Document Type

Article

Publication Date

1974

Abstract

Debate continues over expanded use of habeus corpus for collateral attack of criminal judgments. Some commentators argue that the current system of seemingly endless post-conviction review fails to provide the finality and integrity required of any truly fair and effective system of criminal justice. Others claim that such an expansive post-conviction remedy system is justified when a man's liberty is at stake. It is a central thesis of this article that not only does the present system of post-conviction remedies fall short of achieving adequate fairness and comprehensiveness, but also that the attempt to achieve these values has produced a fragmented, ineffective system of review tangled in unjustified technical rules and unnecessary procedures. It will be argued that this unnecessary confusion has been caused by an indefensible reliance upon the historical distinction between direct and collateral attack. As long as both groups continue to adamantly strive only for the ultimate victory of their own point of view, it is unlikely that a truly adequate and equitable review system will ever be achieved. It may be possible, however, to defuse the current debate while at the same time promoting the primary values advocated by both sides. The system of review proposed here offers an acceptable compromise between the apparently irreconcilable positions.

Keywords

direct attack, collateral attack

Publication Title

Boston University Law Review

Publication Citation

54 B. U. L. Rev. 485 (1974)

Download

Link to SSRN

Share

COinS