Republican v. Democrat
The writ of habeas corpus, has served as an important check on the manner in which state courts pay respect to federal constitutional rights. Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 290-91 (1969).
Now that the chief executive has the dubious right to "Hold the Body" without a prisoner having any means of review, the next up at bat on the Republican hit list is every other prisoner in the State Penitentiaries across America.
In the words of Senator Russ Feingold;
This bill would fundamentally realign the role of federal courts in criminal cases. Our legal system has long recognized the importance of reducing constitutional error when an individuals' liberty or life is at stake, by allowing even state inmates to challenge the constitutionality of their imprisonment through habeas corpus. This bill would undo that fundamental premise...there is no reason to rush to judgment on this piece of legislation.
Section 9, Clause 2, of Article I of the United States Constitution says: "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
These Republican Senators and Congressmen are arguing that the reason for this bill is the Federal Court system is overburdened and the "Limited Funds" available to the courts could be used elsewhere! Basically this Bill is a budget cut, an attempt to cut down on Federal Court cost.
There may be a mandate to speed up the courts but killing innocent Americans is definitely not the way to go about it and not what the voters want. Is there any justification to fast tracking the Lethal Injection?
These bills are sponsored by some of the worst offenders to peace and dignity in elected office. The House Bill is sponsored by: Rep. Daniel E. Lungren [CA-3] and introduced on 6/22/2005. The Senate Bill, introduced on 5/19/2005, has Sen. Jon Kyl [AZ] as a sponsor and four co-sponsors, Sen. Saxby Chambliss [GA], Sen. Chuck Grassley [IA],Sen. John Cornyn [TX],Sen. Orrin G. Hatch [UT]
If they are so interested in speeding up our federal courts, why don't they submit a Bill banning our Business loving federal jurist from overseeing all of the atrocities preformed by states against major U. S. corporations? That would save plenty of money and no innocent people would rot away in prison or be killed by the states.
Dangerous Ground!
As our elected officials debate the rewriting of the Blackstone Ratio to read "Better ten innocent men suffer that one guilty man go free" let us not forget the tragic story of Larry Griffin;
By Terry Ganey
Of the Post-Dispatch
When death penalty advocates appear before Congress, they often justify their position by saying no innocent person has ever been executed in the United States.
Doubt about that was raised Tuesday in St. Louis with the release of a new report saying Larry Griffin was innocent of the drive-by shooting of Quintin Moss for which Griffin was executed 10 years ago.
The fact is that this bill probably will pass because most Americans have never heard of Larry Griffin but many of our neighbors are subjected daily to stories of criminals getting off on technicalities and Death Row inmates working the system, as they open their Hate Tabloids (like The New York Post)every morning and tune into CNN or FoxNews every evening.
It is a crying shame that most Americans have never heard of Habeas corpus or have an understanding of our Constitutional Rights Most Americans may welcome this New Bill against the People as they listen to the Republican Talking Points of a streamlined federal court and a lower federal budget as a result of this bill.
The Significance of a Federal Role
In a habeas corpus proceeding, a federal court generally "will not review a question of federal law decided by a state court if the decision of that court rests on a state law ground that is independent of the federal question and adequate to support the judgment." Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 111 S. Ct.
There are times that an appellate court overturns convictions just to avoid a tongue lashing from some Federal Judge. Taking away Federal Oversight will only to serve to make these unfair conviction cases more common when the State Court has become the final word.
Many state convictions are community supported. Local judges are very often unwilling to go against their own District Attorneys or overturn a conviction that makes the public feel safe.
It is often the case that some poor slob who spent a few weeks on the front page of the local newspaper, considered guilty by everyone is categorized as untouchable. An appellate court judge wouldn't want his neighbors to hear that he set some rapist or murderer free, even if the convict had his rights infringed upon during trial.
It is extremely important to note that the federal courts do not take issue with state laws unless they are unconstitutional. The extremely unfair Minimum mandatory sentencing guidelines know as the Rockefeller Law continued for decades without the feds addressing young collage students doing twenty years for an ounce of marijuana.
To some extent, Federal jurisdiction has served the purpose of keeping both state legislators and jurist in check. If this bill passes and there is no oversight in criminal cases, state laws may be allowed to go in whatever direction the state assemblies please. Invasive laws could go unchecked and sentencing guidelines could become cruel and inhuman.
Many State Appellate and Supreme courts refuse to review cases simply because of politics. Often it is a case of lack of finance. Sometimes it could be a case of prejudice. There are a host of local reasons why a person could be unfairly convicted. Whatever the case may be the federal bench is and should stay a last chance of a convicted felon.
Last Week's Editorial
As we were trying to keep track of other attempts by our elected officials to take away Civil Rights, a New York Times editorial, Blinding Justice on the House version of this bill went almost unnoticed.
Although habeas traces to Magna Carta and is enshrined in the Constitution, Congress may be about to scale it back drastically. The proposed changes would make the criminal justice system less fair and far more likely to convict the innocent.
A right that is far older than our Constitution. The legal mechanism for saving wrongly convicted prisoners from execution is now being threatened by our elected officials. A legal mechanism that dates back through eight centuries of English law is in jeopardy!
One provision would prevent federal courts from reviewing convictions in a large number of capital cases. Another would keep federal courts from hearing challenges of virtually all state-court sentences, no matter how unfair they were.
The editorial staff of The New York Times informs us that even if this bill isn't passed it may sneak in by another means. That we will end up with this eventually!
The effort to weaken habeas rights for ordinary American prisoners has drawn far less attention, but there is a real danger that this law will be passed. Even if it is not, its supporters may simply add parts of it to other bills as amendments.
Yesterday the paper published s response;
Habeas Corpus: A Safeguard at Risk
Published: November 20, 2005
To the Editor:
Your Nov. 17 editorial "Blinding Justice" was correct that the writ of habeas corpus is a fundamental safeguard against wrongful conviction. The New York State Bar Association also opposes the legislation pending in Congress that essentially strips federal courts of their habeas corpus jurisdiction in reviewing state convictions.
Access to federal courts by the writ of habeas corpus was significantly restricted in 1996, and subsequent data showed that there has been no unreasonable delay in processing habeas corpus petitions.
There are countless cases around the country in which innocent people have been freed because of the writ. If Congress is successful in stripping the writ of habeas corpus from federal jurisdiction, innocent people may remain behind bars.
We have asked both Senators Charles E. Schumer and Hillary Rodham Clinton to oppose the legislation, and we also urge your readers to let those senators know their views as quickly as possible because the best place to stop the legislation is in the Senate.
Take Action Now!
This Action Alert has an easy to use form letter to send out a message to House Representatives and informs us;
Committees in the U.S. Congress are currently considering the Streamlined Procedures Act of 2005 (S.1088, H.R.3035), which, if passed, would decrease safeguards against false imprisonment or execution and increase the risk that an innocent person will be executed.
This legislation would speed up executions in the United States by limiting the ability of defendants to have cases reviewed by federal courts in habeas corpus appeals.
If this bill becomes law, it will doom many innocent people to long-term incarceration or death.
This easy to use and secure ACLU link addresses the Senate.
And this ACLU Link offers forms to both the House and Senate.
Or you can write The House concerning H.R.3035 and The Senate concerning S.1088
Maybe it is not too late. Hopefully, we can stop this heinous act against the people before they go any further.
I fear that this is a slippery slope. First the prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, next everyone who has been convicted of a crime!
I fear that this is just another form of heartless budget cuts. Just like the cuts to health, education and welfare, only to cut down on court cost, innocent people are going to die.
