When Was Habeas Corpus Created
Habeas Corpus is the right to go to court before an individual is imprisoned. This word is Latin for, “You may have the body”. It is what gives us a judicial process whenever we are declared prisoners. This protects citizens from being accused from the government and just taking the punishment given to them. They are able to go to court and the court will decide if the individual is guilty or not. So no one can be placed in a prison and the government can’t explain why. With Habeas Corpus the prison would have to let that individual go. This idea that America uses today was adapted from England. In the late 1600’s the English passed the Habeas Corpus Act. This law was made so that anyone who is arrested on criminal charges only are able to
…show more content…
They did agree with the idea to protect the people of America it was a necessity to make sure Habeas Corpus was used to protect the people from the government. So in Article 9 of the constitution it states they decided that America will have it implied like the British Parliament but they changed it a little. They stated in the constitution that the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it. This made it different from the Kings Court of England in the way that it wasn’t something the government had complete control of because the point of the law is to protect the people from the government. If the government had control over it then it takes out the justice within the …show more content…
Ex parte Milligan went to the Supreme Court in 1866 which is a little after the Civil War. In this case a man named Lamdin P.Miligan was accused of joining a group that had the plan to overthrow the government. Instead of being tried in a court room he was tried by a “military tribunal” which convicted him of all the charges and he was sentence to become executed. Before his execution he wanted to be tried in an actual courtroom and felt that it was unconstitutional to do it anyway else. The Supreme Court ruled that the military tribunal lacked jurisdiction over Milligan and that he should have been tried in a federal civilian court (McBride 2006). This case led to the Supreme Court removing the suspension of Habeas Corpus in
They did agree with the idea to protect the people of America it was a necessity to make sure Habeas Corpus was used to protect the people from the government. So in Article 9 of the constitution it states they decided that America will have it implied like the British Parliament but they changed it a little. They stated in the constitution that the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it. This made it different from the Kings Court of England in the way that it wasn’t something the government had complete control of because the point of the law is to protect the people from the government. If the government had control over it then it takes out the justice within the …show more content…
Ex parte Milligan went to the Supreme Court in 1866 which is a little after the Civil War. In this case a man named Lamdin P.Miligan was accused of joining a group that had the plan to overthrow the government. Instead of being tried in a court room he was tried by a “military tribunal” which convicted him of all the charges and he was sentence to become executed. Before his execution he wanted to be tried in an actual courtroom and felt that it was unconstitutional to do it anyway else. The Supreme Court ruled that the military tribunal lacked jurisdiction over Milligan and that he should have been tried in a federal civilian court (McBride 2006). This case led to the Supreme Court removing the suspension of Habeas Corpus in