A small but enthusiastic crowd gathered outside the Chilmark Public Library on Tuesday evening to secure one of the 25 seats available to see Mr. Alan Dershowitz speak on his latest book, “Dershowitz on Killing: How the Law Decides Who Shall Live and Who Shall Die.” 

With a career-long focus on criminal and constitutional law, the former Harvard University Law professor is a New York Times best-selling author and criminal defense attorney who famously defended individuals like O.J. Simpson, Jeffrey Epstein, and Donald Trump. 

But his presence on the Vineyard has been controversial, and his talk at Chilmark has been highly anticipated. His request last year to speak was shot down by the library. Then, after threatening to sue over the decision, the library board of trustees granted the request for this Tuesday, albeit with a few restrictions. Only 25 seats were available, and the library was closed for the day.

On Tuesday, two police officers were present outside of the Chilmark library prior to and for the duration of Mr. Dershowitz’s talk. 

Mr. Deshowitz arrived in a blue Subaru Outback. He and his wife relaxed in lawn chairs outside of the Chilmark Public Library for the twenty minutes leading up to the talk. 

Of the 25 seats set up in the library’s conference room where Dershowitz spoke, 21 were filled. 

In the hour long talk he touched on the death penalty — which Dershowitz strongly opposes — abortion, gun control, assisted suicide, seatbelt laws, and organ donation, which he strongly supports. He acknowledged the nuances of the topics discussed, and that nuance itself is something of a dying concept in today’s culture. “I like nuance,” Dershowitz said. “Nuance is dying today in our society. It’s very hard to have a conversation like this in our society.” 

The tone of the talk was almost academic, and a bit philosophical. He referenced his days as a professor, which came to an end in 2013, closing a 50 year teaching career. “In Dersh’s class, nobody ever gets a straight answer, and nobody is ever right,” he said. “Because every question begets a more difficult question.” 

He spoke several times of Judaism and the study of the Talmud, a record of ancient rabbinical debates, citing it as an influential part of his thinking. “Maybe it’s because I come from a talmudic background,” said Dershowitz, “and my talmudic background, studying the talmud, was always: question it.” 

Dershowitz enjoyed the scholarly debate and the moral gray areas that arise. “You teach through hard questions, and unanswerable questions,” he said. 

The defense attorney started the talk by thanking the attendants, and pointing out the small table at the back of the room with a selection of his books, and a stack of his latest publication. A small box with a handwritten sign indicated $20 donations for a book, which Dershowitz could sign after the talk. Proceeds from any sales of any books go to an organization called FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression), an organization that defends free speech around the world.

His latest book, “Dershowitz on Killing,” consists of 8 chapters, and discusses a variety of legal and moral controversial gray areas at the convergence of life, death, and the law. 

“Today I’m going to talk about a boring subject that doesn’t influence or affect any of you, who shall live and who shall die,” Dershwoitz said. He cited a service he attended for Yom Kippur, a jewish holiday of repentance, as inspiration for the book topic. “It’s the most important decision law ever makes. I will be dealing today with life and death decisions and how the courts handle life and death decisions, mostly very poorly.” 

He spoke about his connection with the Island and island-affiliated politicians. He first came to the Vineyard to defend Senator Ted Kennedy in 1969 after the Chappaquiddick bridge car accident that killed Mary Jo Kopechne, and later was part of former president Bill Clinton’s impeachment defense in 1998. 

“I’ve written about 30 of my 52 books while on the vineyard,” said Dershwoitz.

Dershowitz has spent many years on the Island, and plans to spend many more. Keeping with the mortal theme of his talk, he even mentioned his plans to be buried in the Chilmark Cemetery.

He dove into the material of the talk, weaving personal anecdotes about past cases with the topics at hand, beginning with the death penalty, to which he devotes a chapter in his book, titled ‘Is the Death Penalty Cruel and Unusual Punishment?’ The death penalty is a passionate subject for Dershowitz. Having been involved in the campaign against capital punishment since 1951, Dershowitz has devoted years of his career to abolishing the death penalty. As a young boy he led a campaign among his fellow students against the death of the Rosenbergs, an American couple convicted of espionage for spying for the soviet union. He also spoke of a pro bono case he took on, Tison vs Arizona, in which he helped two teenage boys get pardoned, both who were sentenced to death for being unwitting accomplices to murders their father committed. The story was later made into the movie, “A Killer in the Family.” 

On gun control, Dershowitz said, “I don’t think there’s any perfect solution to it.” 

He acknowledged Hunter Biden’s national guilty plea that occurred the day of the talk, and the repercussions it will have on gun laws. 

“Today is a good day for gun control,” he said, and then, socratically, “Why was today a good day for gun control? Because the son of the president of the US went into a program today for illegally not putting an indication of his drug use on his gun permit, and part of the sentence is he’s never allowed to own a gun. So for me, one less person who is cocaine addled owning a gun is a step forward in gun control.” 

He acknowledged Australia’s successful gun buyback program in the 1990’s but said there are limitations. “Banning guns won’t work,” Dershowitz said. “People love their toys.”

Bringing up the overturning of Roe vs Wade, he spoke about abortion rights. “I am a strong supporter of a woman’s right to choose,” said Dershowitz. “It is a fundamental, most basic moral right.” 

He acknowledged the complex religious standpoints that polarize the pro-life, pro-choice divide. He stated he opposed overturning Roe v Wade because of the political implications it would have, but that it turned out to be “the greatest gift the supreme court could have given the democrats.” 

He questioned that if abortions are illegal, should the morning-after pill also be illegal. “It’s going to have to rule that the week-after pill and the month-after pill are also illegal. No one in America is in favor of prohibiting abortions immediately after conception. And so if the Supreme Court is forced to uphold that right, I think it is going to hurt the republicans enormously,” Dershowitz said. 

He likened abortion to gay rights, which he supports. “So abortion, complicated, difficult, different than gay rights. There’s no right and wrong in gay rights; it’s nobody’s business who has sex with whom, who marries whom, nobody is hurt by that. But if you believe that a fetus has a life and a soul, there are two sides to that issue and it’s very difficult. I don’t believe in that sentiment, but I understand it and I understand why people get so enraged.”

He speculated that perhaps one hundred years from now people might observe abortion practices as harshly as we observe slavery today — as something that is morally unjust. 

Assisted suicide, to which Dershowitz devotes a chapter in the book, is something that he supports. In the case of extreme illness, suffering, and decline in quality of life, Dershowitz supports a person’s right to decide and the person assisting in the suicide. He represented a Florida man who assisted his wife who was suffering with stage 4 breast cancer in her suicide and was subject to the death penalty. Dershowitz won the case.

 Though in support of assisted suicide in certain situations, he said he was very against suicide in general, particularly in young people, and that in the case of a young person attempting to take their life, all manners of force should be used to go against their will to preserve that life. “You have a lot of time to be dead, but only a very limited time to be alive,” Dershowitz said. “For me, I accept the biblical preset bachareta bachiyim, choose life. Always choose life.” 

Of all the topics he spoke on, Mr. Dershowitz expressed the most enthusiasm about organ donation, pressing the concept that every healthy individual should be an organ donor, religious beliefs aside.

“Let me get to the most controversial of issues. How many of you are not organ donors?” He requested a show of hands. He engaged the audience in a socratic thought experiment to show hands in support of different hypothetical laws surrounding organ donation. Would you prefer it be mandated by the government? Or that if you opt out, you don’t get to receive an organ if you need one? 

One member of the audience stated that she was not an organ donor because of religious beliefs. In Judaism, there is a belief that it is better to be buried with all of your organs intact. Dershowitz, also jewish, countered with a story about an orthodox rabbi who started a campaign among other orthodox Jews to change the cultural stance around organ donation. 

“If it were a mitzvah [a good deed] in Jewish law, would you do it?” The audience member agreed to that. 

In talking about his own death, he reflected, “I think about Chilmark cemetery all the time, my final resting place, and I realize how many organs have been buried and eaten by worms in that cemetery that could have saved how many human lives if they had only donated their organs,” he said.

In closing, Dershowitz returned again to his own beliefs, saying he plans to title his next book, “Why I doven pray like an orthodox Jew, think like an agnostic, and act like an atheist.” Objectively, Mr. Dershowitz knows that there could be something more. He stated that while he doesn’t believe in god in the synagogue, he does believe in god on the beach, and while looking at the stars. “I sleep well at night defending guilty people,” Dershowitz said, “I don’t sleep well at night when I lose a case involving an innocent person.” 

“We’ll never agree on what the utopia is, but we will agree on what a dystopia is,” said Dershowitz. And with the “dystopian view” that we have today on racism, sexism, and all other wrongdoings and human rights ills, Dershowitz hopes, “we can discern what rights are necessary to prevent the dystopia from occurring.”

After a brief question and answer period, Dershowitz concluded his talk. 

“I love conflicts and struggles,” he said. “I lived all my life being uncertain about things. I’m a work in progress. People on the Vineyard think I have fixed views of everything and that I’m certain about everything. That’s why I’m glad to have a chance to talk to you. At least there will be 25 people on the Vineyard who understand that I’m not the way I’m stereotyped. I hope I’ll be invited back to the library in years to come.” 

53 replies on “Dershowitz talks life, death, and organs in Chilmark return”

      1. Many people who live on MV were appalled by the OJ verdict, and disdainful of Alan’s choice to represent him. That is, those with a genuine sense of right and wrong. You must be new around here, or suffer from selective memory?

    2. Tom. Many have deluded themselves into thinking they are doing good by keeping criminals within the public domain. The reward is notoriety. The quality news stations have rejected him so Hannity quickly grabbed him, as long as he cooperates. It’s so easy to see.

    1. We already had a crazy person who was elected to that office. An incompetent, lying, egomaniacal person who is currently under indictment in two separate jurisdictions for a total of 71 felony charges. We don’t need another egotistical narcissist making a mess of things.

    1. Hess, perhaps if you spent less time compulsively asking ridiculous questions under so many articles and, you know, actually read the articles with even a modicum of comprehension, you wouldn’t have to ask these questions that are answered plain as day within the story.

      Great job, Jenna Bernstein! This gives a well balanced sense of what it was like to be there, covering what was clearly a meaningful, thought-provoking, and interesting talk.

  5. and who are you to decide guilt or innocence? the individuals who represent the law decide, based on evidence presented to them. lawyers try every trick they know; acquittal is about expert lawyering, and the reflection of the judge and jury. dershowitz seeks a fair trial, to insure fair representation for his client and the facts. it is not his decision/job to find a client innocent or guilty.
    leave the spurs for another day…

  6. A person acquitted of a crime by a jury of his peers is not a guilty client and every citizen of this country has the right to a defense attorney. It amazes me that people fault Mr. Dershowitz for being such a good attorney. If a prosecution is weak and an attorney wins an acquittal he has shown reasonable doubt of his client’s guilt. Not a perfect system, but it beats a gulag in Siberia or having your hand chopped off at Owen Park. None of this, of course, gives him a constitutional right to be invited to your cocktail parties.

    1. A person acquitted of a crime by a jury of his peers is not an indicator of guilt or innocence.
      It is a matter of representation.
      What precent of those found guilty are not?
      What percent of guilty rapists go free?
      Guilt or innocence is matter of twelve people’s decisions, not one person’s actions.

      1. Actually, as far as society is concerned, it is the only indicator. You may have your personal opinions, but acquitted means you are publicly declared innocent of the crime for which you were accused.
        Mr. Dershowitz could explain this far better than I, but I’m pretty sure our legal system was founded to insure that innocent people were not found guilty, rather than the other way around.

        1. A verdict of not guilty indicates that the prosecution didn’t meet the burden. It does not declare or prove anyone innocent.

  8. I am a criminal defense attorney. The issue is not guilt or innocence in Dershowitz’s case. It is choosing to represent Donald Trump and claiming he is above the law and ignoring the very serious collateral consequences for our country and constitution.
    Everyone deserves a defense, but the claim that he is above the law is anti-democratic.

    1. Ms. Brill: Can you provide any of Alan Dershowitz words in which he claims or even insinuates that President Trump is “above the law?”

      1. Donald “The John” Trump has “insinuated
        ‘ that he is above the law.
        As an honest lawyer would you represent someone who has said they are above the law?

    2. You are the attorney, but aren’t presidents, in some circumstances, “above the law”? It surprises me greatly that you would criticize another defense attorney because of your political beliefs. How hard it must be for you find clients that have committed no crime.

  9. I wouldnt want most of the islanders on my Jury if I were charged with something. Yes OJ was guilty defacto but not de jure. Like it or not we have a system in the US that says we are innocent until proven guilty. Unlike many other countries that say we are guilty first. If you have a system like that then a few guilty people slip through the cracks and that is fine with me. If Sleepy Joe were charged with a criminal offense I am certain that islanders would pick Mr Dershowitz as his defense attorney over that woman who wants to sue DeSantis for bringing illegals to MV.

    1. Andrew, why do continue to wallow in this pit of Liberalism?
      There is no shortage of truly beautiful ocean front property, year around, where they don’t say gay.
      You will be surrounded by your own kind, ESL Conservatives.
      Just 90 miles away the world’s only truly Communist country.
      Do you have any first hand experience with those truly awful people.
      They are even worse than our Island’s knee jerk Liberals.

      1. Actually Hess. Cubans usually are quite conservative. It is their government that is terrorist. Go to Little Havana in Miami and find cuban refugees who escaped during Castro and you will find they vote Republican, most of them. No the looney liberals on MV are the worst.

        1. Engleman, if Cubans are quite Conservative why are they a Communist country?
          I have spent a considerable amount of time in Little Havana.
          No shortage of thugs, hookers and those dreaded illegal aliens, some of them don’t even speak English. .
          People who flee their origins tend Conservative.
          Being a Conservative does not make you a good person.
          Look at all the good people that Trump hired to run this country.
          How many are left on his good list?
          Why do you leave beautiful Florida and spend your summers with these awful Islanders.

          1. Hess your first sentence sums up your knowledge. Why are they a communist country. Duh? Because their government and a handful of leaders are.

        2. Andy, the leaders of Cuba are all Cubans.
          The leaders of Cuba use to be American gangsters.
          The Cubans, like our forefathers, revolted against foreign domination.
          If Cubans are truly Conservatives they would have overthrown the Communists decades ago, we offered to help, were we wrong to do so?
          Republican/Democrat/Liberal/Conservative/Socialist/Communist/ are fun labels.
          Is Putin a Communist, a Socialist or a Conservative, life long?
          How many years has Trump been a Republican?
          A Democrat?
          I remember when America was great.
          Trump was pro abortion.
          Trump could have easily ended Communism 90 miles from your snowbird roost.
          What should he have done for the Conservative, freedom loving, Cubans?

      2. Hess, I like the beaches in the summer here. If we could just get rid of some of the people. The sharks dont bite conservatives. I have oceanfront property in Florida already.

        1. You enjoy being being part of our immigrant community?
          Sharing your stories of how you made it to the promised land.
          The long hours in the hot sun waiting in line for your visa?

    2. Nice logical fallacy. Rachel Self is an immigration lawyer. I doubt that any rational person would choose her as representation in a criminal case. But I also doubt that anyone with the means to hire any lawyer they choose, and a sense of self worth, would hire Alan.

      1. I would hire Mr Dershowtiz in a heartbeat even though he is very liberal on most things. But he is honest and has intergrity and would get the job done.

  10. Interesting comments, thank you. The headline, “talks life, death and organs”, prompted me to read the story. Sadly for me, “organs’ did not refer to Hammond B3s or tracker pipe organs. You never know who will love those instruments. Did I once read that Albert Schweitzer took an organ to equatorial Africa? On Island we have more pipe organs per capita than most places.

      1. Like the clear majority of the country, Islanders have visceral dislike of Dershowitz and Trump.
        47.9% of the people in your adopted state had a visceral dislike of Trump in 2020.
        My guess is that DeSantis has upped those numbers.

    2. What it says is that some people were able to buy tickets with the intention of not attending so people like you would think he couldn’t fill 25 seats.

      3. I was there 2 hours beforehand and was about 10 th in line. Many were turned away after 25 plus press. And that is too bad as they missed a great non partisan presentation.

        1. Dear Eddie,
          No one was turned away. When the doors opened at 5pm, there were 20 members of the public in line, plus one family member and two newspaper reporters.

  12. I see the first antisemitic comment (and completely false comment) was written today at 12:43 pm. That didn’t take long.

      1. One antisemitic comment, yours, was one too many. Alan Dershowitz does not collect retainers in cash, and to make that false claim is an old antisemitic trope.

        1. Jackie, how do you know how The Dersh goes about collecting his retainers?
          When you see a sign that says Cash Only do you take it as a an old antisemitic trope?
          With Trump’s history of stiffing people there is nothing antisemitic about demanding cash up front, it’s just good practice.
          With my last name I have had plenty of exposure to antisemitic and anti-German sentiment.
          As a kid, playing war with sticks for guns, I always had to be the either the Jew or the Nazi.
          As an adult I have come to realize that all religion is just divisive crap.
          May all the “Bible Thumpers” burn in hell.
          Do you consider “Bible Thumper” to be antisemitic or anticatholic or antievangelical?
          I am not a antisemitic I am antireligion.
          Cash only please, no false promises.
          Do as you please, confess, go to heaven.

  13. Let us all focus on who or for what reason, a Defense Attorney has been asked to represent, whoever for whatever. Is it yours or mine to determine what or why? This is still, as I see it The USA that I fought for and if “you don”t like it…….

    1. Yes I want to know the thinking of all lawyers involved in a court case.
      I have Constitutional rights to try to find out.
      I have no right to find out.
      Most lawyers tend to spill their guts, they are in the talking business.
      Alan is a prime example.

Comments are closed.