Kunen starts out with a quote about John Adams, who, in one of the great moments of American justice, took on the defense of the British soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre. Adams didn't particularly want the case, but it took it because he was appalled that no-one else would. The question is: does Adams make Kunen look good, or will the reader conclude that Adams was just another shyster?

I am somewhat surprised to find that I hate this book so much! People seem to lose sight of the fact that a trial is an attempt to determine if the defendent is indeed the dastard that did the deed. Sure, the person who committed a vicious crime is a terrible person, but we are trying to decide if the defendent is that person. Therefore, they need a defense. We certainly don't want to punish an innocent person, which is bad enough in itself, but also virtually guarantees that the real offender gets off scot-free! There are other ethical issues about defense, but that's the basic one.

I am glad that I live in a state that has an actual Public Defender, and doesn't rely on the somewhat random assignment of poorly paid lawyers. The lawyers who work in the Public Defender's office frequently also do a stint with the prosecutors, so I think the sides must be relatively even.

My main feeling after reading this is that I despise Kunen. What a smug, arrogant jackass! This all seems to be a game to him and if he is possessed of morals and ethics, he hides it well. The issue for him doesn't seem to be justice but winning. This has been cited as one of the most serious flaws of our legal system, but Kunen doesn't seem to be bothered by it.

Kunen has no compassion or more than a vague awareness of the victims of crime, until he is one. Then he seems to bear out the old saw that a conservative is a liberal who's been mugged.

Alas, I think our judicial system is full of Kunens, both as defenders and prosecutors, and the thought is terrifying. ( )