Crimes against Habeas Corpus; Congress's Drive-By Killing

By Blaustein, Susan | The Nation, June 20, 1994 | Go to article overview

Crimes against Habeas Corpus; Congress's Drive-By Killing


Blaustein, Susan, The Nation


With its myriad new death-penalty offenses, "three-strikes" provisions, mandatory minimums and moneys for prisons and police, Congress left only one thing out of its much-vaunted new crime package: any protection for Americans' most basic constitutional rights. In their poll-driven stampede to look tough on crime and improve the safety of the streets, members of Congress have once again compromised the safety of our individual liberties by voting to strip from both House and Senate versions of the crime bill all provisions aimed at safeguarding the right of habeas corpus.

In recent years habeas corpus has been threatened by a battery of Supreme Court decisions that have systematically narrowed prisoners' access to the federal courts. The provisions in the crime bill would have corrected the most egregious of these rulings, thereby restoring the historic balance between states' and individuals' rights in reviewing criminal convictions. Many constitutional scholars and lawyers and some Democratic legislators believe it is the duty of Congress--which first incorporated habeas provisions into Article One of the Constitution in 1789 and has been responsible for its oversight ever since--to make sure that the current Supreme Court does not jeopardize those essential rights habeas corpus was designed to protect.

Although most habeas petitions are filed by ordinary prisoners, the vast majority of these never make it to federal trial. It is the relatively few petitions filed by death-row inmates that are far more complex, expensive and time-consuming to litigate. Because so many capital defendants are assigned incompetent lawyers and are convicted in seriously flawed trials, an astounding 40 percent of habeas corpus petitions have resulted in reversals of convictions or new trials, according to a recent study by the American Bar Association. Figures like this one, coupled with tales of horrific crimes perpetrated by repeat offenders, have led many outraged and fearful Americans to believe, erroneously, that convicted murderers are regularly being freed on technicalities.

Eager to streamline the appeals process and to shorten the average eight-year time lag between conviction and execution, in the past five years alone the Supreme Court has issued more than a dozen rulings that have severely limited the number and scope of claims inmates may bring to federal courts. One line of decisions now precludes death-row inmates who have completed their first round of appeals from benefiting from any new Supreme Court ruling. This not only encourages delays by effectively penalizing inmates who diligently pursue their appeals; it also results in a fundamental unfairness in the application of the death penalty. For example, the same 1993 Supreme Court ruling that would render one man's 1994 death sentence unconstitutional would spell no relief for the inmate with identical claims whose conviction became final in 1992. The former might be granted a new trial; the latter, an execution date.

Another landmark opinion, Brecht v. Abrahamson, written last year by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, shifted the burden of proof in federal habeas proceedings from the prosecutor to the prisoner, who must now demonstrate that he could never have been found guilty had there not been a constitutional violation at his trial--an almost impossible standard to meet. With this ruling the Court effectively lent its seal of approval to coerced confessions, the failure to inform prisoners of their right to counsel and the suppression of exculpatory evidence by prosecutors or police, so long as additional incriminating evidence exists. In Herrera v. Collins, perhaps the most shocking decision issued last year, the Chief Justice held that a condemned person whose appeal is based solely upon strong new evidence of his innocence is not entitled to a federal court hearing. The ominous formulation that one might be innocent but nevertheless may be executed because one's trial has been deemed constitutionally correct is the latest Orwellian twist in the Court's recent habeas jurisprudence. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Crimes against Habeas Corpus; Congress's Drive-By Killing
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.