English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

On May 25, 1979, when John Spenkelink became the first person in recent times in the United States to be executed against his will, he still maintained a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a claim on which no court ever ruled.1 Three years later, when Charles Brooks became the next person to be involuntarily executed, he too had claims that were never fully reviewed by any court.2 Since then, many of the over forty people executed have had claims that were either ignored or summarily rejected by the federal courts.3 The constitutional claims not reached by the courts in these cases were raised in successive, or second, petitions for habeas corpus. The summary disposal of potentially valid constitutional claims raises questions about the integrity of the system used to impose the death penalty. While capital punishment can be attacked on a variety of moral, philosophical, and legal grounds, it is clear that in the current political and judicial climate the death penalty will withstand these attacks.4 Nevertheless, both opponents and proponents of capital punishment should object to executing men and women before their constitutional claims are adjudicated.5 The federal

The Rush to Execution: Successive Habeas Corpus Petitions in Capital Cases