In nine pages this paper examines the fairness of the tool known as habeas corpus but the unfairness it also represents in terms of abuses in a consideration of the cases Iowa v. Williams and Williams v. Brewer. Seven sources are listed in the bibliography.
Name of Research Paper File: TS14_TEhabeas.rtf
Unformatted Sample Text from the Research Paper:
many the idea that underlies the operation of the courts is that of mechanical justice, which means there is a simple equation that states when the law is applied to
the facts of a case the verdict will be as a result of the indigents, and as a result the verdict should be correct (McInnis, 2001). However, when we consider
this statement, it is apparent from any common knowledge of the law that this is not always the result. There are many appeals that succeed, and many convictions are found
to be unsafe, as a result mechanical justice must be seen as questionable, the reason for this being the role of discretion in the way any trial is conducted as
well as the presentation of evidence, which cannot fail to be subjective, and subjective evidence may give an inaccurate perception of the truth (McInnis, 2001). The role of the
trial system is to bring together these different subjective views of the truth in order to gain a perspective that is as objective as possible, and find the correct result.
However, for those who feel that they have suffered rough justice, or for those who wish to delay justice, the appeals procedure may be utilised (McInnis, 2001). Part of these
process can be seen as that concept of Habeas Corpus. This was a concept that was used in the case of Iowa v Williams, and is the subject of a
book by Thomas Neil McInnis, called " The Christian Burial Case". This book traces a case that lasted for fifteen years, although upon reading the evidence one may have expected
this to be a straight forward case (McInnis, 2001). To understand this case we first need to understand the concept of Habeas Corpus, and only then may