Criminology

I believe that the federal courthouse ought to be opened up for other prisoners as well. The issue of punishment for prisoners in the country through the different penal codes stipulated in the law has never ceased to elicit mixed reactions  some quite bitter  from different people across the countrys states. And the very fact that each of these states has its own jurisdiction and so the power to punish law offenders in its own way different from the federal government adds to the controversy regarding the justification of this separation and isolation of prisoners. Of even more concern is the justification behind sentencing criminals to execution particularly putting into consideration the kind, nature, and extent of the evidence upon which such sentences are based (Bergman, 2008). It follows, therefore, that there has to be a clear demarcation between the need for a final court ruling and the interest of justice. This essay critically explores the correlation between these intricate issues with a view to establishing where this demarcation, if any, ought to be, and how it will impact the administration of justice both at the state and federal levels.

The Federal Courthouse
The fact that the federal courthouse has continued to be closed to offenders of different crimes is responsible for both increases in the number of habeas petitions as well as the undue and unjustified delay of determining cases on many law offenders (Cole, 2006). This issue has been made even more complicated considering the fact that the government has introduced the antiterrorism law in the constitution which in a way gives law enforcement officers the right to continually detain or hold under custody suspected terrorists without undergoing trial in a court of law for a rather longer period of time. Before the passing and adoption of this controversial law, there were enough cases pending before state courts all waiting for a proper time to be heard. Yet the federal courthouse could not as much as admit any such detainees to speed up the process.

It is illegal and against the law to continually hold a suspect in custody for too long without subjecting himher to any form of trial because as long as ones guilt has not been established or ascertained by a court of law, then every suspect ought to be treated as innocent (Cole, 2006). As such, it is wrong to hold an innocent citizen. Although it has been argued by the law enforcement agents that the reason behind the holding of people in custody for a longer period of time is to give way for investigations to proceed, or to ensure that law offenders whose cases relate to serious matters of national security are prevented from either fleeing or causing further harm to people or threat to security, this reason has never been good enough as in certain instances even such prisoners have been denied trial at the federal courthouse (Cole, 2006). Instead, what have come to be the norm are the continued and protracted legal battles in the form of habeas petitions  with different people challenging the legality of the continued holding of suspects without trial.

Short-Circuited Justice the Need for a Federal Review
The fact that there is a federal review of the cases that have been heard in other state courts and either determined or awaiting a ruling is proof enough that there is a tendency for justice to be denied where it is due. The insistence of only one review is never close to the need that some of these prisoners, especially those on death row, want to have. These people have suffered long enough in the hands of the law enforcement agencies and yet they know so well that they are not guilty even if rulings were made to that effect. They are so desperate for a review of their cases if that can be possible, but even more desirable is the possibility to do away with this short-circuiting by allowing the federal courthouse to hear and determine the cases (Cole, 2006).

This will not only reduce the huge burden on the federal courts regarding the innumerable habeas petitions but will also ensure that only those suspects deserving a given punishment indeed get it. When it comes to the prisoner on death row, their psychological and physical suffering is great as they await the implementation of their sentence as per the ruling of a state court (Cole, 2006). This suffering would be alleviated if their cases would be heard by the federal court. Their suffering aside, the issue of allowing for the review of only certain special cases or those requiring a particularly special attention is contrary to the rule of law in this country as is entrenched in the constitution. This is especially so because there is nothing as a special case in any law of this country. Therefore, unless the specialty of certain cases over others is clearly explained, it is not right to have continued hearing of cases on that basis. In fact, all cases are supposed to be treated with the same degree of urgency and priority unless stated otherwise.

Then there has to be a clear order to be followed when the federal courthouse has to review some of these cases. It ought not to be just a matter of the court exercising its mandate in discharging justice but there has to be an understanding of the underlying issues in a case before it is referred to the court. This is because everyone will consider hisher case as very important and will feel discriminated if it is not granted a hearing or a review at the federal courthouse.

Conclusion
There has been the nagging issue of habeas petitions which, no matter how many times they are presented before a court of law challenging the supposed continued unlawful withholding a given suspect, the outcome is almost always certain  no success. If the chances of success of these petitions are as negligible as they are, and yet the chances that a suspect will not get the right and deserved justice are also very minimal, wont it be only wise that entire legal procedures around such issues of petition and miscarriage of justice be overhauled and better ones  that is from the point of view of the prisoners suspects themselves  instituted to take their place For the law is only the law if it is capable of arbitrating between any two contending sides in a manner that is just. Where is the justice in the state courts when there are so many appeals Or how can there be justice at the federal courthouse when there is justice to those who file habeas appeals To this end, I believe that the course of justice ought to be given preminence over other legal formalities like the need for a final ruling. The federal courthouse ought to be opened up for all cases.