Criminal justice has two important goals: separating the innocent from the guilty and assuring timely punishment for the latter. Trouble is, those two purposes often conflict. Court appeals allow the wrongly convicted to win exoneration. But the right of appeal often allows the guilty to postpone justice for years or even decades.
That conflict is at the heart of the debate on a bill in Congress that would limit appeals from state courts to federal courts. Though the supporters have a valid concern, their remedy looks like the wrong one.
In recent years, advances in the use of DNA analysis have served to clear many innocent people who spent years on Death Row. According to the Death Penalty Information Center, the number of exonerations stands at 122.
These cases indicate that our criminal justice system needs serious safeguards to prevent mistaken convictions. The chief protection is known as habeas corpus, which allows defendants to challenge the constitutionality of their convictions. But that right can be abused. The Supreme Court, recognizing that, has made it harder to use, and in 1996, Congress imposed restrictions aimed at halting endless litigation.
Those steps have not satisfied many people, including those at the National District Attorneys Association, which says things are as bad as ever. Now, Congress is considering a bill called the Streamlined Procedures Act that would further narrow this avenue.
When an innocent person is wrongfully convicted, it’s in the interest of everyone but the actual perpetrator to see the mistake corrected. The federal courts long have assumed that responsibility. Under this bill, defendants would find it tougher to get access to those courts.
Supporters of the bill are weary at the protracted delays in administering the death penalty. Their frustration is understandable, based on the convicted murderers they cite who have put off their executions for 15 years or more. But it’s not at all clear that frivolous habeas appeals are still creating significant delays.
There have not been conclusive studies on the effect of the 1996 law, and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts says existing data don’t make the case for further limiting habeas appeals. The average amount of time it takes for a death sentence to be imposed has remained stable since 1996, rather than dropping–but that may be the result of judges being more careful in the wake of so many exonerations, not to shortcomings in the law.
You would expect federal judges to bridle at efforts to limit their power to review the decisions of state courts. You might not expect those in charge of the state courts to agree. Yet the Conference of Chief Justices and the Conference of State Court Administrators oppose the bill, fearing it would make it too hard for “those claiming to be wrongfully convicted to obtain reasonable and timely review of their convictions.”
Given that risk, Congress would be well-advised not to make further changes in habeas until there is better information on the effects of the last change. When it comes to criminal justice, it’s good to be fast, but it’s better to be right.
