{"title":"穿越现代联邦人身保护令对州首府囚犯索赔审查的泥沼","authors":"C. C. Kannenberg","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1371932","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In July of 2007, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales called for comments on his proposed rulemaking on the Certification Process of State Capital Counsel Systems. The response was an overwhelming condemnation not only of the Attorney General’s proposed rules, but also of the current state of modern federal habeas corpus review of state capital prisoners’ claims. Notwithstanding this criticism, the Attorney General largely ignored the feedback and, in December of 2008, issued final regulations that are virtually identical to the proposed regulations. Why did the Attorney General ignore this incredible opportunity to create a sense of clarity and progress in the system of federal habeas review of state prisoners’ claims? More importantly, what must be done to halt the downward spiral of this system? This Article addresses these questions by examining the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act’s “opt-in” provision, which Congress enacted in 1996 to effectuate the twin aims of achieving fairness and efficiency in federal habeas review of capital state prisoners’ claims. The heart and soul of the opt-in provision is a quid pro quo arrangement whereby the states receive the benefit of expedited review of federal habeas claims in exchange for states providing competent, compensated counsel in state capital post-conviction proceedings. In 2005, after only one state qualified for opt-in status, it became clear that the opt-in “experiment” was not working. Accordingly, Congress transferred certification authority from the federal courts to the Attorney General. The past three years have shown, however, that the Attorney General is not the answer Congress was looking for. This Article argues that, in order to meaningfully reform the system of federal habeas review of state prisoners’ claims, either the Attorney General must implement much of the substantive feedback in response to the proposed regulations or Congress must return certification to the appropriate neutral body: the federal courts.","PeriodicalId":223837,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Criminal Law (Public Law - Crime) (Topic)","volume":"147 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Wading Through the Morass of Modern Federal Habeas Review of State Capital Prisoners' Claims\",\"authors\":\"C. C. Kannenberg\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.1371932\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In July of 2007, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales called for comments on his proposed rulemaking on the Certification Process of State Capital Counsel Systems. The response was an overwhelming condemnation not only of the Attorney General’s proposed rules, but also of the current state of modern federal habeas corpus review of state capital prisoners’ claims. Notwithstanding this criticism, the Attorney General largely ignored the feedback and, in December of 2008, issued final regulations that are virtually identical to the proposed regulations. Why did the Attorney General ignore this incredible opportunity to create a sense of clarity and progress in the system of federal habeas review of state prisoners’ claims? More importantly, what must be done to halt the downward spiral of this system? This Article addresses these questions by examining the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act’s “opt-in” provision, which Congress enacted in 1996 to effectuate the twin aims of achieving fairness and efficiency in federal habeas review of capital state prisoners’ claims. The heart and soul of the opt-in provision is a quid pro quo arrangement whereby the states receive the benefit of expedited review of federal habeas claims in exchange for states providing competent, compensated counsel in state capital post-conviction proceedings. In 2005, after only one state qualified for opt-in status, it became clear that the opt-in “experiment” was not working. Accordingly, Congress transferred certification authority from the federal courts to the Attorney General. The past three years have shown, however, that the Attorney General is not the answer Congress was looking for. This Article argues that, in order to meaningfully reform the system of federal habeas review of state prisoners’ claims, either the Attorney General must implement much of the substantive feedback in response to the proposed regulations or Congress must return certification to the appropriate neutral body: the federal courts.\",\"PeriodicalId\":223837,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"LSN: Criminal Law (Public Law - Crime) (Topic)\",\"volume\":\"147 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2009-05-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"LSN: Criminal Law (Public Law - Crime) (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1371932\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LSN: Criminal Law (Public Law - Crime) (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1371932","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
2007年7月,司法部长阿尔贝托·冈萨雷斯(Alberto R. Gonzales)就他提出的关于国家资本法律顾问系统认证程序的规则制定征求意见。人们的反应是压倒性的谴责,不仅是对司法部长提出的规则的谴责,也是对现代联邦人身保护令审查各州死刑囚犯索赔的现状的谴责。尽管有这些批评,司法部长在很大程度上忽略了反馈意见,并于2008年12月发布了与拟议法规几乎相同的最终法规。为什么司法部长忽视了这个难得的机会来创造一种清晰的感觉,并在联邦人身保护制度中对州囚犯的要求进行审查?更重要的是,必须做些什么来阻止这个体系的恶性循环?本文通过审查《反恐怖主义和有效死刑法》的“选择加入”条款来解决这些问题,国会于1996年颁布了该条款,以实现在联邦人身保护令审查首都州囚犯索赔时实现公平和效率的双重目标。“选择加入”条款的核心是一种交换条件安排,即各州在联邦人身保护要求的快速审查中获益,以换取各州在定罪后的州首府诉讼中提供称职的有偿律师。2005年,在只有一个州有资格加入后,很明显,加入“实验”并不奏效。因此,国会将发证权从联邦法院移交给司法部长。然而,过去三年的情况表明,司法部长并不是国会想要的答案。本文认为,为了有意义地改革联邦对州囚犯申诉的人身保护审查制度,要么司法部长必须针对拟议的法规实施大部分实质性反馈,要么国会必须将认证交还给适当的中立机构:联邦法院。
Wading Through the Morass of Modern Federal Habeas Review of State Capital Prisoners' Claims
In July of 2007, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales called for comments on his proposed rulemaking on the Certification Process of State Capital Counsel Systems. The response was an overwhelming condemnation not only of the Attorney General’s proposed rules, but also of the current state of modern federal habeas corpus review of state capital prisoners’ claims. Notwithstanding this criticism, the Attorney General largely ignored the feedback and, in December of 2008, issued final regulations that are virtually identical to the proposed regulations. Why did the Attorney General ignore this incredible opportunity to create a sense of clarity and progress in the system of federal habeas review of state prisoners’ claims? More importantly, what must be done to halt the downward spiral of this system? This Article addresses these questions by examining the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act’s “opt-in” provision, which Congress enacted in 1996 to effectuate the twin aims of achieving fairness and efficiency in federal habeas review of capital state prisoners’ claims. The heart and soul of the opt-in provision is a quid pro quo arrangement whereby the states receive the benefit of expedited review of federal habeas claims in exchange for states providing competent, compensated counsel in state capital post-conviction proceedings. In 2005, after only one state qualified for opt-in status, it became clear that the opt-in “experiment” was not working. Accordingly, Congress transferred certification authority from the federal courts to the Attorney General. The past three years have shown, however, that the Attorney General is not the answer Congress was looking for. This Article argues that, in order to meaningfully reform the system of federal habeas review of state prisoners’ claims, either the Attorney General must implement much of the substantive feedback in response to the proposed regulations or Congress must return certification to the appropriate neutral body: the federal courts.