Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (also known as AEDPA) is a series of laws in the United States signed into law on April 24, 1996 to " deter terrorism, provide justice for victims,provide for an effective death penalty, and for other purposes." it was passed by a Republican controlled 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 Democratic President Bill Clinton.
The AEDPA had a tremendous impact on the law of habeas corpus in the federal courts. One provision of the AEDPA limits the power of federal judges to grant relief unless the state courts adjudication of the claim resulted in a decision that was
1. contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States. 2. resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in the light of the evidence presented in the state court proceeding.
While cities have charged that this limitation effectively forecloses the power of the federal courts to remedy unjust convictions, federal judges have found ways to grant relief to prisoners in habeas cases despite the limitation. After all, some interpretations of federal laws can be not merely incorrect but actually reasonable, thereby allowing federal courts to grant relief under the first prong of AEDPA's limitation.
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 appeals Furthermore, AEDPA took away from the Supreme Court the power to review a court of appeals denial of that permission, thus placing final authority for the filing of second petitions in the hands of the federal courts of appeals.
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 the state court. States that enacted the quality controls would see strict time limits 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 qualified away from the federal courts and gave it to the Attorney General.
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 Feller v. Turpin. 518 U.S. 651 (1997) that these limitations did not unconstitutionally Suspend the writ. In 2005 the Ninth Circuit sought to revisit this issue (i) but has since scuttled its attempt to do so. (2)
Laws must be put in place and systems must be changed to ensure we are not executing INNOCENT people. When there is DNA evidence and other physical evidence available, we must make it mandatory for testing. The law that President Clinton signed in 1996, the Anti Terrorism & Effective Death Penalty Act, (AEDPA) must be amended to allow a person the right to evidence and the right to prove their innocence without a time limit. As it is now, there is no statue of limitations on a conviction of murder, but there is a time limit on proving your innocence.
In Alabama, you are not even guaranteed the right to an attorney during post-conviction appeals.
This is happening all over the United States, death row inmates are being denied the right to present evidence that could prove their innocence. Creating the possibility that we might execute innocent people and that we may have executed innocent people. The AEDPA does not permit death row inmates to present evidence that came to light years after the crime they were convicted of was committed. The strict time limits enforced by the AEDPA allows us to execute death row inmates even when there is physical evidence available for DNA testing and witness testimony has changed or new witnesses and evidence have been discovered years after the crime was committed. DNA testing may not have been in existence at the time of their crimes. The AEDPA Act is seriously flawed and allows for the execution of innocent people.
Every United States Citizen has a constitutional right to a Habeas Corpus Review. All inmates should be allowed DNA testing. All inmates should be allowed to have an attorney at all times, and all inmates should have the right to prove their innocence without a time limit. Obviously, the majority of the United States is in favor of the death penalty, since we keep electing politicians that are in favor of capital punishment. If we are going to have the death penalty, laws and procedures must be put in place to ensure we are not killing innocent people". Mandatory DNA legislation must be passed in all States. All States must be made to provide an inmate a experienced attorney at all times. There should be no time limit on proving innocence. There should be no question of guilt or innocence when we execute a person. This is something both sides of this issue agree on...