The Killing of Bonnie Garland: A Question of Justice

William Gaylin's book, which combined good journalism, professional psychiatric insight, and superb wisdom and philosophical context, is in my opinion the best criminology ever written. Although his discussion of the crime and the motives therefor is first rate, what gives the book its immense value is the observations he made of the reaction of the Yale community to the offense. (Both murderer and victim were Yale undergraduates.) He combined this acute analysis with an acuity of insight that makes the book both profound and immediate. Anyone interested in criminal law should read and digest this book.

The best true crime books reveal not simply the crime and the criminals but the times in which both existed. While not really a True Crime book per se, it does reveal the crime, the criminal and the times. I reread this book after reading American Taboo by Philip Weiss. Both books are about young, sexually liberated young women in their early twenties who are murdered in the mid 1970s by men whose claims of "insanity" successfully save them from murder convictions. In both cases people rally around the murderer because "no one can help" the dead victim anymore. In American Taboo, it's "us" (read "Americans") against "them" (read the Tongans). In Bonnie Garland's case the us are people who passionately believe that "prison does no good" versus "the establishment." Gaylin delves deeply into the minds of all involved to understand their motivations and goals. He nails Herrin's defenders on their strange inability to differentiate punishment and rehabilitation. He also exposes their contempt for imprisonment in general - most can barely summon up an example of a crime that would warrant a long stint in jail. Gaylin isn't one sided, he depicts both sides with compassion and respect, he is especially good at drawing out the passionate desire for social justice that lead some of Herrin's supporters to see this case in political terms. Would committed Catholic clergy like Sister Ramona Pena and the Christian Brothers have championed the cause of a man who bludgeoned his girlfriend with a claw-hammer in any other time but the early 1970s? Most unsettling is the reaction of the Yale establishment many of who voice a feeling that Bonnie Garland's father needed to just get over it, that his grief and rage were somehow out of proportion. The lack of simple human compassion is staggering - for them the University is more important than the students. This is a powerful book. The first chapter alone should be required reading in every high school civics class for the questions it asks. Does society have a right to demand punishment in the name of justice or is the goal of the justice system to salvage what can be salvaged that will benefit society in the long term? These are questions each of us should ask ourselves as citizens.

Willard Gaylin is a gifted writer who is also a psychiatrist with long years of practice. The book is about an awful murder, but more than that it's about the inability of institutions of society -- Yale, and the criminal justice system -- to deal effectively with immorality and cruelty. The murder is the lens through which Gaylin brings social, moral and psychiatric issues into focus. Twenty years after I first read this book it remains vivid in my mind.

This is one of those rare books that, for better or worse, keeps me under its daunting yoke. It's gory depiction of the murder of Bonnie Garland, a 1970s Yale undergraduate, and of the mindset of her murderer, a fellow student, is breathtaking in an eerie, dreadful sort of way. When I read this book about four years ago, the hairs on my arms stood straight up. When I think about this book today, my Pavlovian hairs march in step. Giving me a glimpse of the mind of a killer is what I liked about this book. What I didn't like, and what the second half of this book concerns itself with, is the psychological analysis of why the killer did what he did. This was the bane of an otherwise great book. The first half of the book was written in a reporter-like, just-the-facts-ma'am style. I liked that. Part of the joy of the book for me was to figure out how the killer thought, and to extrapolate his motive(s) for the crime. The author's Mickey-mouse psychological analysis of the killer's motives in the second half of the book was amateurish at best, and to my reckoning, just plain wrong.In any event, I couldn't stop reading the book and the pitfalls of its second half weren't so bad as to destroy the enjoyment I gained from the first half. Personally, however, I would just read the first half and leave it at that.One important note: my enjoyment of this book was purely on an intellectual level -- in trying to answer the question "why do killers kill." However, on an emotional level, this book was nauseating and, quite frankly, sick. I often had to put the book down and wonder (1) how could someone commit such a heinous act and (2) how could somebody write a book about it in such a cool-headed, detached fashion? I'm not sure if I'm better for having read it or if I would have been better off having left my copy without a reader. I'm sure the answer rests somewhere in the middle, but if you're especially squeamish, you'd be better off not buying this book. If you've ever lost a loved one to violent crime, it's probably not the book for you. And if you're the vigilante type, this is definitely not the book for you: you'll probably find yourself wanting to take care these sick-headed people yourself.

Absolutely invigorating book. The methodical thinking of Willard Gaylin is simply brilliant. Everything is clear. An amazing read!