It permits convictions based on evidence that was literally beaten out of a witness, or obtained through other abuse by either the federal government or by other countries. Two bills have been introduced in Congress that would restore habeas corpus rights to detainees. The bill makes clear that the Constitution is the law of the land—and that no president can make up his or her own rules regarding torture and abuse.
The only thing scarier than a government that would take away our basic freedoms is a Congress and a people that would let it happen. Congress must restore habeas corpus, defend Constitutional rights, and protect the values that make us Americans. Latin for "that you have the body. A writ of habeas corpus is used to bring a prisoner or other detainee e. A habeas petition proceeds as a civil action against the State agent usually a warden who holds the defendant in custody.
It can also be used to examine any extradition processes used, the amount of bail , and the jurisdiction of the court. See, e. Knowles v. Mirzayance U. Turpin US and McCleskey v. Zant US The Habeas corpus first originated back in , through the 39th clause of the Magna Carta signed by King John, which provided "No man shall be arrested or imprisoned English courts began actively considering petitions for habeas corpus in Accordingly, habeas corpus also developed as the king's role to demand account for his subject who is restrained of his liberty by other authorities.
Deeply rooted in the Anglo-American jurisprudence, the law of habeas corpus was adopted in the U. The fourth Chief Justice of the U. Supreme Court, Chief Justice Marshall, emphasized the importance of habeas corpus, writing in his decision in , that the "great object" of the writ of habeas corpus "is the liberation of those who may be imprisoned without sufficient cause. Supreme Court has recognized that the "writ of habeas corpus is the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action" and must be "administered with the initiative and flexibility essential to ensure that miscarriages of justice within its reach are surfaced and corrected.
The sources of habeas corpus can be found in the Constitution, statutory law, and case law. In the elections of , Indiana Democrats gained strength as public opinion became unsettled about the war, which was not going well for the Union.
This sentiment emboldened Milligan, who became convinced that the Emancipation Proclamation was proof that Lincoln had fallen under the influence of abolitionist New Englanders. Union victories in convinced voters that the tide had turned against the Confederacy, and the Peace Democrats began to lose public support. Embittered, Milligan joined with sympathizers to form secret societies, clubs designed to further the antiwar cause. One of these societies, the Sons of Liberty, named Milligan an officer, perhaps without his knowledge.
The activities of the society did not remain secret for long, and the Republican governor and the commander of the Indiana district of the Union Army employed spies to learn more about its inner workings. Milligan and five others were accused of conspiring to seize arms and ammunition at federal arsenals and to liberate Confederate prisoners held in several northern camps.
The men were tried before a military tribunal, even though civil courts were open and operating in Indiana. Four of the men were found guilty of treason; the military court sentenced three of them to hang.
Milligan was one of the three condemned men. He petitioned a federal circuit court to grant a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the military had no authority to try him. When the two judges disagreed on the decision, Milligan appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court agreed unanimously with Milligan. The military court lacked jurisdiction, the justices concluded; the Constitution was not suspended in times of war, and a military trial of civilians while domestic courts were open denied the accused of their rights to a grand jury indictment and trial by jury.
No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies [crises] of government. A state of war did not suspend the Constitution or its guarantee of individual rights. Released from prison in April , Milligan sought damages for the time he spent behind bars.
He successfully sued the governor, members of the military commission, and others he believed were responsible for his imprisonment, but a recently passed state law limited his award to five dollars. He returned home a hero, convinced that his case had established a vital principle of American liberty: government must honor the rights of individuals, even during national emergencies. Congress worried, with good reason, that southern state courts would not protect the rights of newly freed slaves, so it passed the Habeas Corpus Act of This measure allowed individuals imprisoned or detained under state authority to seek a writ of habeas corpus from a federal court if they believed the state had violated their constitutional rights.
The act changed the nature of the writ itself. Previously, it had applied only to questions about the legality of detention before trial; now habeas corpus could be invoked by federal judges to review detention after conviction in both federal and state courts. The twentieth century witnessed increased use of habeas corpus in all areas of law, largely because of the expansion of constitutionally protected rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Its use by prisoners is an especially controversial modern use of the habeas petition. Death row inmates often seek post-conviction relief, which is a review after a final judgment to determine whether the trial was fair. The review conducted under a habeas petition is not the same as an appeal. It involves such questions as: Was the defendant informed of his rights? Did he have access to counsel?
Was she tried by an impartial jury? These questions address the lawfulness of procedures used in the pretrial, trial, sentencing, or appeal; the petition for a review cannot claim simply that the defendant is innocent. This use of habeas corpus in this manner raises popular concern about delays in the finality of justice.
The petitions clog federal court dockets, prompting questions about how far the federal judiciary should be involved in criminal justice, historically a responsibility of the states.
In response, both Congress and the Supreme Court in recent years have restricted habeas petitions in capital cases. For all the controversy surrounding their use, however, the vast majority of petitions fail to prove a legal or factual error. Habeas corpus is an old remedy for testing the lawfulness of all detentions, but its primary importance in American history has been to challenge the power of the executive.
When drafting the Constitution, the framers were mindful of their heritage as Englishmen. They also provided means to challenge the authorized use of power, especially by the branch directly responsible for administering the law.
0コメント