The presence of post-conviction trial aims to divest inefficiencies resulting to injustice that might have been present in the first final judgment. For some, this is a welcome support to the current justice system as it ensures that justice is not short-circuited.
The main conflict arises in the possibility that this design will be abused by others, thus also staining the justice system. The inability to execute judgment to someone who is guilty is also clearly seen by the law as one form of injustice.
Habeas corpus petition are filed by convicted prisoners as a challenge to the validity of their conviction; citing particular reason that police, prosecutor, defense counsel or even the trial court have deprived the convicts of their Federal Constitutional Rights such as "the right to refuse to answer questions when placed in police custody, the right to a speedy and fair trial, and the right to effective assistance of counsel" (Roger A. Hanson,Henry W.K. Daley, September 1995).
An article in the Duke Journal sees one unintended result happening with the presence of habeas corpus. "Modern habeas law is predicated on the assumption that a state prisoner seeking habeas relief is attacking the legality of his confinement by alleging a constitutional error in the decision that led to his incarceration. Federal habeas, in other words, provides collateral review of earlier rulings by state courts. But almost 20 percent of federal habeas petitions filed by state prisoners do not challenge state court judgments. They attack instead the constitutionality of administrative actions by state prison officials or parole boards, taken long after the petitioner's conviction and sentencing" (Nancy J. King, 2009). ...