Habeas Corpus in the Criminal Court System

Habeas Corpus is a highly debated topic in society. Habeas Corpus is a writ that calls into question whether a person whom is detained or imprisoned is being held lawfully or not. Federal habeas corpus law allows a convict to ask the court to review their convictions and sentencing to see if it adheres to the United States Constitution. Currently, unless the case presents extraordinary issue, only one federal review is allowed. However, some believe that one federal review is not enough and because habeas corpus is used most in cases that involve criminal convictions that can end their lives, they should be able to have endless chances to file habeas corpus writs (Neubauer, 2008).

People who oppose habeas corpus do so, on the basis that habeas corpus writs only test if a prisoner has been accorded due process, not if they are guilty of the crime that was committed. In addition it causes heavy case loads, undermines the guilty verdict, and delays the finality of the case which draws out the whole process because after exhausting appeallate remedies habeas corpus gives a convict the right to file multiple writs (Neubauer, 2008).

Through the habeas corpus writ cases are drawn out and cause case overloads in the court system. Over 3000 people are currently on death row in the United States and out of those 3000 people, only about 50 are executed each year. On top of the 3000 already waiting for their sentences to be completed, more people continue to be sentenced to death, adding to a large amount of people filing habeas corpus writs in the courts. "15 to 20 years of delays in some cases are not uncommon," (Doyle, 1996) and these statistics only represent those who are sentenced to death. However, if there is a question of whether a person is guilty or innocent and possible further evidence can or should be admitted that can prove a convicts innocence, the door should not be shut in their faces (Center of Preservation of Habeas Corpus ,2002).

In Brown v. Vasquez, the Supreme Court "recognized the fact that Habeas Corpus is a fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action" (Doyle, 1996). This is proven in the number of people who have been found innocent due to habeas corpus. When making the decision to end a persons life or keep them imprisoned for the rest of their lives, than special consideration needs to be taken, especially if the person could be innocent of the charges that they are being held for.

One such case is Donald Wayne Good who was convicted of rape and burglary in 1984. Both victims identified Good as being their perpetrator and he was sentenced to a life in prison. Good was then paroled and released as a sex offender. While on parole, he committed a crime which would reinstate his life imprisonment in addition to giving him 5 years for the new crime. In 1993, Good requested to the courts that the rape kit in his case be compared to his DNA. The results proved that he was not there and excluded him as the perpetrator. After filing a writ of habeas corpus with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the writ was granted, which resulted in his exoneration of the rape and burglary charge from 1984 (Innocence Project, 2008).

"Habeas Corpus originally was the prerogative writ of the King and his courts" (Doyle, 1996). Through time, the writ has evolved and changed to fit society's needs. Such as the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 which amends the federal law and applying habeas corpus to state and federal inmates that have been sentenced to death or imprisonment for life.

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act amends habeas corpus by "barring federal habeas reconsideration of legal and factual issues ruled upon by state courts" (Doyle, 1996), places statutes of limitations, encourages the state courts to appoint council for indigent prisoners, and "requires the appellate courts to approve repetitious habeas corpus petitions" (Doyle, 1996).

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act is a good solution to the previous habeas corpus writs. While supporters believe that the courts should allow all condemned to death to continue appeals, this will alleviate the claims that are frivolous efforts on the detainees behalf. The act also appeases those who oppose habeas corpus because it speeds up the process and relieves the courts of a massive amount of appeals. The statutes of limitations enacted allow for prisoners to appeal for only one year after the completion of the direct appeal process and places a six month statute of limitation in death penalty cases (Doyle, 1996).

In addition to making amendments based on the death penalty and life sentenced, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death penalty Act addresses many other issues involved with habeas corpus writs. However, the amendments targeting the overuse in criminal proceedings were needed in order to alleviate cases so that cases which do present new evidence and can possibly change a sentence or exonerate a person would be faster and more recognized to the courts.

As with any change, society in reaction to the act believes that it will increase the amount of death sentences that are carried out each year but, if the person has committed a crime and it has been through all appeal processes and a writ is turned down, their sentence just like any other sentence, must be carried out no matter what length of time that it takes to succeed at this task. When a person is convicted and allowed to continue to appeal, the taxpayers continue to pay for their upkeep in the prison system and in addition, with overcrowding in the jail and more people being placed on death row every year, space also becomes a concern.

Because a human life is at stake, it is understandable when a person believes that the whole process should be scrutinized but at the end of the day (in the case of those who are truly guilty) they still committed the crime to which they are serving time for. The victim of the crime was not granted years of consideration and in fact, unlike their perpetrator, they were never allowed a last meal, or to say good-bye to the ones they love as those who are on death row are allowed to do.

Protecting the criminal to a certain extent is their rights as a person living in the United States but allowing them to manipulate the system and draw out the process should not be allowed. The door that is currently shut, allowing only one federal appeal is enough and when a convict makes a frivolous claim of habeas corpus the door should be shut and locked. They did the crime, they should do the time...or as allocated by the sentencing court, they should be sentenced to death, and it should be done in a timely manner, on behalf of the victim of the crime, and to which ever states law was violated.