“I do, however, remain firmly convinced that no State should be allowed to foreshorten this Court’s orderly review of . . . first-time habeas petition[s] by executing prisoners before that review can be completed.” Emmett v. Kelly, 552 U. S. 942, 943 (2007) (STEVENS, J., joined by GINSBURG, J., respecting denial of certiorari).
Any champion of the constitution would want to insure that the Government's use of authority did not abuse or wrongfully restrict a person's liberty. No right minded American would want to execute or imprison an innocent person. As such, there are numerous appeals and a fairly lengthy review in most state courts of Capital (Death Penalty) convictions. At the very least, there is a process in federal court for further appeals after a Capital conviction (whether the sentence be from Federal or State Court). In theory, the system is designed to foster confidence in the process of the State exacting the ultimate punishment - death. However, a disturbing trend is present amongst States schooled in implementing the death penalty. States are scheduling executions on dates to limit a condemned prisoner's opportunity to challenge his conviction. Recently, the State of Virginia, knowing the the Supreme Court would conduct a review of a petitioners application for a stay of execution on a certain day, scheduled an execution at least two weeks prior to the date for the review.
The effect of this type of move forces the condemned person to file his application for a stay earlier, affording less time for research and for composing an effective argument. It also forces the Supreme Court to decide stay applications faster. And given the current conservative make-up of the United States Supreme Court, it generally means that Stays are denied faster and without a full review of the case. Such a circumstance increases the likelihood that an innocent person will be executed. The perversity of such a situation has been previously recognized by Justices Stevens and Ginsburg. Now, the list of enlightened Judges is lengthening. Justices Stevens and Ginsberg recently spoke out about the need for automatic stays of execution to avoid a State's attempt to circumvent the Supreme Court's orderly review of the conviction. This time they were joined by Justice Sotomayor (See their note here). If the Court does nothing to correct this obvious manipulation of its scheduling system, Congress should correct it through legislation mandating that Stays of execution be automatic in certain situations. If not, an innocent life might be sacrificed on a disorderly altar of expedience.
1 comments: