During the last few years, bestselling author and lawyer Scott Turow has lived and breathed the death penalty debate — in both his real life and his literary one.
While serving as a member of former Gov. George Ryan’s death penalty reform commission, Turow also penned “Reversible Errors,” a novel that tells the story of a death row inmate and the lawyer who works to free him. Turow drew from his own experience in writing the book, as he was part of the legal team that represented death row inmate Alejandro Hernandez, who was exonerated after 11 years in prison.
Turow, who lives outside Chicago, wrote six books before “Reversible Errors,” which sold a combined 25 million copies across the globe. Turow spoke with The Daily after serving as a panelist at Monday’s Crain lecture, sponsored by the Medill School of Journalism.
Daily: After serving on former Gov. Ryan’s commission to reform the death penalty and being a contributor to that debate, what was your reaction to his decision Saturday to give clemency to all of Illinois’ death row inmates?
Turow: I think my basic reaction as I contemplated this decision for months is that I wouldn’t have wanted to trade places with the governor. I think it was a difficult decision, and I really admire his courage for doing what he did.
Daily: Talk about your experiences on the commission. The members of the commission came up with 85 reforms to help the criminal justice system in Illinois, and the state legislature seemed tentative to enact any of them. Do you feel like Ryan’s decision will pave the way for some of the reforms to finally come to fruition?
Turow: I think there’s a broad agreement on the need for reform. I think what you’ve been seeing up until now is the sort of weak-kneed response that you get from politicians as soon as you mention doing anything that will leave them subject to the charge that they are soft on crime. The governor did a great thing by calling attention to their failures to act, because it’s shameful. The commission itself was a great experience. No one treated the others’ point of view with scorn. It was a group that, somehow by its tone, was more disposed to reach a consensus.
Daily: Your new book, “Reversible Errors,” centers around the death penalty and the role of a lawyer in helping free a wrongfully convicted inmate. Would it be correct to draw parallels between the book and your personal experience as a lawyer defending Alejandro Hernandez?
Turow: It would be understandable for people to draw parallels. The Hernandez case in outline is a lot like the case in the novel, which is to say a man is convicted and sentenced to death, and then another person confesses to the murder for which he’s about to die. But at that point, that’s where the resemblances end. The prosecutors, police officers and defense lawyers in the book are different than the people in real life, and I had different feelings for all of those characters than I did for their real-life counterparts.
Daily: You started out your legal career as a prosecutor. How have your personal feelings on the death penalty changed through this process?
Turow: It’s been a pretty long journey. For most of my professional life as a lawyer, I’ve sort of avoided declaring myself one way or the other (on the death penalty). I didn’t feel any particular need, and one of the tough things about going to serve on the commission was that I knew that, sooner or later, I was going to have to take a position. I’ve been more content in saying that I’m against the death penalty, which is where I ended up, then I ever was when I tried to defend it. I think I pretty much settled this in my own mind.
Daily: If you could say anything to new Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who was inaugurated Monday, and his administration about the death penalty and the work you’ve done, what would it be?
Turow: This is going to be strange, but I actually agree with something the two state’s attorneys (Dick Devine and Joe Birkett) said yesterday. They said it’s time for an earnest debate about the death penalty, and I would really like to see the citizens of Illinois brought into this discussion. They should be informed in a fuller way than they have been, without politicians assuming they know what the people think. It will be interesting to see what the true public response will be to this debate.
