OCR Text |
Show HINCKLEY JOURNAL OF POLITICS SPRING 2001 ng death penalty stays of execution. The Court needs to reconsider rules of conduct that cause the contents of habeas petitions to go unnoticed because too much emphasis has been placed on the appeals procedure and not on the substance of the appeals themselves. Without the ability of the Court's minority to stop an execution, the Court's acceptance of a death penalty certio rari petition is meaningless. Even when four of the nine justices feel that an inmate's federal habeas petition raises constitutional concerns, they are helpless to act without the blessing of the majority. At the same time, the tight, established appeals procedure set down by the Court is not without its benefits. Death row inmates are trying to turn the tables on the justice system and claim that their delayed executions are a form of unjust punishment. The Court must require a quick and universal appeals process in order to combat this argument and to further sentencing equality. The questions raised in this paper examine a major part of the reasoning behind the United States judicial system. In a country that professes to be free and equal, we need influential men and women to continually evaluate the system and work to ensure that both substantive and procedural justice are served. The system is not perfect and conclusions are not universally drawn. However, the impartial, powerful justices of the Supreme Court help to make the Constitution a living document that does its best to provide every American the "equal justice under law" that he or she deserves. Murray, Frank J. 1999. "Justices Thomas, Breyer Clash Over Capital Punishment." Washington Times, 9 November, Al. Oran's Dictionary of Law. 2000. West Group. <http://www.lawof-fice.com>. Sawyer v. Whitky. 1992. 505 U.S. 333. Schrader, Dorothy. 1996. "Capital Punishment: Summary of Supreme Court Decisions on the Death Penalty." American Law Division, CRS Report for Congress, February 1. Snell, Tracy L. 1998. "Capital Punishment 1997" Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin, December, NCJ472881. Weeks v. Angelone. 2000. 176 F. 3rd 249. Woodson v. North Carolina. 1976. 428 U.S. 280. ENDNOTE Though he would not be quoted in this paper, I would like to thank Mark Miller, the United States Supreme Court Judicial Fellow. His assistance and guidance aided its completion. REFERENCES Barefoot v. Estelk. 1983. 463 U.S. 880, 895. Biskupic, Joan. 1999. "High Court Rejects Cases on Cruelty of Execution Delays" Washington Post, 9 November, A8. Furman v. Georgia. 1972. 408 U.S. 238. Feinberg, Joel. 1973. "Social Justice." Social Philosophy. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall. Greenhouse, Linda. 1999. "Court's Refusal to Hear Cases Preserves Delays on Death Row." New York Times, 9 November, Al. Gregg v. Georgia. 1976. 428 U.S. 153. Hall, Kermit L. 1992. The Oxford Companion To The Supreme Court of the United States. New York: Oxford University Press. Lazarus, Edward. 1998. Closed Chambers: The Rise, Fall, and Future of the Modern Supreme Court. New York, N.Y: Penguin Books. Lockhart, William, Jesse Choper, Yale Kamisar, and Steven Shiffrin. 1991. Constitutional Law: Cases -Comments-Questions, Seventh Edition. St. Paul, Minnesota: West Publishing Co. "Methods o/Execution," 1999. ABC News.Com. <http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/deathrow/deathrow-execut.html>. November 15. 41 |