Mr. Chairman, I want to express my opposition to this amendment. I share the view of many that changes are needed in our system to reduce the passage of time between conviction of heinous murders and their execution. Endless hearings and delays--many spawned by attorneys unable to follow the complex procedure which applies in habeas corpus proceedings--have unfortunately cast into question the validity of one of our most cherished rights, and of the working of the judicial system itself. This amendment unfortunately does nothing to correct these problems. By moving to strike any attempt at reform, it leaves us without a short statute of limitations, without strict limits on successive petitions and without providing competent counsel in capital cases so that we can reduce the errors at the front end which only lead to hearings and new trials. We must move forward with our efforts to reduce delay, achieve finality and promote efficiency in the habeas corpus process. I urge the rejection of the amendment.
Editor's note · Context
Opposing an amendment related to habeas corpus reform during a committee discussion.
Share
More from Jack Brooks
in the final analysis, this amendment does not change the status quo. Leaving the status quo in place would allow a steady stream of postconviction habeas appeals to any number of courts. It also leaves intact perhaps the greatest problem…
I applaud the apparent goal of the gentleman from New Jersey to insure that Federal prisoners do attain a high school education. We all agree on that. But I want to review the facts. Since 1981, all Federal prisoners who do not have a high…
Mr. Chairman, while I appreciate the gentleman's effort to provide a comprehensive solution to the problems of private security guards whose qualifications may be suspect, I have a number of concerns which lead me to oppose the amendment…
She makes all the judgments at this point, if you combine the adjudication with the administration, and we do not want to do that.





