Publication:

Symbolic Statues and Real Laws: The Pathologies of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act and the Prison Litigation Reform Act

Loading...
Thumbnail Image

Date

1997

Published Version

Published Version

Journal Title

Journal ISSN

Volume Title

Publisher

Duke University School of Law
The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you.

Research Projects

Organizational Units

Journal Issue

Citation

Mark Tushnet & Larry Yackle, Symbolic Statues and Real Laws: The Pathologies of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act and the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 47 Duke Law Journal 1 (1997).

Abstract

Criminals are not popular. No politician in recent memory has lost an election for being too tough on crime. In 1996, the Republican Congress and the Democratic President collaborated on two major statutes affecting the legal protections available to criminals. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) modifies the habeas corpus statute in a number of ways, affecting the disposition of federal post-conviction challenges to all criminal convictions, not just those resulting in death sentences. The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) addresses lawsuits filed by prisoners challenging the conditions of their confinement. The PLRA covers both suits dealing with the complaints of individual prisoners and suits dealing more broadly with conditions at entire institutions or in prison systems.

Description

Other Available Sources

Research Data

Keywords

Terms of Use

This article is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material (LAA), as set forth at Terms of Service

Endorsement

Review

Supplemented By

Related Stories