• Skip to content

Ohioans to Stop Executions

otse.org

  • Home
  • About Us
    • Mission & History
    • Board & Staff
    • Contact OTSE
  • Take Action
    • Join OTSE
    • Donate
    • Upcoming Events
    • Host an Event
    • Open Letter from Ohio’s Faith Leaders
    • Mental Illness Reforms
  • Resources
    • Issues
    • Task Force Recommendations
    • Educational Handouts & Articles
    • Clemency Campaigns
    • News
    • Press Releases
    • Publications
  • View OhioanstoStopExecutions’s profile on Facebook
  • View OHStopExecution’s profile on Twitter
  • View OTSE1000’s profile on YouTube
  • View +OtseOrg’s profile on Google+
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Mission & History
    • Board & Staff
    • Contact OTSE
  • Take Action
    • Join OTSE
    • Donate
    • Upcoming Events
    • Host an Event
    • Open Letter from Ohio’s Faith Leaders
    • Mental Illness Reforms
  • Resources
    • Issues
    • Task Force Recommendations
    • Educational Handouts & Articles
    • Clemency Campaigns
    • News
    • Press Releases
    • Publications

Cost

According to The Dayton Daily News, Ohio death penalty cases average at least $3 million compared to $1 million for life without parole.

The majority of the death penalty’s high costs are buried in the thicket of legal proceedings and hours of time spent by judges, clerks, prosecutors and other law enforcement agencies.

The death penalty is at least three times more expensive than other sentencing options for the following reasons:

  • Additional experts, investigation, and evidence are necessary for the sentencing phase
  • A death sentence requires multiple appeals that can last years or decades.
  • Housing on death row is more expensive than a maximum security prison cell.

According to a two-year study by the Ohio Associated Press, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and officials in smaller counties across the state feel the death penalty squeezes their budgets. Vinton County’s entire court system was shut down for three weeks during the death penalty trial of Gregory McKnight.

In April 2019, the Ohio House passed a piece of legislation to grant financial assistance to Pike County to seek death sentences for those involved with the Pike County Murders in 2016.   Pike County’s budget is $10 million per year, and for the trial alone, the cost is expected to run over $4 million. Smaller counties simply cannot afford to carry out capital cases, and if the state assists smaller counties like Pike consistently, Ohio will start going down a financial black hole.

The cost of adjudicating a murder case is far more complex than it may appear on the surface.

Death penalty cases are more expensive at every stage of the judicial process, racking up exorbitant costs even before a single appeal is filed. Compared to non-death cases, death penalty cases involve:

  • More pre-trial preparations
  • More pre-trial motions
  • More experts hired by both the prosecution and the defense
  • Two defense lawyers instead of one
  • A much longer and more complicated jury selection process
  • A two-phase trial – the first phase to determine guilt or innocence, and the second phase for sentencing.

The enormous costs involved in today’s death penalty cases also raise issues about whether the funds used to seek executions can be more effectively spent to achieve some of the goals that the death penalty allegedly seeks, such as providing help for families of homicide victims or implementing more effective ways to reduce rates of criminal violence.

Tweet
Pin
Share
+1
0 Shares

© 2021 Ohioans to Stop Executions · All Rights Reserved · Privacy Policy

RECOMMENDATION 52

Adoption of a rule directing that the trial judge is the appropriate authority for the appointment of experts for indigent defendants. The rule should further provide that the decision pertaining to the appointment of experts shall be made, on the record, at one of the prescribed Pre-Trial Conferences.

If defense counsel requests, the demand for appointment of the expert shall be made in-camera ex parte, and the order concerning the appointment shall be under seal.

Upon establishing counsels’ respective compliance with discovery obligations, the question of the appointment of experts (including determination of projected expert fees based upon analysis of expert’s time to be applied to the case as well as consideration of incremental payment of expert fees as case progresses) would be decided by the court, which decision would be subject to immediate appeal, under seal, to the appropriate Court of Appeals. The trial court judge shall make written findings as to the basis for any denial. Although concerns have been raised as to the ability of the Appellate Court to provide the anticipated, necessary expedited hearing within a reasonable time-frame, the Joint Task Force suggests that this issue be elevated to the status of a final appealable order and that the necessary expedited appellate process be spelled out in the statute.

RECOMMENDATION 54

Should the present process of appointment of indigent counsel by the judiciary continue, the main objective should always be to assure the best educationally experienced and qualified candidate, who is available (within the county or outside the county), and who is otherwise willing to take on the responsibilities associated with the case for an appropriate fee and accompanying expenses, is appointed. A uniform fee schedule for such services across the State of Ohio must be a necessary consideration to assure the equal protection and due process for the accused in a capital case.

RECOMMENDATION 55

Adoption of reporting standards to provide complete transparency of record, including requirements to ensure better record keeping by the trial judge and the provision of additional, detailed resource information necessary to assure strict compliance with due process, which information shall be submitted to the Supreme Court upon completion of the case. Such resource information may include unique Constitutional issues, unique evidentiary issues, significant motions, plea rationale, pre-sentence investigation, and any additional information required by the Rule 20 Committee or the Supreme Court of Ohio. Additional types of resource information could be developed as part of the mandated educational process conducted by the Ohio Judicial College.

RECOMMENDATION 56

The Joint Task Force believes that some of the recommendations above could be accomplished by the adoption of a separate Criminal Rule for Capital Cases. The Joint Task Force recommends that such a rule be adopted and provide for the mandatory training of attorneys and judges (Recommendation 49), the selection and appointment of indigent counsel in capital cases (Recommendation 51), and the enforcement of the ABA Guidelines for the Appointment and Performance of Defense Counsel in Death Penalty Cases and the Supplementary Guidelines for the Mitigation Function of Defense Teams (Recommendations 11 and 12).