Back in 1960 a defendant pleaded guilty to the murders 0 a F orida circuit judge and his wife. His death sentence subsequently was comrnuted to life imprisonment. Nine years later the convicted slayer went to the Florida state courts with a petition to vacate the judgment, claiming technical violations in the proceedings. Two years elapsed be ore his motions were denied. In 1978 he tried again; his getition was denied after a earing on his new contentions. Next, the prisoner filed a petition ear y in 1981 for a writ of habeas corpus in U.S. District Court. reciting complaints and allege errors claimed before 8lus a few extra ones. nly recently a federal magistrate transferred the pleadings to another judge to determine if a hearing should be held on the merits. Thus the case is still going the rounds, so to speak, 27 years after the murders. Meanwhile, some key witnesses have died. it would be virtually impossible now to retry the accused. Sen. Sam Nunn, D-Ga. recounted this case recently to illustrate the abusive and repetitive use of habeas corpus petitions as he urged passage of legislation to reform criminal laws. Two sweeping bills are on the Senate calendar one sgonsored by Nunn and Sen. awton Chiles, D-Fla. with particular emphasis on correcting habeas corgus abuses; the other by en. Strom Thurmond, RS.C. and 43 others. Thurmond’s bill would clarify the “insanity defense,” toughen sentences for attempts on thi life of a high governm nt official, mandate a new system of uniform sentencing procedures, and establish a new federal crime of robbery of a pharmacy. Both bills cover bail reform and drug offenses, among other features. An exclusive aspect of the Chiles-Nunn measure is the one dealing with abuse of the writ of habeas corpus. The provision is needed and should be made part of whatever legislation Congress adopts. Chiles, in a recent Senate statement, said the problem encountered with habeas corpus petitions essentially is three-fold: – A large number of prisoner petitions are frivolous, untimely or incomplete and deal repetitiously with legal technicalities. The issue of innocence need not be raised. – There is no time limit. Many habeas petitions are filed years, even decades after the original trial. Ofttimes valuable evidence has disappeared or witnesses no longer may remember details. – Federal courts sometimes go to unnecessary lengths in reviewing petitions to determine constitutionality, amounting to ”a relitigation of the same facts and issues already decided in the state courts.” The Florida Democrat said unwarranted petitioning and review are damagmgvin these ways: l irst, delays serve to dilute the notion of finality. “If we expect the decisions of our courts to carry any weight, then there must be an understanding that a case will come to a close.” Second, the flood of petitions of recent years is responsible, in part, for the tremendous backlog in state and federal courts. ” Third, the fact that I federal courts so easily U call into question the decision of state courts serves “to undermine the in- . tegrity of our state court ‘ system.” The Chiles-Nunn Bill seeks to tighten the law against abuses while maintaining constitutional protection. Both objectives are vital. Legitimate rights of accused (persons should. be protecte ; but we musti not compromise the effec-tiveness of the courts nor; overburden the legal: system through un-‘ warranted habeas corpusi actions.