• 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

Sign-On Letter for Law Enforcement Officials

We are current or former members of the law enforcement community. As prosecutors, judges, police officials, and correctional staff, we have shown a commitment to keeping our state safe. It is because of this commitment that we cannot support the death penalty and instead call for its repeal. Though we hold varying views on the death penalty – some of us support it in principle, others do not – we all agree that in practice the death penalty fails the people of Ohio. Our state has the opportunity to take an important step toward smarter, more effective law enforcement by ending capital punishment. 

The death penalty is ineffective as a law enforcement tool. There is no evidence that the death penalty deters murder. In a Hart Research poll, police chiefs ranked the death penalty as the least effective tool for reducing violent crime. The experience in New Jersey, Connecticut, and other states without the death penalty has shown that the death penalty is unnecessary for obtaining plea bargains. There, prosecutors reported no obstacles in obtaining severe sentences after the death penalty’s repeal. 

The death penalty wastes valuable resources that could go toward effective crime-fighting measures. Because of the additional resources and preparation required in death penalty cases, the separate sentencing phase, post-conviction appeals, and the added costs of incarceration, studies consistently find the death penalty to be more costly than life in prison without release. In Ohio, taxpayers pay millions a year to keep the death penalty. That money could go toward evidence-based crime reduction programs.

The death penalty puts innocent lives at risk of execution. As is the case with any human institution, mistakes occur in the criminal justice system. Since 1973, over 170 individuals in the United States have been exonerated from death row. There are 9 death row exonerees in Ohio alone. Before waiting for a fatal mistake to take place, our state should abolish the death penalty now.

The death penalty can inflict severe trauma on those charged to carry it out. It is impossible to justify placing correctional staff in the trying and stressful position of administering an execution, given the available alternative of life without release.

We urge our elected officials to seriously consider these concerns that the death penalty raises for law enforcement officials. Violent crime is a serious problem demanding serious solutions. Far from a solution, the death penalty is an empty symbol that results in waste, delay, and pain. We as a state deserve better.  

 

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).