We examine the time required for lower federal court nominees to complete the confirmation process. Using proportional hazards models, we analyze delay at the Judiciary Committee stage and the full Senate vote stage from 1977 to 2010, finding that delay has been used by members of the committee and the full Senate to signal opposition to nominees. Delay at the committee stage has influenced delay on the Senate floor for circuit and district court nominees, at least in the years since Robert Bork’s failed nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. Our findings indicate that senators pick up on committee delay as a cue in the confirmation process. Examining the distinct stages of the confirmation process provides important new insights into legislative signaling behavior and confirmation politics.

psychological, and medical needs faced by victims. Tragically, little of the legislation enacted in the name of idealized victims truly represents average victims or their needs.By clearly explicating how the crime issue has become a defining framework for governance, Simon demonstrates how this has weakened the foundation of our democracy and led to justifications for previously legally unacceptable practices. ''Governing through crime is making America less democratic and more racially polarized; it is exhausting our social capital and repressing our capacity for innovation'' (p. 6). Risk and safety concerns are now routinely used as ''legitimate'' grounds for employee dismissals, racial discrimination, dismissing concerns of gender inequality that do not fit the definition of domestic violence or sexual harassment, and the fortification of our schools through the use of drug testing, metal detectors, and searches.The author not only describes how policy motivated by crime fear is frequently self-defeating but also offers alternative frameworks for governance, most notably using a cancer model, which has a strong emphasis on prevention and empowering the multiple perspectives of cancer patients/victims. Given the recent political focus on ''hope'' and ''change,'' it will be interesting to see whether such an alternative model comes to fruition. As we face this challenge, Simon aptly cautions, ''In a very real sense, our ability to roll back the penal state and its mass imprisonment may depend most on our ability to talk ourselves down from the way we prioritize the avoidance of crime risk in shaping our family life'' (p. 206). I would recommend Governing Through Crime for scholars and students in law, public policy, criminology, criminal justice, and political science.

No abstract

This chapter focuses on prosecutors’ roles in accountability courts and diversion programs, details their participation in creating these specialized courts and programs, explains their gate-keeping responsibilities, and discusses ethical rules raised by their participation. Specifically, the chapter describes drug courts and veterans courts, which are two of the most prominent specialized courts. Using these two specialized courts as representatives of other similarly situated courts, the chapter explains the history behind the creation of these courts, their structures, operations, and their specific goals of addressing the underlying causes of criminal defendants’ criminal behaviors. In the United States specialized court settings, the prosecutor, rather than being adversarial, tends to be collaborative with other court practitioners. In non-U.S. specialized courts, the prosecutors’ roles are not that significantly different from those of their U.S. counterparts. With ongoing efforts on reforming the U.S. criminal justice system, especially as it concerns issues addressed by specialty courts, U.S. prosecutors are likely to continue their support of these courts.

No abstract