This definitely qualifies as a page-turner. The writing is theatrical, and close to being ready for the screen. The story brings up lots of questions with no real good answers to any of them. Does it go without question that all children of fundamentalist Christians will grow up to become angry people who cannot make their way in the world? Is it moral to let two killers murder a rapist and then let them get away? Does the logic of a psychiatrist and a police officer properly circumvent the justice system in a satisfying way?
Having been a victim of the logical thinking of a police officer who was able to analyze a whole bunch of circumstantial evidence and arrest me only to have several years of my life left in limbo because of the slow progress of justice, I will never stand up for police being lone heroes. I'm positive I'm not the only one this has happened to, and I'm sure that's why our founding fathers insisted on a Bill of Rights. Of course, our President tried and convicted Saddam Hussein all by himself, and many people in our society applauded him for that. So, our society has accepted that the Bill of Rights is meaningless in the hands of someone people perceive as "righteous".
I know - it's not nice to dump 1/2 a story out, and not tell you what I was accused of by a police officer. There were many stories that were put together to come up with the "fact" that I was unworthy to live among civilized society and be put behind bars. The accusations lost me my job - even though I was fully supported by fellow teachers (every single teacher signed a petition asking the judge to drop charges). However, I was not supported even a little but by the administration. For the administration the accusation was the same as guilt, thus I was fired and that was that employement wise until the court, two years later, finally allowed the case to come to trial.
One of the "best" pieces of evidence was the true fact that my wife had called information at the police station and asked "What should my friend who was beat by her husband do?" That really did happen. The phone messenger told her to "tell your friend to call us". So, my wife passed on the information. It was filed under our address in the police department, and because many people - including police officers - assume victims speak in the third person, the assumption was made that I had beat my wife.
Well, the friend remained our friend, even after he went to jail and got out and got divorced and remarried, etc. So he was willing to come in and testify to the fact that his first wife had indeed asked my wife to call, that he had indeed hit his wife, and he had indeed done jail time, and the felony remained on his record and it was very difficult to be employed legitimately anymore, etc etc. What had happened, and why did the police keep the file under our address and not move it? Well, it turned out the victim called 911, and simply proceeded to report to another police officer the details, etc. The two departments never discussed the fact that two different women living across the street from each other were calling about the same event on the same day. It was "obvious" to the police that I had so victimized my wife that she had never called back. They never bothered to ask my wife, because with their belief that she possessed a victim mentality they assumed she would lie for me. At least both departments kept files, so it was easy to collarobate the truth.
Luckily I had a lawyer, and luckily my lawyer went for a jury trial*. The jury saw the truth right out, and I was aquitted within 20 minutes after the trial proper. The point of all this is - the police can paste together a picture without a shred of truth or evidence and make it sound good enough to a judge to bring a case to trial.
The trial process took two years in my case because the prosecutor kept asking for a continuance to gather evidence. Then, after the two years he used that in the examination of "witnesses" who couldn't remember anything he was talking about. He asked each and every witness: "Do you remember what you ate for breakfast two years ago on this date?" When they said no, he would ask "Then is it logical that you have forgotten other details from two years ago?" And of course, they would have to answer yes.
The jury was able to see through the charade with no problem, but I was not hired back where I was fired from. Once accused, administrator type people simply believe you used the system or plea-bargained somehow to get an aquittal. They simply won't believe that the police sometimes use faulty logic to arrest people. The arrest itself is proof of guilt. Administrators don't live in the real world. But every person with a bit lower income than the administrator types has lived with police harrassment directly or indirectly and identifies with my story.
And that's basically the story of "Rage". Kellerman gets real sloppy and makes it "feel" like the police officer made a good decision to let two killers go without apprehension, because in the officers mind a rapist was worse dirt than a murderer. The hard truth is that a good part of me agees with that assessment. But that doesn't make one crime right and the other wrong. Neither should be left standing. The killer, after all, will kill again given the proper dose of "rage". And next time the victim might not be a rapist. Because of this plot-line and super-generalized characters (christians are evil - homosexuals are not) - the police and the therapist are judge and jury - I cannot recommend this book as good reading. I do believe there are evil people who call themselves "Christian" - you've seen me rant and rave about George Bush right here on this blog. I also believe that there are homosexuals that are going to heaven. So, it's not that I think Kellerman is way off base by having characters like this, it's just that he doesn't really develop the characters very much beyond that super-generalized way. The guy did not become an evil person because his parents were fundamentalist. However, that's the 'truth" we're simply asked to believe without any deep analysis.
On the other hand, as a vehicle to start asking tough questions, sure - I'd recommend reading this book for that reason. It's not often though, that people start asking tough questions with a dime-store novel. No one would confuse this book with Dante. But I think it would be great to have a group of people in a room who read the book and start getting discussions going about all these issues. Could be very educational.
*My gut had told me to not use a lawyer, and not ask for a jury trial - to trust the judge to see that I was not guilty. As the lawyer pointed out to me later - that would have been stupid because a judge is just like an administrative type, and sees no one as innocent - he would not allow a case to be brought before the court if he felt the charged person was innocent. He has to hear the evidence before deciding whether or not to allow a court proceeding to even happen, and if he feels there is not enough evidence he will not allow the arrest to happen. Thus, he is already predisposed toward guilty. He is, noticeably, an administrative type - having to make administrative decisions on a daily basis.
