• 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

Murder Victims & Their Family Members

“Justice” is often defined by people outside of the crime (prosecutors, judges, etc.). The definition, often aligned with a death sentence, usually ends up causing more harm than good for the victims’ family members (co-victims) due to the lengthy nature of death penalty cases. Each trial forces the family to re-live the trauma that may have occurred decades ago due to the lengthy nature of capital punishment cases.

Because of this, the death penalty does not statistically provide closure for family members of the victim. Research by University of Minnesota sociology-anthropology professor Scott Vollum and colleagues found ambivalence in co-victims’ reactions to capital punishment. Their study showed that only 2.5 percent achieved true closure, and 20.1 percent said that the execution did not help them heal. Co-victims in the study also expressed feelings of emptiness when the death penalty did not “bring back the victim.”

Damage to Inmate’s Family:

The impact of the execution on the inmate’s family can go on and on for many years, even until the family members’ own deaths. Below are three examples from Radelet’s study of how family members of the inmate experience suffering pre and post execution:

1) Guilt: The study notes how it’s not uncommon for families to second-guess their own past decisions and behavior that may have contributed to the loved one’s criminality. They continuously ask the question of “could I have done more to help?”

2) Anger: Anger, toward the loved one or others involved in the trial, is also common.

3) Shame and Isolation. Family members tend to be isolated and invisible to the public. No politicians mention their names in their campaigns, very few advocacy groups are concerned with their needs, and there is little public recognition or concern for their situation.

“Once the inmate is executed, he is dead. Whatever the retributive impact of imprisonment and execution is on the inmate, it is over. The inmate’s family, however, continues to suffer. All of us can think about our inevitable deaths, but we can never reflect back on them. Our survivors will and do, and in cases where the death is as traumatic and stigmatized as state executions, living with the aftermath quite often brings special miseries that differ both qualitatively and quantitatively from those experienced by family members of those serving LWOP sentences”

A 2012 Marquette University Law School study showed improved physical and psychological health for co-victims, as well as greater satisfaction with the justice system, when life sentences were given, rather than capital punishment. The authors hypothesize that survivors “may prefer the finality of a life sentence and the obscurity into which the defendant will quickly fall, to the continued uncertainty and publicity of the death penalty.”

In these cases, victims’ family members are the only people qualified to talk about “justice” and what they need to heal.

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).