The Supreme Court of the United States has been, and will always be the most important national institution which has the power to influence the execution rate and the death penalty policy in the states. In the case of Herrera v. Collins in 1993, Leonel Torres Herrera (defendant) was sentenced to death by Texas state courts for capital murder two police officers. Ten years laters, after Herrera pleads guilty to the capital murder of two officers, Herrera filed a habeas corpus petition under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Forbidding his execution with new evidence and witness shows that his dead brother, Raul Herrera is the person who is responsible for the murders. However Herrera’s state and federal habeas applications failed, and the
…show more content…
The purpose of the law is to enforce justice, but we often ask in court to what degree is the punishment just? The aim of coercion is to retribution for the offense, percent future offenses, re-teach and change offenses or repay victims. etc.?
However, It seems that we are in fear of judgment. The judges are like referees, they are in a position that is absolutely correct, or absolute “rational" position, according to what they said. It is unreasonable for me to believe that someone who thinks they have the rationality and right to judge others. The authority and superiority that come with making judgment have already unable to let them understand the feelings of people who do not have the same power. Law enforcement and coercion have just become the result of Implement and adhere to the rules. I think Leonel Torres Herrera’ case is one the case shows the judge's fellowship to the law. Chief Justice Rehnquist concluded that evidence of Herrera’s actual innocence was not relevant to his petition for a writ of habeas corpus absent some constitutional violation by the state of Texas.As this showed that, to some judges, the law is not necessary related to justice beyond the rules. Regardless the evidence is 10 years later. The law is unable to prevent or even delay the execution of a potentially innocent person. As a judge, it seems that their job is not to perform justice, but judge based on
The purpose of the law is to enforce justice, but we often ask in court to what degree is the punishment just? The aim of coercion is to retribution for the offense, percent future offenses, re-teach and change offenses or repay victims. etc.?
However, It seems that we are in fear of judgment. The judges are like referees, they are in a position that is absolutely correct, or absolute “rational" position, according to what they said. It is unreasonable for me to believe that someone who thinks they have the rationality and right to judge others. The authority and superiority that come with making judgment have already unable to let them understand the feelings of people who do not have the same power. Law enforcement and coercion have just become the result of Implement and adhere to the rules. I think Leonel Torres Herrera’ case is one the case shows the judge's fellowship to the law. Chief Justice Rehnquist concluded that evidence of Herrera’s actual innocence was not relevant to his petition for a writ of habeas corpus absent some constitutional violation by the state of Texas.As this showed that, to some judges, the law is not necessary related to justice beyond the rules. Regardless the evidence is 10 years later. The law is unable to prevent or even delay the execution of a potentially innocent person. As a judge, it seems that their job is not to perform justice, but judge based on