Crime has been experienced in many countries where criminals have embarked on committing capital offences. Tough punishment should be imposed to those found guilty of the offence without favor. However, many people have fallen victims of conviction of crime they never committed and even imprisoned for a long period though innocent. This offender’s several attempts to make appeals in habeas corpus have failed due to impediment of cases in the current set up of state supreme courts. Innocent people have spent plenty of their life in prison with crimes they little know about. This is the reason that makes me feel that the federal courthouse be opened to ensure that justice is maintained to all.
To support this, we observe that murder prisoners are only allowed to appeal against their case by filing to the immediate appellate court above the trial court. This actually cannot help much because the previous trial having been determined by almost an equal jurisdiction could result in court interference. Actually, the offender might even receive harsher punishment than the previous one (Gould, 2004).
As we observe the case of Rodriguez (1973), he was a state prisoner who enjoyed good time credits for discipline. His petition for his case was dismissed by the lower court for the reason of petitioning at a later stage after confinement was staged. The US Supreme Court later overruled the ruling on the ground that the duration and the facts that made the petitioner to appeal were correct and the person was entitled to release. By this we observe how judges of these courts are ignorant and this call upon the attention of the federal house to reconsider reopening their doors to address these issues (Leo, 2005).
Another reason that needs to be addressed by these courts is the issue of discrimination. We see two individuals committing the same crime but receive different judgments; one offender commits a crime of murder in one location and receives a life imprisonment; another person convicted of the same crime receives death penalty (Bedau, 2007). Judges may have disparity in sentencing the offenders when they exercise their jurisdiction power to impose different penalties on law breakers charged with similar offences, this has made the experts on law reforms to move quickly and try and solve this problem.
Arkansas prison was declared unconstitutional for several reasons. The federal officials observed that there was violation of human rights through petitions that were filed by inmates through habeas corpus. This reveals the need for opening the fidelity courthouses to address this high level of impunity in our courts and ignorance by our judges (Leo, 2005). The officials reveal that the reforms are to be completed soon.
A learned fellow once observed how matters of justice are driven by who you are rather than what you have done. This is in regard to issues of arrest, prosecution, and sanctions where the acts are driven by the issue of who you are. Though it seems that the real change is not likely to be soon, it is advisable to start critical steps that will make at least matters of justice subjected to changes (Welch, 2004). The aspect of sanction and conviction tend to be so biased towards certain penalties, mostly death sentences, making some innocent people to suffer with no reason. It is always advisable to exercise justice other than enforcing law with no prior reason for the judgments. Many people little know their right and this makes the law enforcers and other administrators of justice misuse their power when they realize this weakness. People should learn to question where they think they have not received fair judgment.
Habeas corpus petitions normally takes into consideration three major issues; the fact of confinement, length of confinement, and the nature of confinement. The facts should be spelled out clearly why the offender was arrested and any conviction leading to offender being placed on death penalty also be clearly outlined to avoid false accusations. The length of confinement has also been challenged by several inmates who feel that the sentence was overruled thus making them to serve a long jail term in relation to crime they were charged for. The conditions in jail makes people lack some basic facilities that facilitate their livelihood and offenders mostly prefer to be confined to prison rather than jail because prisons have adequate facilities compared to jails (Welch, 2004). The case of Romeo who was mentally handicap directed him to violence while he was in jail; this made him sustain injuries in the hands of his colleagues’ (inmates) after he tried to cause mayhems.
Habeas corpus should look at the issue of individuals from their time of arrest up to their ruling disposition; sometimes the law breaker claims that the ruling judges sometimes makes prejudicial sentiments about the offender before the jury. In the case of Creech who was convicted of killing his fellow inmate, the trial resulted in the judge sentencing him to death with no solid evidence which showed that the offender committed the crime. He based the ruling with an extravagant background. He viewed the phrase of “alter and cool blooded pitiless slayer” that was found on the floor (Bedau, 2007). When Creech appealed, he claimed that the phrase was invalid and the U.S Supreme Court supported Creech terming the Judge ruling unconstitutional.
Inmates also file habeas corpus petitions where they term prosecutors unfaithful on evidence reading, or that they sometimes engage in bad conducts and nepotism. The inmates observe that prosecutors being exaggerative and unlawful tend to twist cases and hold prime information for suspects. When George Washington was convicted of murder, the court later gave him a fresh trail by stating that the prosecutor didn’t give full exculpatory evidence on his finding (Leo, 2005).
Another reason why the reforms should be introduced is due to the feeling of inmates that they are not fully represented by the counsel; the offenders feel that they are not well represented after conviction (Bedau, 2007). They claim that their counsels fail to prevent them from being convicted due to their ineffectiveness. The U.S supreme courts reject these petitions terming them inefficient.
The prosecutors who are much aggressive may interweave a case of an offender and lead to the possibility of charging the defendant with a tough penalty of capital crime. This is absolutely wrong and unconstitutional for implicating an offender with charges that are meant for other serious crimes. Some of these prosecutors withheld exculpatory information that may lead to the release or lowering of charges for the offender (Gould, 2004). This is another reason that makes innocent people to be convicted of crimes that they never committed; the reforms for the court system must be reviewed several times to avoid misconduct within our law settings and to ensure that justice prevails regardless of social or economic status of offenders.
When defiant are convicted of crimes, the respective punishment must be accorded either to be put on probation or be incriminated. If an individual violates the law, the court should hold the culprit accountable to avoid impunity and shunt down the crimes.
Reference List
Bedau, H. (2007). Killing As Penalty: Refractions on the Death Penalty in America. Chicago: Library of congress cataloging.
Gould, B. (2004). The Innocent Commission: Preventing Wrongful Convictions. Illinois: NYU press
Leo, A. (2005). Police Interrogation and American Justice. Chicago: library of congress cataloging
Welch, H. (2004). Criminal Litigations and Sentencing. New York: Cavendish publishers