The Federal Court House on Habeas Corpus - Essay Example

The Federal Court House on Habeas Corpus The presence of post-conviction trial aims to divest inefficiencies resulting to injustice that might have been present in the first final judgment. For some, this is a welcome support to the current justice system as it ensures that justice is not short-circuited. The availability of post-conviction trial is particularly designed to reduce the probability of convicting a truly innocent person, thus administering justice. However, it has also become a way for some to delay execution, asking for an endless litigation of the case.

The main conflict arises in the possibility that this design will be abused by others, thus also staining the justice system. The inability to execute judgment to someone who is guilty is also clearly seen by the law as one form of injustice. The standing question is whether the presence of habeas corpus is efficient to promoting the country's justice system. Habeas corpus petition are filed by convicted prisoners as a challenge to the validity of their conviction; citing particular reason that police, prosecutor, defense counsel or even the trial court have deprived the convicts of their Federal Constitutional Rights such as "the right to refuse to answer questions when placed in police custody, the right to a speedy and fair trial, and the right to effective assistance of counsel" (Roger A.

Hanson,Henry W.K. Daley, September 1995). An article in the Duke Journal sees one unintended result happening with the presence of habeas corpus. "Modern habeas law is predicated on the assumption that a state prisoner seeking habeas relief is attacking the legality of his confinement by alleging a constitutional error in the decision that led to his incarceration. Federal habeas, in other words, provides collateral review of earlier rulings by state courts. But almost 20 percent of federal habeas petitions filed by state prisoners do not challenge state court judgments.

They attack instead the constitutionality of administrative actions by state prison officials or parole boards, taken long after the petitioner's conviction and sentencing" (Nancy J. King, 2009). Practically, their grievance is against the decisions that the parole and corrections officials do after conviction and sentence. The unintended consequences are what make the significance of the habeas corpus questionable. The number of habeas corpus petitions filed in the federal court has posted an increasing number, reaching to 31,556 in 2000, based from the study of Scalla.

Does this mean then that more people are questioning the justice system as it is already declining What has been the reason for this apparent increase in number The study of the Bureau of Justice specifically points out that "the issue most frequently raised is that the prisoner received ineffective assistance of counsel (such as the defense counsel's not cross-examining a prosecution witness or not objecting to a denial of the court's continuance motion); fewer issues claim constitutional violations by the trial court, prosecutor, or the police" (Roger A.

Hanson,Henry W.K. Daley, September 1995). Whether the habeas corpus filed is against the post-conviction process such as against prison officials or parole board or a pre-conviction inefficiency such as ineffective assistance of counsel, one fact surfaces through all these; the weakness to achieve an effective and efficient justice system. Final judgment will be respected, only if the system proves to be strong enough to warrant justice. My stand is that the government should ensure that no loopholes be found in how the country administers its justice system, so as no second trial and litigation be necessary.

Certainly, habeas corpus remains a right, but it is very much inefficient. The government's focus should be on how to make the final judgment respectable and valid via a sound justice system so that the right of habeas corpus will not be an avenue for seeking release (Lectri Law Library).Works CitedLectri Law Library. (n.d.). http://www.lectlaw.com. Retrieved July 8, 2009, from Habeas Corpus: http://www.lectlaw.com/def/h001.htmNancy J. King, S. S. (2009, March 18). Habeas Corpus and State Sentencing Reform: A Story of Unintended Consequences.

Duke Law Journal , 58.Roger A. Hanson,Henry W.K. Daley. (September 1995). Federal Habeas Corpus Review. Bureau of Justice Statistics.