Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996
 |
| Long title |
An Act to deter terrorism, provide justice for victims, provide for an effective death penalty, and for other purposes. |
| Acronyms (colloquial) |
AEDPA |
| Citations |
| Public law |
Pub.L. 104–132 |
| Statutes at Large |
110 Stat. 1214 |
| Legislative history |
- Introduced in the Senate as S. 735 "Comprehensive Terrorism Prevention Act of 1995" by Bob Dole (R-KS) on April 27, 1995
- Passed the Senate on June 7, 1995 (91–8)
- Passed the House on March 14, 1996 (without objection)
- Reported by the joint conference committee on April 15, 1996; agreed to by the Senate on April 17, 1996 (91-8) and by the House on April 18, 1996 (293–133)
- Signed into law by President Bill Clinton on April 24, 1996
|
| United States Supreme Court cases |
Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651 (1997)
Rice v. Collins, 546 U.S. 333 (2006)
Jimenez v. Quarterman, 555 U.S. 113 (2009) |
The
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214, (also known as
AEDPA) is an act of the
United States Congress signed into law on April 24, 1996. The bill was introduced by former
Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole, passed with broad bipartisan support by Congress (91-8 in the
United States Senate, 293-133 in the
House of Representatives) following the 1990s
World Trade Center and
Oklahoma City bombings, and signed into law by President
Bill Clinton.
[1][2]
Although controversial for its changes to the law of
habeas corpus in the United States (Title I), upheld in
Felker v. Turpin,
518 U.S. 651
(1997), the AEDPA also contained a number of provisions to "deter
terrorism, provide justice for victims, provide for an effective death
penalty, and for other purposes" in the words of the bill summary.
Provisions include
- providing restitution/assistance for victims of terrorism (Title II),
- designation of foreign terrorist organizations and prohibitions on funding (Title III),
- removal or exclusion of alien terrorists and modifications of asylum procedures (Title IV),
- restrictions on nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons (Title V),
- implementation of the plastic explosives convention (Title VI),
- changes to criminal law involving terrorist (or explosives)
offenses, including increased penalties and criminal procedures changes
(Title VII),
- commissioning a study to determine the constitutionality of restrictions on bomb-making materials (Title VII - A - Sec. 709),
- funding changes and jurisdiction clarifications for law enforcement related to terrorism threats (Title VIII),
- and miscellaneous provisions in Title IX.
Habeas corpus
The AEDPA had a tremendous impact on the law of
habeas corpus in the United States. One provision of the AEDPA limits the power of federal judges to grant relief
[3] unless the state court's adjudication of the claim resulted in a decision that was
- contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or
- based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceeding.
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. States that enacted these
quality controls would see strict time limitations 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. Only Arizona has qualified for these
additional provisions, but it has not been able to take advantage of
them because it has not followed its own procedures.
Other provisions of the AEDPA created entirely new statutory law. For
example, the judicially created abuse-of-the-writ doctrine had
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. Additionally,
petitioners who had already filed a federal habeas petition were
required to first secure authorization from the appropriate federal
court of appeals. Furthermore, the AEDPA took away from the Supreme
Court the power to review a court of appeals's denial of that
permission, thus placing final authority for the filing of second
petitions in the hands of the federal courts of appeals.
History
The bill was introduced by
Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole, passed with broad bipartisan support by Congress (91-8 in the
United States Senate, 293-133 in the
House of Representatives) following the
1993 World Trade Center bombing and the 1995
Oklahoma City bombing, and signed into law by President
Bill Clinton on April 24, 1996.
[1][2]
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
Felker v. Turpin,
518 U.S. 651 (1997), that these limitations did not unconstitutionally suspend the writ.
In 2005, the
United States Ninth Circuit indicated that it was willing to consider a challenge to the constitutionality of AEDPA on separation of powers grounds under
City of Boerne v. Flores and
Marbury v. Madison,
[4] but has since decided that the issue had been settled by circuit precedent.
[5]
Basketball player and later coach
Steve Kerr
and his siblings and mother sued the Iranian government under the
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, for the 1984
killing of Steve Kerr's father,
Malcolm H. Kerr, in Beirut, Lebanon.
[6]
Reception
While
the act has several titles and provisions, the majority of criticism
stems from the act's tightening of habeas corpus laws. Those in favor of
the bill say that the act prevents those convicted of crimes from
"thwart[ing] justice and avoid[ing] just punishment by filing frivolous
appeals for years on end,"
[7] while critics argue that the inability to make multiple appeals increases the risk of an innocent person being killed.
[3][8]
Other, more recent criticism centers on the deference that the law
requires of federal judges in considering habeas petitions. In Sessoms
v. Grounds (Ninth Circuit), a majority of the judges believed that the
state erred in not throwing out testimony made in the absence of the
defendant's attorney after he had requested counsel, but were forced to
overturn his appeal. The dissenting opinion said that federal courts can
only grant habeas relief where "there is no possibility fairminded
jurists could disagree that the state court's decision conflicts with
[the Supreme] Court's precedents."
[9]
See also
References
Lundin, Leigh (2009-06-28). "Dark Justice". Criminal Brief.
Holland, Joshua (2009-04-01). "A Tale of Two Justice Systems". AlterNet. Prison Legal News. Retrieved 2009-06-29.
Lundin, Leigh (2011-10-02). "The Crime of Capital Punishment". Death Penalty. Orlando: SleuthSayers.
Denniston, Lyle (2005-05-05). "Is AEDPA unconstitutional?". SCOTUSblog. Archived from the original on 20 March 2011. Retrieved 2011-04-18.
"Irons v. Carey". 2007-03-06. Retrieved 2011-04-18.
"NBA Finals' Rookie Coaches: Golden State Warriors' Steve Kerr and Cleveland Cavaliers' David Blatt". ABC News.
"Congressional Record for April 17, 1996, page S3476" (PDF). 1996-04-17. Retrieved 2011-04-25.
Rankin, Bill; Judd, Alan (2003-09-21). "Witnesses Recant; Law Stymies Death Row Appeal". The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty. Retrieved 2011-04-25.
- Peacock, William (2014-09-24). "5 Judges Issue 3 Dissents From Habeas Grant to Interrogated Teen". FindLaw.
External links
