English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

1 answers

America was originally founded on a number of principles, but one of the ones that is dearly clung to is the idea of a nation that is opposed to tyranny. A tyrant possesses absolute power and leaves the people helpless to suffer or gain on his whims. Against a tyrant's wishes, there could be no appeal.

Writs of habeas corpus are integral to the idea of a non-tyrannical government. The purpose of such a writ, especially if it can be initiated by the accused, is to determine if a sentence is in accordance with the law and the will of the people. Where such writs do not occur, there is no safeguard to prevent people from being jailed for crimes they did not commit, or being held unjustly long after their sentence should have ended.

The U.S. constitution specifically says, "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." This outlines that the ONLY legal time when a person may be held without question is when public safety REQUIRES it.

Which actually begs another question - since the purpose of habeas corpus is to prevent holding an innocent person, what situation would require holding innocent people for the safety of the public? The answer to that question is written in those few incidents where it HAS been suspended by lawmakers. And where those lawmakers are wrong, it is the duty of the public to call them on it!

2007-01-16 11:13:00 · answer #1 · answered by Doctor Why 7 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers