Civil Liberties and Habeas Corpus

Habeas Corpus has been around for quite some time now. Not a lot of people around where I am from could tell you what it was exactly mainly because around here, it's not a big issue. Habeas Corpus has been spoken of to be neither good nor bad. "Habeas Corpus is a writ requiring a person under arrest to be brought before a judge or into court, esp. to secure the person's release unless lawful grounds are shown for their detention" (Wikipedia, 2013). Every person has the legal right to apply for Habeas Corpus.

What this means is that the judicial orders that the prisoner to be brought before the judge and court and find whether or not the government has that legal right to continue to hold that prisoner. The prisoner or lawyer in which is representing him can request this writ.

People have called the English history of Habeas Corpus "ancient". It dates back to Magna Carta in 1215. But we are still unsure of its correct origin. "Habeas Corpus originally was the prerogative writ of the King and his courts, the passage of hundreds of years time has permitted it to evolve into a prerogative writ initiated by the person restrained, or someone acting in his interest rather than by the King or his courts" (Joseph Dale Robertson). Magna Carta often makes a reference towards Habeas Corpus; in which is, "the law of the land". As Joseph Dale Robertson states, the exact quote from Magna Carta is, "...no free man shall be taken or imprisoned or diseased or exiled or in any way destroyed except by the lawful judgment of their peers or by the law of the land." The right and practice of Habeas Corpus was finally practiced and finally created into a law at the time of Magna Carta. Which then came, "law of the land" and was acknowledged as Magna Carta.

I personally do not fully agree with the writ of Habeas Corpus. Earlier on in this class we had a discussion on the writ of Habeas Corpus and our opinion on the matter. I had stated that I do not fully agree with it and my reasoning behind it. Habeas Corpus could be good for some matters but bad for the same matters. How are we to know if the person being convicted is guilty, or innocent? Why can't we just let bygones be bygones and let the situation work its way out like any other case would? Once again, "Habeas Corpus is a writ requiring a person under arrest to be brought before a judge or into court, esp. to secure the person's release unless lawful grounds are shown for their detention" (Wikipedia, 2013). To "secure the person's release" Regardless if lawful grounds are shown for their detention that person's release is secure because they had that right to call on the writ of Habeas Corpus.

This isn't just for some people, this is for all people. Some awful man could have murdered another human being and yet, there is no evidence proving this man neither innocent