Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on Should Federal Courts Review State Death Penalty Cases?
. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
This 3 page paper discusses the current situation in which federal courts review death penalty appeals only once, and argues that this is insufficient and fuller review procedures should be reinstated. Bibliography lists 1 source.
Page Count:
3 pages (~225 words per page)
File: D0_HVRevDth.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
the courts for an extended period of time, and because such motions are often "frivolous" and add little or no substantive matter to the case. This paper considers whether or
not federal courts should continue this policy, or review death penalty cases more than once and argues that when human lives are at stake, extreme measures are justified, and that
multiple reviews should once again be permitted. Discussion The objection to having federal courts review state courts decisions is that it wastes the higher courts time and causes extra expense.
When we start putting people to death to save money, we are in a very questionable place indeed and we need to rethink this position. If we could be certain
that the state courts were always making correct decisions, we could avoid federal reviews, but at least one source tells us that state decisions are not always sound, nor do
those convicted always get competent representation. On April 18, 2000, the US Supreme Court upheld the 1996 Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), "which restricts the ability of death
row prisoners to gain federal review of their cases" (Randall, 2000). AEDPA "bars federal courts from overturning state convictions or sentences unless the state proceeding resulted in a decision that
was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly establish [sic] federal law as determined by the Supreme Court" (Randall, 2000). The intent of AEDPA is to shorten the
time between sentencing and execution, and to restrict the federal courts ability to "grant petitions of habeas corpus, which contend that convictions have violated federally protected rights" (Randall, 2000). The
Act mandated that federal courts cannot overturn state court decisions, even if they consider those decisions incorrect, "as long as the decision was not unreasonable" (Randall, 2000). This leaves a
...