For decades, scholars and judges have assumed that federal habeas corpus review of state court criminal convictions should focus on the individual rights of habeas petitioners and that the federal courts should ask whether a state prisoner is being unlawfully detained because the state violated his individual federal rights. This individualized approach to federal habeas review is expensive, time-consuming, and woefully ineffective in stopping states from violating defendants’ federal rights. Indeed, many states systematically violate criminal defendants’ federal rights with impunity. This Article proposes a new conception of federal habeas review under which the federal courts focus on states, not on individual petitioners. Federal habeas relief should be available when, but only when, a state routinely violates its criminal defendants’ federal rights as part of a systemic practice. Reconfiguring federal habeas corpus review to focus on states and systemic practices would reduce redundancy, increase efficiency, and be more respectful of state institutions while, at the same time, recovering one of the original and now lost purposes of federal habeas corpus review.
A Structural Vision of Habeas Corpus
|
VIEW PDF
Circuit: Archived Content
RECENT POSTS
Race, Descent, and Tribal Citizenship
- Bethany R. BergerAmerican Indian Legal Scholarship and the Courts: Heeding Frickey’s Call
- Matthew L.M. FletcherHarlan on My Mind: Chief Justice Roberts and the Affordable Care Act
- Timothy P. O’NeillBY DATE
- April 2013 (2)
- March 2013 (1)
- December 2012 (1)
- October 2012 (1)
- September 2012 (1)
- July 2012 (1)
- May 2012 (1)
- April 2012 (2)
BY CATEGORY
- 2011 Jorde Symposium (5)
- 2012 AALS Section on Law and Humanities Program (9)
- banquet (1)
- birth control (1)
- california supreme court (1)
- chesney (1)
- cole (1)
- constitutional democracy (1)
- consumer protection (1)
- Crime (1)
- Deportation (1)
- detention (1)
- dodd-frank (1)
- domestic violence (1)
- elkins (1)
- family (1)
- fourth amendment (1)
- Germany (1)
- Independence (1)
- information behavior (1)
- intersex (1)
- John Yoo (1)
- judicial restraint (6)
- law schools (1)
- partisanship (1)
- party politics (1)
- popular democracy (1)
- Privacy (2)
- Professionalism (1)
- Prosser (1)
- Prosser Symposium (1)
- Punishment (1)
- sterilization (1)
- Tort (1)
- Torture (1)
- war powers (1)
- Yoo (1)
- zelon (1)
NEWS & EVENTS
April 16, 2013
Race, Descent, and Tribal CitizenshipSYMPOSIA
META
The California Law Review is the preeminent legal publication at the UC Berkeley School of Law.
Founded in 1912, CLR publishes six times per year on a variety of engaging topics in legal scholarship.
The law review is edited and published entirely by students at Berkeley Law.
Founded in 1912, CLR publishes six times per year on a variety of engaging topics in legal scholarship.
The law review is edited and published entirely by students at Berkeley Law.