part of a more general system of police power. It rested on a simple credo: the battalions of law and order had the right, if not the duty, to be tough as nails with criminals. Force was the only language the criminal understood." (Pg. 361). Now, this may very well be a true statement (although again typically Friedman is not clear as to the time period in our history for which he is making the claim) but it is hardly proven as a general proposition by the evidence that Friedman provides: a single story about a street cop named McCloy who in December 1914 in Brooklyn apparently knocked out an "eighteen-year old no-good" named Peter Gaimano with McCloy's nightstick after Gaimano struck at the officer with a blackjack and ran. The book goes on for almost 500 pages in this vein, along the way making clear Friedman's hostility to criminal prosecutions of almost every kind. Through it all, he offers no alternatives to the systems that he deplores. Whatever, if the reader is looking for history (as versus social commentary), I strongly recommend you look elsewhere.
<< 1 >>
|
