March 1, 2011
Three more Ohio execution dates set by state supreme court
As detailed in this local article, the "Ohio Supreme Court today set three new execution dates, bringing the total scheduled this year to 10." Here are more of the details:
If all 10 are carried out, it would be the most in Ohio since 1949 when 15 men died in the electric chair. Executions, which are now done by lethal injection, are scheduled monthly through November. New execution dates were set for:
- Reginald Brooks, of Cuyahoga County, who murdered his three sons, ages 17, 15 and 11, in their home on March 6, 1982. Execution date: Nov. 15, 2011.
- Charles Lorraine, of Trumbull County, who killed an elderly couple in their home on May 6, 1986. Execution date: Jan. 18, 2012.
- Michael Webb, of Clermont County, who set the family home on fire, killing his three-year-old son on Nov. 21, 1990. Execution date: Feb. 22, 2012.
Ohio's eight executions in 2010 were second in the nation to Texas.
Though 10 would mark a modern record for the number of executions in a single year for Ohio, the state would need to go at an even a faster yearly execution pace if it wanted to carry out all the death sentences of the 156 persons now on the state's death row before the end of the year 2025.
March 1, 2011 at 01:31 PM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Three more Ohio execution dates set by state supreme court:
Can anyone for the life of me tell us WHY the Ohio Supreme Court thinks ONLY one executions should be scheduled per month? When will the law be changed to allow the Corrections dept to schedule them? Once a warrant is signed off it should be up to DOC. If they want to schedule one a week they schould. Its their people doing the job, not the judges. Good Grief.
Posted by: DeanO | Mar 1, 2011 2:24:20 PM
What's more, why is this the second consecutive year that they've decided not to set an execution date in December? Are they worried about sullying Christmas or Kwanzaa?
Posted by: alpino | Mar 1, 2011 2:43:06 PM
Are some of you folks trying to make Gaddafi look like a saint?
Posted by: peter | Mar 1, 2011 2:43:39 PM
I fail to see the parallel between killing protesters and political opponents wanting a freer nation without trial and putting a pack of rapists and murderers to death.
Both the DOC and Ohio Public Defenders want the executions staggered about a month apart. The DOC needs time to prepare staff and the OPD needs time to prepare clemency petitions.
Posted by: MikeinCT | Mar 1, 2011 3:36:32 PM
Mike - you wouldn't. The concept of Human Rights is, like most areas of US policy, used by Government and political activists as a club to beat about the ears of other nations, but seldom applied in the US (or other areas within its close influence) when it conflicts with its own "special interests".
Posted by: peter | Mar 1, 2011 3:59:05 PM
The Supreme Court, Congress and the Executive Branch decide what the law is in this country, not some body several thousand miles away making up "Human Rights" on the fly. Your Human Rights arguments have been presented to those bodies, forcefully argued and rejected. You have no sovereignty and will not be treated as if you did. Next case.
BTW, what was your Human Rights crowd doing while American soldiers were fighting and dying to rid Europe of Nazism and Communism?
Posted by: Bill Otis | Mar 1, 2011 4:22:18 PM
Why aren't executions televised?
Posted by: anon1 | Mar 1, 2011 11:28:01 PM
Vengeance LIVES, Ohioans must be oh so proud!!! SEEK DEATH, SEEK VINDICTIVE AND VENGEANCE!!!
Posted by: neanderthal | Mar 2, 2011 12:14:45 AM
Bill - then why is America so outraged when other nations take the same attitude? Your lack of respect for the international community sets you alongside Gaddafi, Iran and North Korea amongst others. Maybe that is why, too often, America is caught out supporting non-democratic regimes, and those others who survive through bullying and cheating neighbors. America helped set up the United Nations. Indeed, it even hosts that body in Manhattan! It also happens to play a very active and important role within it, though frequently opting out of policy when it suits .... by which action it diminishes the influence it could and should have on the democratization of the world and the on the maintenance of peaceful co-existence of nations. Did you ever in your life actually read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? It was adopted in 1948 .... you've had plenty of time.
As for the role of American soldiers in Europe, I seem to recall that it took an attack on Pearl Harbor to wake you up to the fact that the US is an integral part of the rest of the world, and that self-interest was served by acting alongside allies. Much as you might like to believe it, America did not single handedly defeat Nazism and Communism.
Posted by: peter | Mar 2, 2011 1:03:53 AM
Amnesty International (supporting Human Rights) -
Johnnie Baston was sentenced to death in Ohio for the murder of Chong Hoon Mah, a South Korean immigrant. Baston’s execution date is March 10. At his clemency hearing last month, one of the prosecutors from the original trial emphasized that Chong Mah’s family does not want Baston executed. In fact, the family never supported the death penalty, even at the time of the trial.
Yet the Ohio Parole Board voted unanimously to reject clemency.
The March 10 execution, if it is carried out, will be the first in which Ohio uses pentobarbital, an anesthetic selected to replace sodium thiopental, which is no longer made by an FDA-accredited company. But the manufacturer of the pentobarbital Ohio plans to use has objected strenuously to its product being employed in any execution. Lundbeck, based in Denmark, wrote Ohio officials saying:
“Lundbeck is dedicated to saving people’s lives. Use of our products to end lives contradicts everything we’re in business to do.”
So far, Ohio officials have been unmoved by this appeal to medical ethics.
Ohio’s death penalty has acquired a kind of blind bureaucratic momentum that makes it difficult to stop an execution even when nobody wants it. Fortunately, the Governor of Ohio does have the power to overrule the Parole Board’s advisory opinion and grant clemency.
He should, and we can encourage him to do so.
Posted by: peter | Mar 2, 2011 1:10:08 AM
So your opposed to the execution of an obviously guilty killer when the victim's family opposes it?
Would you support it if they did?
Posted by: MikeinCT | Mar 2, 2011 2:05:51 AM
Mike - the fact is that so-called "victims rights" are supposed to be at the heart of current sentencing policy. It is telling that these rights are only respected when matching the political agenda of the pro-dp lobby. Since you are unable to satisfy those rights consistently, then the policy is flawed and unfit for purpose. But of course "victims rights" are a mere screen in an attempt to justify an otherwise insupportable policy of mass incarceration and the death penalty. So you are correct, I would not support the dp on the back of "victims rights".
Posted by: peter | Mar 2, 2011 4:02:33 AM
The fact that you only have a problem with defying the victim's family when they are against death makes your comment a little hollow.
But even there you are still wrong. The victim's family is not the end-all of the sentencing process, and they are defied all the time when they call for death. Others have managed to spare their family's killers like Jeffrey Hill's family.
Posted by: MikeinCT | Mar 2, 2011 10:47:49 AM
Mike - you prove my point. Giving victims what SEEMS, in some cases, to be a credible voice in sentencing means that sentencing becomes a lottery, both from the point of view of geographical location (where weighting of such view may vary enormously) and on the strength of a particular voice which may vary according to, for example, race and social standing. It is a nonsense and creates such a degree of unfairness as to be inevitably discriminatory and against the spirit of Universal Human Rights.
Posted by: peter | Mar 2, 2011 11:39:36 AM
If the victims are ignored, it's cruel. If victims are listened to, it's violates the rights of the criminal. If it varies from case to case, as SCOTUS seems to want, then it's a lottery. And of course, it violates the UN's idea of human rights. By the way, so does solitary, stun belts and Life Without Parole.
Victim's have a voice, as does the inmate and the state. Many times, even Texas juries are swayed to vote against death thanks to a convincing defense case. Tell me how that is inhumane.
As for race, Jeffrey and his family were Black. They not only helped him get clemency but a parole date in 2017. The other inmates to get clemency are serving LWOP.
Posted by: MikeinCT | Mar 2, 2011 12:14:43 PM
Mike - the more specific you get the more you confirm the lack of standardization and the inherent unfairness involved.
As we know, far fewer juries are accepting the need for a death sentence than was the case even two or three years ago. That is largely because of a greater awareness both of the frequency of conviction error, and an understanding that alternative sentencing options are now available. The benefits of that effective review of the death penalty must now be applied to those men and women condemned in earlier years, which is why Amnesty and many other groups call for an immediate moratorium and the eventual abolition of the death penalty.
Posted by: peter | Mar 2, 2011 3:57:53 PM
My post to you consisted of two paragraphs. The first was declarative, the second asked a question.
You responded, after a fashion, but without either disputing a single word in the declarative part or answering the question.
Indeed, instead of answering you again sneer at the United States, saying, "Much as you might like to believe it, America did not single handedly defeat Nazism and Communism."
Of course I never said it did so "single handedly" -- you're just making that up to make it appear that I'm claiming more than I ever have, right? I mean, why else would you make it up?
The more important point -- which again you do not deny -- is that the USA was instrumental in defeating Nazism and Communism. We had to kill a lot of people to do it. Do your self-congratulating Human Rights buddies offer any praise for our sacricice in that regard?
Posted by: Bill Otis | Mar 2, 2011 10:33:56 PM
If the pendulum swung the other way, where more juries handed down death sentences, would you then call for lifers to have their cases reviewed and possibly moved to death row?
Sadly, death sentences cannot be standardized as liberals on the Supreme Court did away with the mandatory death penalty in the 70's in an effort to make it more fair.
And this is a problem we see, to a lesser extent, in non-capital trials. How would you remedy that?
Posted by: MikeinCT | Mar 3, 2011 1:36:48 AM
Bill - you write in always a fervent nationalistic or partisan manner .... it is always America versus the rest, incidentally dismissing opposition blocks within your own society. Why should I comment on the particular actions of American soldiers in Europe whilst they were fighting alongside Europe's own soldiers? What they all did what to help defeat a dangerous tyrant and ideology that threatened the world. They fought a war together that was necessary to free millions from subjugation and torture and death. To compare that with the civilian scenarios that we are concerned with here is madness.
You will also note that the Declaration of Universal Human Rights (1948) came AFTER and as a RESPONSE to the horrors of WW2, and to the political aberrations that had occurred in Germany under Hitler, in an attempt to define a universal baseline of civil society that all nations could accept and be held accountable to. If you do not understand that then there is no point in further discussion.
I do not need to punctuate my comments on Civil and Human Rights with outbursts of reverence and thanks to the US military, or indeed to the military of my own and other European nations. Their sacrifice in war, in the past and ongoing today, is acknowledged and respected in more appropriate ways and platforms. As regards Human Rights in the military context however, I hope that all our soldiers operate to the highest standards in reflecting the will of nations as embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other relevant resolutions. And that is why I and the majority in this world have rejected and disassociated ourselves from the horrific practices condoned by the last American administration in the "fight against terrorism".
The "Human Rights crowd" are protectors of the ideals embodied in the Declaration of Universal Human Rights, to which the US was a sponsor and signatory, and associated international resolutions that have developed from that document. They hold all nations to account equally and without deference to political association. It's called accountability.
Posted by: peter | Mar 3, 2011 3:29:55 AM
Mike - your comments are becoming ever more bizarre. My comments on standardization referred to equality of process, not of penalty. Equality of process is not achievable in the US nor in any state within it, and lives should not be sacrificed by the death penalty in that knowledge.
Posted by: peter | Mar 3, 2011 3:42:55 AM
If equality is impossible, wouldn't we have to empty the jails? If not, how is an unequal process permissible if the inmate only lives for the next 50 years in prison?
As for the decline in Texas death sentences, it becomes far less impressive when you see the sharp drop in the Texas homicide rate.
As for bizarre, I'm simply confused as to why you won't apply your complaints across the board, why you defer to such a corrupt foreign body and why you think vicious murderers need a second chance to kill.
Posted by: MikeinCT | Mar 3, 2011 1:27:03 PM
i truly wish the english government would bring backm the death sentence. crimes in britain especially sex crimes towards children is on the increase and just recently serial killers making a come back big style. prisoners are treated with kid gloves when they should be doing hard labour for their crimes. hanging is to good for them. lets put the bastards to sleep forever. lynda from england
Posted by: lynda | Apr 14, 2011 2:16:42 PM