Jump to content

User:ThePerseid SCD/Sandbox: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Made notes in the habeas corpus section
Added a summary section, removed the Habeas Corpus section, and moved the History section.
Line 2: Line 2:


The '''Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996''', Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214, (also known as '''AEDPA''') is an Act of Congress signed into law on April 24, 1996. The bill was introduced as part of [[Speaker of the United States House of Representatives|Speaker of the House]] [[Newt Gingrich]]'s [[Contract with America]], passed with broad bipartisan support by Congress (91-8-1 in the [[United States Senate]], 293-133-7 in the [[United States House of Representatives|House of Representatives]]) following the [[Oklahoma City bombing]], and signed into law by President [[Bill Clinton]].<ref name="CB1">{{cite web|url=http://www.criminalbrief.com/?p=7480|title=Dark Justice| last=Lundin|first=Leigh |date=2009-06-28|publisher=Criminal Brief}}</ref><ref name="PLN">{{cite web|url=https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/(S(0cpgj055wpob3yqvjos2ua55))/displayArticle.aspx?articleid=21054|title=A Tale of Two Justice Systems|last=Holland|first=Joshua|date=2009-04-01|work=AlterNet|publisher=Prison Legal News|accessdate=2009-06-29}}</ref>
The '''Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996''', Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214, (also known as '''AEDPA''') is an Act of Congress signed into law on April 24, 1996. The bill was introduced as part of [[Speaker of the United States House of Representatives|Speaker of the House]] [[Newt Gingrich]]'s [[Contract with America]], passed with broad bipartisan support by Congress (91-8-1 in the [[United States Senate]], 293-133-7 in the [[United States House of Representatives|House of Representatives]]) following the [[Oklahoma City bombing]], and signed into law by President [[Bill Clinton]].<ref name="CB1">{{cite web|url=http://www.criminalbrief.com/?p=7480|title=Dark Justice| last=Lundin|first=Leigh |date=2009-06-28|publisher=Criminal Brief}}</ref><ref name="PLN">{{cite web|url=https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/(S(0cpgj055wpob3yqvjos2ua55))/displayArticle.aspx?articleid=21054|title=A Tale of Two Justice Systems|last=Holland|first=Joshua|date=2009-04-01|work=AlterNet|publisher=Prison Legal News|accessdate=2009-06-29}}</ref>

==Habeas corpus==
===Shrink this section, make it section 1 of a summary of the act===
The AEDPA had a tremendous impact on the law of [[habeas corpus in the United States]]. One provision of the AEDPA limits the power of federal judges to grant relief unless the state court's adjudication of the claim resulted in a decision that was
#contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the [[Supreme Court of the United States]]; or
#based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceeding.

In addition to the modifications that pertain to all habeas cases, AEDPA enacted special review provisions for capital cases from states that enacted quality controls for the performance of counsel in the state courts in the post-conviction phase in state court. States that enacted these quality controls would see strict time limitations enforced against their death-row inmates in federal habeas proceedings coupled with extremely deferential review to the determinations of their courts regarding issues of federal law. As of yet, only Arizona has qualified for these additional provisions, yet it has not been able to take advantage of them because it has not followed its own quality control procedures. More states may qualify for these additional provisions in the future because in 2005 Congress took the power to determine whether a state had qualified away from the federal courts and gave it to the Attorney General.

Other provisions of the AEDPA created entirely new statutory law. For example, before AEDPA the judicially created abuse-of-the-writ doctrine restricted the presentation of new claims through subsequent habeas petitions. The AEDPA replaced this doctrine with an absolute bar on second or successive petitions. Petitioners who attempted to bring claims in federal habeas proceedings that have already been decided in a previous habeas petition would find those claims barred. Petitioners who had already filed a federal habeas petition were required to first secure authorization from the appropriate federal court of appeals. Furthermore, AEDPA took away from the Supreme Court the power to review a court of appeals's denial of that permission, thus placing final authority for the filing of second petitions in the hands of the federal courts of appeals.


==History==
==History==
Line 19: Line 9:


In 2005, the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|Ninth Circuit]] indicated that it was willing to consider a challenge to the constitutionality of AEDPA on separation of powers grounds under ''[[City of Boerne v. Flores]]'' and ''[[Marbury v. Madison]]'',<ref>"[http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2005/05/is_aedpa_uncons.html Is AEDPA Unconstitutional]," from [http://www.scotusblog.com SCOTUSblog]</ref> but has since decided that the issue was foreclosed by circuit precedent.<ref>Orin Kerr, "[http://www.orinkerr.com/2006/06/21/what-happened-to-irons-v-carey/ What Happened to ''Irons v. Carey''?]", OrinKerr.com, June 21, 2006.</ref>
In 2005, the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|Ninth Circuit]] indicated that it was willing to consider a challenge to the constitutionality of AEDPA on separation of powers grounds under ''[[City of Boerne v. Flores]]'' and ''[[Marbury v. Madison]]'',<ref>"[http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2005/05/is_aedpa_uncons.html Is AEDPA Unconstitutional]," from [http://www.scotusblog.com SCOTUSblog]</ref> but has since decided that the issue was foreclosed by circuit precedent.<ref>Orin Kerr, "[http://www.orinkerr.com/2006/06/21/what-happened-to-irons-v-carey/ What Happened to ''Irons v. Carey''?]", OrinKerr.com, June 21, 2006.</ref>

==Summary==
===Title I===
*A one year deadline for state prisoners to file a federal habeas petition was established.
*The circumstances under which a federal or state prisoner may appeal a federal or state district court's denial of petition for habeas relief were narrowed.
*Federal courts were permitted to dismiss groundless petitions and bars federal habeas relief on a claim already passed by a state court unless the decision was illegal or disregarded presented evidence.
*State prisoners were required to use every possible opportunity for state remedial action before federal habeas relief could be granted.
*A one year statute of limitations and limitations of successive petitions were imposed.
*Repetitious habeas petitions were prohibited.
*Federal habeas procedures were streamlined for death row inmates who could not afford their own legal representation.
*The confidential nature of the habeas request and the approval of certain services available to poor death row inmates were eliminated.
===Title II===
*Federal courts were authorized to order restitution.
*Mandatory restitution was established for violent felonies against property including fraud, tampering with consumer products, or controlled substances offenses which involved physical injury or property loss.
*A set of procedures for payment and enforcement of restitution was established.
*A single procedure for issuing restitution orders was established.
*Special assessments imposed as part of sentencing for felony convictions were increased.

*Foreign governments which engage in torture, murder, aircraft sabotage, hostage taking, or providing material support for terrorist acts may be sued as the result of subsequent injury or death of American citizens.
*A ten year statute of limitations was established for such law suits.

*Grants were provided to states to compensate and assist victims of terrorism.
*American residents who became victims of terrorism overseas were made eligible for compensation.
*Payment to a person who owed money for conviction in a federal crime was prohibited.
*Any criminal trial held more than 350 miles from where the events which are the subject of the trial occurred must be covered by closed circuit television.
===Title III===
===Title IV===
===Title V===
===Title VI===
===Title VII===
===Title VIII===
===Title IX===


==Criticisms==
==Criticisms==

Revision as of 09:10, 23 February 2011

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214, (also known as AEDPA) is an Act of Congress signed into law on April 24, 1996. The bill was introduced as part of Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich's Contract with America, passed with broad bipartisan support by Congress (91-8-1 in the United States Senate, 293-133-7 in the House of Representatives) following the Oklahoma City bombing, and signed into law by President Bill Clinton.[1][2]

History

The bill was introduced as part of Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich's Contract with America, passed with broad bipartisan support by Congress (91-8-1 in the United States Senate, 293-133-7 in the House of Representatives) following the Oklahoma City bombing, and signed into law by President Bill Clinton.[1][2]

Soon after it was enacted, AEDPA endured a critical test in the Supreme Court. The basis of the challenge was that the provisions limiting the ability of persons to file successive habeas petitions violated Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 of the US Constitution, the Suspension Clause. The Supreme Court held unanimously in Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651 (1997), that these limitations did not unconstitutionally suspend the writ.

In 2005, the Ninth Circuit indicated that it was willing to consider a challenge to the constitutionality of AEDPA on separation of powers grounds under City of Boerne v. Flores and Marbury v. Madison,[3] but has since decided that the issue was foreclosed by circuit precedent.[4]

Summary

Title I

  • A one year deadline for state prisoners to file a federal habeas petition was established.
  • The circumstances under which a federal or state prisoner may appeal a federal or state district court's denial of petition for habeas relief were narrowed.
  • Federal courts were permitted to dismiss groundless petitions and bars federal habeas relief on a claim already passed by a state court unless the decision was illegal or disregarded presented evidence.
  • State prisoners were required to use every possible opportunity for state remedial action before federal habeas relief could be granted.
  • A one year statute of limitations and limitations of successive petitions were imposed.
  • Repetitious habeas petitions were prohibited.
  • Federal habeas procedures were streamlined for death row inmates who could not afford their own legal representation.
  • The confidential nature of the habeas request and the approval of certain services available to poor death row inmates were eliminated.

Title II

  • Federal courts were authorized to order restitution.
  • Mandatory restitution was established for violent felonies against property including fraud, tampering with consumer products, or controlled substances offenses which involved physical injury or property loss.
  • A set of procedures for payment and enforcement of restitution was established.
  • A single procedure for issuing restitution orders was established.
  • Special assessments imposed as part of sentencing for felony convictions were increased.
  • Foreign governments which engage in torture, murder, aircraft sabotage, hostage taking, or providing material support for terrorist acts may be sued as the result of subsequent injury or death of American citizens.
  • A ten year statute of limitations was established for such law suits.
  • Grants were provided to states to compensate and assist victims of terrorism.
  • American residents who became victims of terrorism overseas were made eligible for compensation.
  • Payment to a person who owed money for conviction in a federal crime was prohibited.
  • Any criminal trial held more than 350 miles from where the events which are the subject of the trial occurred must be covered by closed circuit television.

Title III

Title IV

Title V

Title VI

Title VII

Title VIII

Title IX

Criticisms

While critics have charged that this limitation effectively forecloses the power of federal courts to remedy unjust convictions, federal judges have found ways to grant relief to some meritorious prisoners in habeas cases despite the limitation.

See also

References

  1. ^ a b Lundin, Leigh (2009-06-28). "Dark Justice". Criminal Brief.
  2. ^ a b Holland, Joshua (2009-04-01). "A Tale of Two Justice Systems". AlterNet. Prison Legal News. Retrieved 2009-06-29.
  3. ^ "Is AEDPA Unconstitutional," from SCOTUSblog
  4. ^ Orin Kerr, "What Happened to Irons v. Carey?", OrinKerr.com, June 21, 2006.

Online Article Sources

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:ThePerseid_SCD/Sandbox&oldid=415478096"