Javascript must be enabled to continue!
Who Killed Habeas Corpus?
View through CrossRef
This article discusses the recent history of the writ of habeas corpus, once known as the Great Writ of Liberty, and concludes that the end result has been tragic. Because of unwise decisions made by all three branches of government, Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court, the writ has largely been destroyed as an effective remedy for individuals who are imprisoned as a result of a violation of their federal constitutional rights by a state court. The article notes that under Chief Justices Burger and Rehnquist the Supreme Court established a number of restrictions on the right of state prisoners to obtain federal habeas review. Then, in 1996, a Republican Congress passed an extremely repressive bill entitled the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”) that imposed additional restrictions on the Great Writ. Particularly objectionable are provisions requiring federal courts to defer to erroneous but reasonable state court interpretations of the Constitution and barring federal courts from relying on any authority other than clearly established Supreme Court precedent. Sadly, over the objections of habeas scholars, civil libertarians, and his own counsel, President Clinton signed the bill into law. Since then, the Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the law so as to make it even more harmful to prisoners seeking to overturn unconstitutionally obtained state convictions. The article contends that the loss of habeas corpus is profound because the writ is urgently needed. This is so because, as state judicial elections have become increasingly contested, increasingly partisan, and increasingly well-financed, it is increasingly difficult for state court judges, who unlike federal judges do not have life tenure, to protect criminal defendants’ constitutional rights. As a result, too many people spend too many years in prison as a result of convictions involving violations of their constitutional rights.
Title: Who Killed Habeas Corpus?
Description:
This article discusses the recent history of the writ of habeas corpus, once known as the Great Writ of Liberty, and concludes that the end result has been tragic.
Because of unwise decisions made by all three branches of government, Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court, the writ has largely been destroyed as an effective remedy for individuals who are imprisoned as a result of a violation of their federal constitutional rights by a state court.
The article notes that under Chief Justices Burger and Rehnquist the Supreme Court established a number of restrictions on the right of state prisoners to obtain federal habeas review.
Then, in 1996, a Republican Congress passed an extremely repressive bill entitled the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”) that imposed additional restrictions on the Great Writ.
Particularly objectionable are provisions requiring federal courts to defer to erroneous but reasonable state court interpretations of the Constitution and barring federal courts from relying on any authority other than clearly established Supreme Court precedent.
Sadly, over the objections of habeas scholars, civil libertarians, and his own counsel, President Clinton signed the bill into law.
Since then, the Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the law so as to make it even more harmful to prisoners seeking to overturn unconstitutionally obtained state convictions.
The article contends that the loss of habeas corpus is profound because the writ is urgently needed.
This is so because, as state judicial elections have become increasingly contested, increasingly partisan, and increasingly well-financed, it is increasingly difficult for state court judges, who unlike federal judges do not have life tenure, to protect criminal defendants’ constitutional rights.
As a result, too many people spend too many years in prison as a result of convictions involving violations of their constitutional rights.
Related Results
Habeas Class Actions
Habeas Class Actions
<p>Can habeas corpus cases proceed as class actions? The Supreme Court has never squarely answered that question, even in cases where lower courts certified habeas classes. B...
Collateral Effects of Habeas Retrogression
Collateral Effects of Habeas Retrogression
Prisoners in state custody currently have two avenues to challenge violations of their constitutional rights: petitions for habeas corpus and suits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Although...
Habeas Bargaining
Habeas Bargaining
Settlement is the norm is criminal trials. Over 90 percent of criminal defendants plead guilty. A large portion do so as part of a plea bargain, i.e., a settlement, with prosecut...
The Great Writ Diminished
The Great Writ Diminished
In 2007, an empirical study of 2,384 randomly-selected habeas corpus petitions filed in United States District Courts by state prisoners in non-capital cases found that district co...
Žanrovska analiza pomorskopravnih tekstova i ostvarenje prijevodnih univerzalija u njihovim prijevodima s engleskoga jezika
Žanrovska analiza pomorskopravnih tekstova i ostvarenje prijevodnih univerzalija u njihovim prijevodima s engleskoga jezika
Genre implies formal and stylistic conventions of a particular text type, which inevitably affects the translation process. This „force of genre bias“ (Prieto Ramos, 2014) has been...
Immigration Detention and Illusory Alternatives to Habeas
Immigration Detention and Illusory Alternatives to Habeas
The Supreme Court has never directly addressed whether, or under what circumstances, a writ of habeas corpus may be used to challenge the conditions of detention, as opposed to the...
L'habeas corpus
L'habeas corpus
Si l’habeas corpus est considéré comme un standard commun au constitutionnalisme occidental en tant qu’il prohibe la détention arbitraire, la nature et les fonctions de cette insti...
Causas y consecuencias de la desnaturalización del habeas corpus
Causas y consecuencias de la desnaturalización del habeas corpus
El habeas corpus, como garantía fundeamental del individuo frente a detenciones arbitrarias e ilegales, ha sido históricamente un baluarte de los sistemas democráticos. El objetivo...

