³Streamlined Procedures Act of 2005¹ S. 1088
In the United States, there are 3,415 prisoners on death rows: the innocent,
the guilty, and those who are victims of the vagaries of a justice system
that has betrayed them.
The ŒStreamlined Procedures Act of 2005¹, S. 1088 was proposed during the
109th Congress under the Judiciary Sub-Committee that relates to HB 3035,
known as the bill on ŒCrime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security¹ or, more
commonly, ŒThe Patriot Act¹. It will be responsible for the slaughter of
many, if not most, of those condemned to death. In particular, it will
annihilate primarily indigent inmates, those who are the most vulnerable in
society: the poor, racial minorities, and those, already, disenfranchised.
Under the present laws of the United States, a typical criminal trial is
bifurcated, i.e., has two phases. The first is that stage at which guilt or
innocence are determined. The second or penalty phase, is where evidence
both aggravating and mitigating is presented prior to sentencing. It is
this decision that determines life or death of the convicted.
Should a sentence of death be imposed, the convicted may commence various
levels of appeal to an appellate (higher) court. In capital cases, there
exists a series of appeals. While these may vary somewhat according to
state, essentially they exhibit the same progression. Appeals begin with a
ŒMotion for Acquittal¹. This initial Appeal is proceeded by ŒMotion for a
New Trial¹, ŒAppeals to State Appellate court¹, ³Petition for Rehearing to
State Appeals Court¹, State Supreme Court Appeal¹, the United States Supreme
Court Appeal¹, ŒState Habeas Corpus Appeals¹, and, finally, ŒFederal Habeas
Corpus Petitions¹.
Habeas corpus is derived from the Latin, ³you shall have the body.² The
framers of the United States Constitution considered this an important
safeguard and, thusly, enshrined it in Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution.
It was subsequently detailed further to protect individuals from unlawful
imprisonment in the Bill of Rights. For three hundred years, it has formed
the bulwark of Anglo-American jurisprudence, suspended only once in part,
briefly, during the American Civil War.
Habeas corpus empowers the federal courts to examine and, potentially,
rectify those convicted and sentenced unjustly in state courts.
³ to ensure that the process leading to conviction is fair. Š it is
especially important that state prisoners be allowed to petition federal
courts for redress of claimed Constitutional violations. Š State Court
judges, often elected, are susceptible to pressures that life-tenure federal
judges may find less compelling. Š the quality of state judges may be uneven
in many states with counties and cities of great diversity.²
Many, if not most states, have indigent defense systems that are grossly
inadequate. It is not uncommon for state appellate courts to uphold
decisions which result from inadequate assistive counsel, jury bias,
prosecutorial misconduct, even the destruction of vital evidence. Examples
of egregious tolerance of these practices in state courts are legion. Thus,
the Great Writ, the term by which habeas corpus is often referred, is vital
to equality before the law. It is only the federal court that is able to
make the determination as to whether an indigent defendant has been unjustly
sentenced to death.
Therefore, the passage into law of the ŒStreamlined Procedures Act of 2005¹,
will grievously prohibit federal courts from examination of procedural
errors occurring in state courts. It will, instead, become the purview of
the United States Chief Prosecutor, i.e., the Attorney General to affirm and
attest that the state has met the requirements for indigent prisoners. This
prospect is horrifying. It will eliminate the checks and balances inherent
in the Constitution to ensure fair and full justice.
While the ŒStreamlined Procedures Act of 2005¹ is not the first attack on
habeas corpus, it is considered the most grave. The initial evisceration of
habeas corpus occurred in 1996 with the enactment of the Antiterrorism &
Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). This spawned a statutory labyrinth of
obstacles with its onerous limitations and perpetual constitutional
challenges. The AEDPA diminished the federal courts¹ power to rebuke
decisions of state courts, applying a stringency previously unparalleled
vis-à-vis The Writ. Many state courts render decisions that are both
legally and factually incorrect. In effect, state courts currently possess
a degree of finality analogous to those of federal courts. Essentially,
the AEDPA enacted three main modifications, each of alarming proportions.
Prior to AEDPA, only procedural bars limited habeas corpus petitions. A
federal court was bound to determine that a state decision was in error as a
matter of federal law. Now the onus became the provision of it being
³unreasonably² wrong. Second, a one year statute of limitations was imposed
for filing a habeas petition. This created a particularly onerous maze,
since the Act remains obscure as to when the one year statute commences.
The complexity of the Act has resulted in Supreme Court decisions in
attempts to correctly interpret it. To place a human face upon the
Œstatute¹, death row inmates face enormous financial obstacles, oftentimes
acting pro se (as their own counsel). In cases where exculpatory evidence
(in other words, evidence favorable to the defendant which tends to clear
the defendant of guilt) is revealed following the one-year statute, a habeas
appeal would likely be rejected. This increases the probability that an
innocent person would be denied a hearing. The Act, additionally, places
extreme restrictions on second or successive habeas applications. Finally,
prior to AEDPA, the court recognized that capital cases that involved claims
of actual innocence, were unique. The passage of the Act overruled this
established standard for reviewing these claims, however. It is of
importance to note that before the AEDPA was enacted forty percent of
capital cases were overturned on federal habeas corpus review.
Because the Great Writ represents ³the court of last hope², the apparent
impending passage of the Streamlined Procedures Act of 2005, demands
vigilance and resistance to it achieving recorded votes, passed in identical
form by both houses of Congress (enrolled) and, finally, Presidential
approval: both in its present form and insidious proposed amendments. Those
cases even now pending federal habeas corpus review would be imperiled due
to the clause within it of retroactivity. Further, federal courts would be
stripped of jurisdiction arising in clemency and pardon decisions.
Alarmingly, on September 16th, 2005, an amendment was nefariously added to
the ³Children¹s Safety Act² in the House that would effectively abolish
review of many, if not most, death penalty cases.
The codification of S. 1088 will result in carnage, an assembly line of
executions of those prisoners warehoused within death rows throughout the
United States.
The United States administration has utilized and fueled its agenda by the
threat of terrorism, post 9/11, to prey upon its citizens through fear. The
infamous Patriot Act, amendments to the Act, and, now, the ŒStreamlined
Procedures Act of 2005, are predicated upon that terror it has imposed upon
its population. Instilling fear with the intent of intimidating societies to
advance either a domestic or foreign political agenda is terrorism. Few
people study complex legislation. Hence, ignorance enables and facilitates
draconian legislation. It is imperative for those who value life and liberty
to assiduously inform others of the ramifications of such cavalier
manipulation of the law. Knowledge is power. Without that power, a
populace fails to appreciate its direction.
There will be Constitutional challenges to this Bill. That is inevitable.
This would prove a moot point if its ultimate passage is codified; it would
exemplify justice both delayed and denied. It must also be stressed that
the current composition of the United States Supreme Court would render
judgments based upon rigid interpretations of the Constitution, not
necessarily taking into account evolving standards of decency. It is
imperative to recognize that the proposal of this Bill has met with
unprecedented opposition by submissions to the Senate Judiciary Committee by
the Judicial Conference of the United States, the ACLU, the American
Conservative Union, the NAACP, the Rutherford Institute, as well as state
court judges themselves.
U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy, stated on July 13th, 2005 at a Committee of the
Judiciary Hearing on The Streamlined Procedures Act:
³Š The bill before us would greatly increase the risk that more innocent
people will be executed, as well as the risk of lesser, but nonetheless
life-shattering, injustices. And it would do so without any real evidence
that the new regime we enacted less than a decade ago [AEDPA] to limit
federal habeas is not doing the job. Š . There is no need to Œfix¹ habeas
corpus by destroying it.²
It is, therefore, incumbent upon all communities to aggressively pursue
international standards of common decency and morality, to raise their
voices in defiance of this legislation, to, indeed, decry it in a manner
that will be heard throughout the world. The United States must totally
appreciate the interdependency and globalization of the modern world. It
cannot be an island unto itself, while demanding cooperation of the global
community.
It is incumbent upon humanity to reflect and act before thousands of lives
are lost.
In the United States, there are 3,415 prisoners on death rows: the innocent,
the guilty, and those who are victims of the vagaries of a justice system
that has betrayed them.
The ŒStreamlined Procedures Act of 2005¹, S. 1088 was proposed during the
109th Congress under the Judiciary Sub-Committee that relates to HB 3035,
known as the bill on ŒCrime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security¹ or, more
commonly, ŒThe Patriot Act¹. It will be responsible for the slaughter of
many, if not most, of those condemned to death. In particular, it will
annihilate primarily indigent inmates, those who are the most vulnerable in
society: the poor, racial minorities, and those, already, disenfranchised.
Under the present laws of the United States, a typical criminal trial is
bifurcated, i.e., has two phases. The first is that stage at which guilt or
innocence are determined. The second or penalty phase, is where evidence
both aggravating and mitigating is presented prior to sentencing. It is
this decision that determines life or death of the convicted.
Should a sentence of death be imposed, the convicted may commence various
levels of appeal to an appellate (higher) court. In capital cases, there
exists a series of appeals. While these may vary somewhat according to
state, essentially they exhibit the same progression. Appeals begin with a
ŒMotion for Acquittal¹. This initial Appeal is proceeded by ŒMotion for a
New Trial¹, ŒAppeals to State Appellate court¹, ³Petition for Rehearing to
State Appeals Court¹, State Supreme Court Appeal¹, the United States Supreme
Court Appeal¹, ŒState Habeas Corpus Appeals¹, and, finally, ŒFederal Habeas
Corpus Petitions¹.
Habeas corpus is derived from the Latin, ³you shall have the body.² The
framers of the United States Constitution considered this an important
safeguard and, thusly, enshrined it in Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution.
It was subsequently detailed further to protect individuals from unlawful
imprisonment in the Bill of Rights. For three hundred years, it has formed
the bulwark of Anglo-American jurisprudence, suspended only once in part,
briefly, during the American Civil War.
Habeas corpus empowers the federal courts to examine and, potentially,
rectify those convicted and sentenced unjustly in state courts.
³ to ensure that the process leading to conviction is fair. Š it is
especially important that state prisoners be allowed to petition federal
courts for redress of claimed Constitutional violations. Š State Court
judges, often elected, are susceptible to pressures that life-tenure federal
judges may find less compelling. Š the quality of state judges may be uneven
in many states with counties and cities of great diversity.²
Many, if not most states, have indigent defense systems that are grossly
inadequate. It is not uncommon for state appellate courts to uphold
decisions which result from inadequate assistive counsel, jury bias,
prosecutorial misconduct, even the destruction of vital evidence. Examples
of egregious tolerance of these practices in state courts are legion. Thus,
the Great Writ, the term by which habeas corpus is often referred, is vital
to equality before the law. It is only the federal court that is able to
make the determination as to whether an indigent defendant has been unjustly
sentenced to death.
Therefore, the passage into law of the ŒStreamlined Procedures Act of 2005¹,
will grievously prohibit federal courts from examination of procedural
errors occurring in state courts. It will, instead, become the purview of
the United States Chief Prosecutor, i.e., the Attorney General to affirm and
attest that the state has met the requirements for indigent prisoners. This
prospect is horrifying. It will eliminate the checks and balances inherent
in the Constitution to ensure fair and full justice.
While the ŒStreamlined Procedures Act of 2005¹ is not the first attack on
habeas corpus, it is considered the most grave. The initial evisceration of
habeas corpus occurred in 1996 with the enactment of the Antiterrorism &
Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). This spawned a statutory labyrinth of
obstacles with its onerous limitations and perpetual constitutional
challenges. The AEDPA diminished the federal courts¹ power to rebuke
decisions of state courts, applying a stringency previously unparalleled
vis-à-vis The Writ. Many state courts render decisions that are both
legally and factually incorrect. In effect, state courts currently possess
a degree of finality analogous to those of federal courts. Essentially,
the AEDPA enacted three main modifications, each of alarming proportions.
Prior to AEDPA, only procedural bars limited habeas corpus petitions. A
federal court was bound to determine that a state decision was in error as a
matter of federal law. Now the onus became the provision of it being
³unreasonably² wrong. Second, a one year statute of limitations was imposed
for filing a habeas petition. This created a particularly onerous maze,
since the Act remains obscure as to when the one year statute commences.
The complexity of the Act has resulted in Supreme Court decisions in
attempts to correctly interpret it. To place a human face upon the
Œstatute¹, death row inmates face enormous financial obstacles, oftentimes
acting pro se (as their own counsel). In cases where exculpatory evidence
(in other words, evidence favorable to the defendant which tends to clear
the defendant of guilt) is revealed following the one-year statute, a habeas
appeal would likely be rejected. This increases the probability that an
innocent person would be denied a hearing. The Act, additionally, places
extreme restrictions on second or successive habeas applications. Finally,
prior to AEDPA, the court recognized that capital cases that involved claims
of actual innocence, were unique. The passage of the Act overruled this
established standard for reviewing these claims, however. It is of
importance to note that before the AEDPA was enacted forty percent of
capital cases were overturned on federal habeas corpus review.
Because the Great Writ represents ³the court of last hope², the apparent
impending passage of the Streamlined Procedures Act of 2005, demands
vigilance and resistance to it achieving recorded votes, passed in identical
form by both houses of Congress (enrolled) and, finally, Presidential
approval: both in its present form and insidious proposed amendments. Those
cases even now pending federal habeas corpus review would be imperiled due
to the clause within it of retroactivity. Further, federal courts would be
stripped of jurisdiction arising in clemency and pardon decisions.
Alarmingly, on September 16th, 2005, an amendment was nefariously added to
the ³Children¹s Safety Act² in the House that would effectively abolish
review of many, if not most, death penalty cases.
The codification of S. 1088 will result in carnage, an assembly line of
executions of those prisoners warehoused within death rows throughout the
United States.
The United States administration has utilized and fueled its agenda by the
threat of terrorism, post 9/11, to prey upon its citizens through fear. The
infamous Patriot Act, amendments to the Act, and, now, the ŒStreamlined
Procedures Act of 2005, are predicated upon that terror it has imposed upon
its population. Instilling fear with the intent of intimidating societies to
advance either a domestic or foreign political agenda is terrorism. Few
people study complex legislation. Hence, ignorance enables and facilitates
draconian legislation. It is imperative for those who value life and liberty
to assiduously inform others of the ramifications of such cavalier
manipulation of the law. Knowledge is power. Without that power, a
populace fails to appreciate its direction.
There will be Constitutional challenges to this Bill. That is inevitable.
This would prove a moot point if its ultimate passage is codified; it would
exemplify justice both delayed and denied. It must also be stressed that
the current composition of the United States Supreme Court would render
judgments based upon rigid interpretations of the Constitution, not
necessarily taking into account evolving standards of decency. It is
imperative to recognize that the proposal of this Bill has met with
unprecedented opposition by submissions to the Senate Judiciary Committee by
the Judicial Conference of the United States, the ACLU, the American
Conservative Union, the NAACP, the Rutherford Institute, as well as state
court judges themselves.
U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy, stated on July 13th, 2005 at a Committee of the
Judiciary Hearing on The Streamlined Procedures Act:
³Š The bill before us would greatly increase the risk that more innocent
people will be executed, as well as the risk of lesser, but nonetheless
life-shattering, injustices. And it would do so without any real evidence
that the new regime we enacted less than a decade ago [AEDPA] to limit
federal habeas is not doing the job. Š . There is no need to Œfix¹ habeas
corpus by destroying it.²
It is, therefore, incumbent upon all communities to aggressively pursue
international standards of common decency and morality, to raise their
voices in defiance of this legislation, to, indeed, decry it in a manner
that will be heard throughout the world. The United States must totally
appreciate the interdependency and globalization of the modern world. It
cannot be an island unto itself, while demanding cooperation of the global
community.
It is incumbent upon humanity to reflect and act before thousands of lives
are lost.
