an excellent risk for release on his ownnrecognizance, a reform Feeley advocates.nRegarding the right to a speedy trial,nFeeley rightly (and briefly) points outnthat delay benefits defendants, many ofnwhom blatantly and deliberately thrownroadblocks into the proceedings andnthen claim a violation of their rights. It isnnot, of course, a speedy trial the defendantnwants when he asserts this constitutionalnguarantee, but dismissal of his case,nthe most likely sanction. That is whyncourts such as Michigan’s require thendefendant to show prejudice as a resultnof delayed trial, a qualification Feeleynabhors.nGenerally, “reforms” that would costnmore money and add more personnelnare to Feelers liking He wants to furthernReligion in AmericanIt is well known that religion in America is, and has been fornsome years, undei^oing a major overhaul. Before the lay personncan make an intelligent evaluation of that, he must first determinenexacdy -wtot changes are actually being made. It’s rather like thendiflference between redecorating and remodeling. Theologiansnlike Hans Kung, Edward Schillebeeckx, and Rosemary Reuthernseem to be engaged in radical remodeling, that is, tearing downnthe supporting walls. But there are other changes, which, unfortunately,nare often condemned along with that sinister remodeling.nWhat these alterations really amount to is changing the &ce, thatnis, the appearance, of religion to achieve more contemporarynattractiveness.nIn a lai^e midwestem auditorium recentiy, there was an eventnadvertised as a gospel jubilee. That designation would lead manynto expect to hear tunes like “Amazing Grace,” “How Great ThounArt,” “Swing Low, Sweet Chariot,” and other hymns/spiritualsnflx)m days gone by. Guess ^ain. What blasted bom the giganticnspeakers had a different beat The performers’ sound equipmentnand musical skills rivaled anything The Rolling Stones or AODCncould ever muster. There is a new genre—gospel rocknWhat the young jjeople in the mostiy black audience heard wasnrock; what they saw was “with it” black singers and musiciansnshouting, in front of thousands of people, “Praise the Lord!” Thenyoung man jive-struttin’ across the stage was not embarrassed tonproclaim “I love Jesus!” The listeners saw and heard blacks theyncould admire, even emulate, saying “I don’t need dope or welfare.n… If you’re down and out it’s fjecause you choose to be Younare responsible for your own destiny…” If these rockin’ Christiansnare the new role models for young blacks, even puristsnshould applaud their methods. After all, who wants to imitate ansocial worker? •npoliticize public defenders, encouragingnthem to be even more active in the “policymakingnarena.” Judicial activism inn”expanding law to meet new social conditions”nand legislative restraint are alsonamong his favorites. Like so many “reformers,”nFeeley suffers fi-om seriousnmyopia when it comes to human nature;nhe refuses to accept the fact that frequendynthe status quo exists, aft;er muchntrial and error, because it is more satisfactorynthan the alternatives. For example,nmany defendants of promise, onnbeing offered a few hours with a socialnworker in lieu of a criminal record, optnfor the criminal record instead. Morenserious are Feeley’s lapses into loadednradical rhetoric. What does he mean byn”sympathetic and political prisoners?”nnnThe real problem with Court Reformnon Trial is that it does not address orneven seem to accept the central purposesnof the criminal-justice system. The &ctnthat a potentially dangerous accusednmight not be walking the streets seemsnto worry him more than threats to thenpublic safety. That virtually all of thenprison inmates are guilty of the crimesnfor which they serve time seems to himnno particular victory for the process.nMany aspects of our system of justice arenunsatisfactory, but it takes reading thenrecommendations of Court Reform onnTrial to remind one that it could benworse.nWhat can be said about NorvalnMorris’s Madness and the Criminal Law,nwhich offers something to everyone?nThere are quotations flrom Kant, Plato,nand papal encyclicals; the scribbles onnthe chapter headings certainly accentnhis theme on how the law should addressninsanity, retardation, and fiigue statesnwhen related to criminal behavior. Innaddition, he has penned two well-written,nrather engaging shaggy-dog stories juxtaposingnissues of moral guilt and thenutilitarian requirements of the law. As annintellectual exercise, the book has meritnThere is also a lot effectual informationn—statistical and otherwise—supportingnhis thesis that the mentally incompetentnshould be tried with special compensationsnmade for their condition He furthernbelieves that the insanity defense shouldnbe reserved for those few cases wherenthe defendant is completely out of touchnwith reality, the remaining majority handlednunder the diminished-responsibilityntheory, and the punishment adjusted accordingly.nHe amply demonstrates thenhypocrisy of the insanity defisnse by suggestingnthat “gross social adversity” isnequally meritorious of special consideration,nand by pointing out that the insanityndefense is used only against the mostnserious charges and mostiy to escape thendeath penalty. (Incidentally, this booknwas written before the Hinckley verdict.)nHe also keeps society in mind, refusingnto admit that its increased peril isn131nM)iveiiiberl983n