Book Review: Sorensen, J., & Pilgrim, R. L. (2006). Lethal Injection: Capital Punishment in Texas During the Modern Era. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, pp. 233

Abstract

and the influence of "special interests." He suggests that the California public's decision to support Three Strikes was the result of a misguided, irrational social movement. Finally, Kieso offers policy recommendations, in particular the abolition or amendment of Three Strikes and major modifications to the initiative process.Compared to most research articles about Three Strikes and its impacts in the criminology literature, this study uses relatively simple data analysis, consisting primarily of crosstabulations of inmate data, aggregated by county or categories of counties. The data presentation could have been improved through simplification (e.g., showing only totals for violent, property, and drug offenses, rather than data on more than 35 separate crimes in several tables) and inclusion of measures of statistical significance which are absent. This work's most useful contribution to the literature is its presentation of qualitative and quantitative data to provide evidence of the tremendous intercounty and intracounty disparities in the implementation of what was intended to be a statewide law. Although Kieso asserts that this randomness is secondary to the larger problem of sentencing disproportionality, the book offers stronger evidence to illustrate the magnitude of the former concern.The book's greatest weakness as a scholarly publication is the author's frequent tendency to overstate his case, which detracts from the strength of his underlying arguments. In terms of writing style, the book's chapters are loosely connected in places, and the level of detail fluctuates widely between sections. Finally, the volume would have benefited from additional editing to eliminate distracting typographical errors and to remove unnecessary details, especially in the county case studies.