that were this the case, the “peace” movement,n”concerned” scientists, bishops,nand news commentators would soonnbegin to decry the inhumanity of thesensophisticated nonnuclear weapons (afternall, they do kill people) and demand theirnelimination.nIt would seem that the West has nownbecome too humane to engage successfullynin warfare, a savage business innwhich the most brutal tend to reign supreme.nFor over three decades, the existencenof nuclear arms made it unneces­nNormalizing the AbnormalnMalcolm M. Feeley: Court Reformnon Trial; Basic Books; New York.nNorval Morris: Madness and thenCriminal Law; The University ofnChic^o Press; Chicago.nby Betsy ClarkenSociety’s criminal laws represent itsnunified system of values regarding bothnexpected conduct and punishment. Formulatednby majorities in state legislatures,nfrequentiy after intense public pressure,nour statutes reflect not just our standardsnfor behavior, but a continuing affirmationnof a moral code that has been acceptednfor centuries. The purpose of thencriminal-justice system would thereforenseem obvious: encourage conformity toncivilized norms, punish and separatenthose who breach those norms as efiicientlynand fairly as possible. Rehabilitationnof offenders would certainly bringnsociety advantages, but it is not alwaysnpossible, nor is it necessary for the satisfactorynfunctioning of the culture.nThe citizenry is divided, albeit unevenly,ninto two opposing groups on the subjectnof criminal law: proaccused and procommunity,nwith the proaccused writingnmost of the books and moderatingnMiss Clarke is a law student and freelancenwriter.n•^^m^mmm^t^nChronicles of Culturensary for the West to prove itself in a fullscalenwar. But now even the potentialnconsequences of nuclear war have comento violate the tender consciences of manynWesterners. The purity of their humanenideals requires the elimination of nuclearnweapons. Ideals, however, do not fornlong remain apart from a society’s abilitynto defend itself The ultimate result ofnthe West’s current humaneness can onlynbe the replacement of humane Westernnculture and civilization by the savagerynof Soviet communism. Dnthe debate. The proaccused see our criminalnlaws, though well-meaning, as needingnmodification according to a defendant’sneconomic and cultural bacl^round,npolitical beliefe, and even self-image.nThey have a certain automatic sympathynwith defendants, believing that no one isnall bad. But it is the process of judgment,nso highly structured and possibly leadingnto confinement, that they most resent.nEvading any acknowledgment of an individual’snmoral culpability in perpetratingna criminal act, the proaccused urgenthe system to administer its laws in anpractical manner. The thought that twonlives, the victim’s and the criminal’s,nshould be thrown away reduces them tontears. They point out the tremendousnfinancial costs of penitentiaries, as ifneconomics are more important thannethics, and add that imprisoning the convictedncan never bring the poor victimnback to life. As for the protection of society,nwell, society, they claim, contributednto the defendant’s delinquency. Whynshouldn’t it bear some of the punishment?nFrequently, the proaccused take thenlegal presumption of innocence untilnproven guilty to be synonymous withninnocence in fact, or at least relative innocence.nGreater evils, such as capitalismnor corporal punishment, are blamed fornand contrasted to the defendant’s behavior.nCompared to the manufecturingnof deadly missiles, are a few cases of arsonnnnso bad?nGenerally, the vocabulary of the proaccusednrepresents a double standard.n”Reform,” for example, will do to describenliberal pretrial release programs but notnto describe abolition of the exclusionarynrule. “Public defender” means a lawyernwho is paid by the public to defeat thenpublic’s interest in its own safety. Mostnastonishingly, the proaccused are notnabove pontificating that the interests ofnthe public and the convicted criminalnare the same by suggesting that unlessnthese deviates go free, the Bill of Rightsnis somehow endangered.nThe proaccused cannot decide whethernpoverty breeds virtue or violence, sonthey have it both ways. While insistingnthat money will eradicate the need andntherefore the incidence of armed robbery,ndrug use, and premeditated murder,nthey nevertheless blame mammonnfor the corruption of the rich, who stealnby overcharging innocent people andnmurder by operating the unsafe factoriesnin which they work. Could it be thatncriminal behavior is not a function of incomenat all, but a symptom of spiritualnbankruptcy and failed morale?n1 he issue, really, is values, and sincenthere is no middle ground in discussingnthese subjects, books like Mr. Feeley’snare rendered hypocritical. They urgensomething as benevolendy nebulous asn”reform” without having the courage tondefend the kind of society their reformsnwould bring. In Court Reform on Trial,nFeeley chooses to discuss rather peripheralnissues of the system: bail reform, pretrialndiversion, sentence reform, speedyntrial rules. Regarding bail proceedings,nFeeley advocates a “rights-oriented advocacynprocess” without delineating whynit is needed. The Supreme Court, afternall, has never acknowledged a constitutionalnright to bail, so what “rights” arenthe defenders to advocate? Furthermore,nthe criteria by which bail is setncannot always assess the danger to thenpublic. Son of Sam, who had a lovingnfamily, strong community ties, and ansteady job, would have been, on paper.n