A story of the strangest friendship that ever was: a dapper young bank thief and the detective hired by the banks to apprehend him.
The Eye That Never Sleeps is certain to amaze and engage not just historical mystery fans, but anyone seeking an exciting new read. -- Five-star Readers' Favorite review by K.C. Finn.
Kill: the word in English, a monosyllable, has a directness to it that no other language I know of can match. It is blunt, keen, harsh. Shakespeare is aware of this when, in
Act 4, Scene 6, he has Lear say
Then, kill, kill, kill, kill, kill!
|Man in an electric chair, 1908.|
|Showing Louis XVI's head to the crowd. A German engraving, 1793.|
|The legendary Annie Oakley shooting a shotgun before spectators|
in Pinehurst, NC, date unknown. What she's shooting at isn't clear.
So I am not a killer? Wrong. Under certain circumstances I can kill with gusto. But only the roaches that infest my apartment, in an old building whose cracks and crevices – too many to ever be filled – provide them with nesting spaces where they can rest up by day and prepare for their nocturnal forays. When, heeding the bladder imperative, I go to the bathroom at night, I surprise gangs of them in the wash basin and tub and either chase them into a waiting glue trap, or – BAM BAM BAM – pound them with the smooth cap top of an empty medicine bottle. Many escape, but not all. Still, I am not an indiscriminate killer. Roaches, yes; spiders, no. Spiders I always spare, though I may relocate them to a green plant or release them to the world outside. Any bug that kills flies and mosquitos is a friend of mine.
|Anti-abortion protest, San Francisco, 1986.|
Similarly, I am troubled by the taking of life by the state through the death penalty. If life in an unborn child is sacred, why not in a convicted criminal as well, no matter how heinous the crime? And the all-too-frequent miscarriage of justice – the absence of DNA testing, the evidence never presented at trial, the subsequent recanting of witnesses – make the death penalty all the more questionable. Yet the pro-life people tend to support it, and the pro-choice people tend to oppose it. And I’m caught in the middle, open to the arguments on both sides.
|Anti-death penalty protest at the Governor's Mansion, Austin, Texas, 2005.|
Texas Moratorium Network
And the debate rages on. In the Sunday Review section of the New York Times of June 23, a whole series of letters to the editor, responding to an article against the death penalty, present the pros and cons. A New York resident tells of serving on a jury for a murder case where there was no doubt that the accused did slit the throat of an elderly woman and let her bleed to death in front of her lifelong partner. Would the writer have voted for the death penalty, had it not been abolished in New York? Absolutely. But a pro-life practicing Catholic in Florida opposes it, convinced that it is neither a deterrent nor less costly than life imprisonment. And the others support either the one view or the other, citing cogent reasons for their stance. And there I am again, right in the middle, sympathetic to arguments both pro and con. What I don’t understand is how, when human life is involved, people can make up their mind quickly and emphatically, without hesitation. I’m wishy-washy, if you like, but keenly aware of the complexities involved. Regarding both abortion and the death penalty, the two sides have a point to make, and they make it with conviction.