[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS, PENN., N.C., S.C., GA., ALA., OHIO

[Rick Halperin]

Sept. 21



TEXAS:

Once his defense, Greco’s sexuality used against him as prosecutors push for 
death penalty



When Daniel Greco was first questioned 3 years ago for the murder of Anjanette 
Harris and her unborn child, Greco told investigators that he accidentally 
killed Harris during bondage sex when he bound her and pulled a rubber strap 
around her neck. His defense attorneys, hoping to get a conviction less severe 
than capital murder, incorporated this defense in their closing arguments to 
jurors on Wednesday.

That argument ultimately failed, and the jury convicted Greco for capital 
murder. On Friday, as the trial entered the punishment phase, prosecutors hit 
hard on Greco’s sexuality as they steered their case toward their goal: seeing 
Greco get the death penalty rather than a life sentence without a chance for 
parole.<\P> Prosecutors welcomed 2 women who once had sex with Greco to the 
witness stand. They both said they believed or were told by friends “it could 
have been me” who Greco murdered if it were not Harris.

Assistant District Attorney Lindsey Sheugit, as she questioned one of the 
women, presented jurors with letters between Greco and six women while he’s 
been locked up in the Denton County jail. In the letters, Greco wrote sexually 
explicit notes to each of them.

“I like bad girls, like to talk dirty and be funny, so hit me up,” he wrote 
one, saying to another, “Thank you for the pics, they really got my juices 
flowing.”

All of this will matter in the context of whether Greco gets to live for the 
rest of his life among the general populations inside the Texas prison system 
or live isolated on death row until he is executed.

After failing to see Greco acquitted of capital murder, his defense attorneys 
are now locked in a struggle to prove that Greco was and remains a good person 
despite making a bad decision to kill Harris.

Responding to the rounds of letters the state showed the jury, defense attorney 
Derek Adame showed the jury through his cross examination of one of the women 
that inmates, regardless of their convictions, write sexually in letters to 
former sex partners, something Adame argued is routine and in no way an 
indication that Greco has no remorse for what he did to Harris.

Adame and fellow defense attorney Caroline Simone cross examined witnesses with 
questions related to how encouraging and supportive Greco is of them. Adame 
called in one man who lived in the cell next to Greco in the county jail. He, 
too, talked about how supportive Greco was of him.

The waning days of this trial become personal, at times painfully, on Friday 
for Greco. The state not only plunged into Greco’s sexuality but called his 
mother, Mary Greco, to the witness stand. Prosecutors asked her questions about 
her son’s decades-long struggle with drug addiction and about his childhood.

In his letters to his mother, Greco, who on previous convictions spent time in 
state prison, acknowledges how much better the Texas Department of Criminal 
Justice food is than at the Denton County jail, and how much easier it is to 
sneak contraband into prison than the county jail.

In one letter, Greco wrote his mother that he was remorseful but that he didn’t 
want to spend life in prison.

“I feel like I deserve 20 years,” he wrote, the length of the maximum sentence 
one can receive after a manslaughter conviction.

The punishment phase of the trial will continue at 8:30 a.m. Monday in Denton 
County 431st District Court.

(source: Denton Record-Chronicle)






*************************

Valley death row inmate granted stay of execution



A Court granted a death row inmate’s request for a stay of execution, court 
records show.

In a Sept. 17 order filed in the Southern District of Texas, U.S. District 
Judge Micaela Alvarez granted Juan Raul Navarro-Ramirez’s motion for a stay — 
adopting, in its entirety, the “Report and Recommendation,” order from 
Magistrate Judge Peter E. Ormsby filed in July, the record states.

Navarro-Ramirez, 35, who has been sitting on death row in Livingston, Texas, 
for nearly 15 years, was convicted of 2 counts of murder in December 2004 and 
given a sentence of death in connection with a failed drug rip against rival 
gangmembers that left 6 men dead in January of 2003.

Navarro-Ramirez, and several fellow members of the Tri-City Bombers, wearing 
law enforcement gear, participated in the robbery of drugs from a rival gang at 
a stash house in Edinburg. Ultimately, 6 men were killed, and at least 10 
co-defendants arrested in connection with the incident, including Juan Arturo 
Villarreal Cordova, Robert Garza, Jeffrey Juarez, Reymundo Sauceda, Robert 
Cantu, Salvador Solis, Juan Miguel Nunez, Juan Ramirez and Jorge Espinosa 
Martinez.

Originating from the Pharr, San Juan, and Alamo area as a breakdancing crew 
called the “Tri-City Poppers,” the crew began their criminal enterprise first 
with petty crimes, and then eventually graduated to drug trafficking, drug 
rips, and murder.

In 2007, after Navarro-Ramirez filed an appeal, the Texas Court of Criminal 
Appeals affirmed the state district court’s judgment on the death sentence, on 
the first count of murder, but reversed the second count of murder on the 
grounds of double-jeopardy, court notes show.

The following year, in October 2008, the Supreme Court denied the petition for 
appeal filed by Navarro-Ramirez.

Under the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death penalty Act, AEDPA, 
Navarro-Ramirez had one full year from the denial of his direct appeal to the 
Supreme Court, to file a federal petition for a “writ of habeas corpus.”

On July 2, 2009, Navarro-Ramirez filed a state application for the writ.

The trial judge, subsequently, after receiving the briefing from the parties, 
entered findings of facts and conclusions of law recommending that relief be 
denied.

Several years later, on Oct. 14, 2015, the Court of Criminal Appeals, adopted 
the lower court’s recommendation and denied Navarro-Ramirez’s request for 
relief.

But, on Oct. 23, 2015, Navarro-Ramirez filed a “Chapter 64” motion; for 
post-conviction DNA testing in state district court which authorizes a motion 
seeking forensic DNA testing of evidence that was in the possession of the 
state during trial, but was either not previously subjected to DNA testing, or 
can be subjected to newer testing techniques.

Nearly two years later, on June 7, 2017, unbeknownst to Navarro-Ramirez, the 
state trial court had denied his Chapter 64 motion, but the court entered that 
order under the incorrect case number — and failed to serve the order to 
Navarro-Ramirez’s post-conviction attorney.

Because Navarro-Ramirez was unaware of this error, he was unable to immediately 
file an appeal.

Subsequently, the state trial court became aware of the error, and entered a 
superseding order on Oct. 21, 2018, specifying that the order was intended “to 
allow (Navarro-Ramirez) an opportunity to appeal the denial of his Chapter 64 
motion,” the court record states.

In arguing against Navarro-Ramirez’s request for a stay, counsel for respondent 
Lorie Davis, the Director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, 
Correctional Institutions Division, claimed, among other reasons, that the stay 
would be “improper,” because Navarro-Ramirez’s Chapter 64 motion did not 
exhaust any claim he had raised in his federal petition, the court documents 
show.

On July 22, 2019, Ormsby recommended that Navarro-Ramirez’s stay of execution 
be granted, and administratively closed, and that Navarro-Ramirez be ordered to 
open this case within 30 days after the Chapter 64 litigation concludes.

(source: The Monitor)








PENNSYLVANIA:

Jury selected for Kratz murder trial in Solebury killings



Sean Kratz, 22, refused a plea deal last May and is facing the death penalty 
for his alleged role in the murder of 3 men whose bodies were found buried at a 
Solebury farm in July 2017. Cosmo DiNardo is serving 4 life sentences in the 
slayings.

Twelve jurors and six alternates have been chosen to decide the fate of a 
Philadelphia man who authorities allege killed a Middletown man and played a 
role in the murders and disposal of 2 others on a Solebury farm in 2017.

Sean Kratz, 22, faces the death penalty if convicted. The panel of 18 was 
seated Friday afternoon for the Nov. 6 trial after 5 days of jury selection.

Authorities allege Kratz fatally shot Dean Finocchiaro, 19, and helped his 
cousin Cosmo DiNardo murder Tom Meo, 21, of Plumstead, and Mark Sturgis, 22, of 
Pennsburg, at a farm owned by DiNardo’s parents.

The bodies of the 3 men and Jimi Taro Patrick, 19, of Newtown, were burned and 
buried in a shared grave dug with construction equipment at the farm, 
authorities said. Kratz is not charged in the murder of Patrick; DiNardo 
confessed to killing Patrick on his own during his plea hearing last year.

A days-long search for the 4 men rocked the rural community in 2017 and drew 
national attention as local, state and federal law enforcement searched the 
farm authorities alleged DiNardo lured the men to with the promise of selling 
them marijuana.

DiNardo, of Bensalem, is now serving 4 life sentences in state prison. His 
cooperation in helping authorities locate the bodies on the sprawling farm and 
his guilty plea spared him from facing the death penalty.

Finding 18 people who knew nothing about the case was a challenge for both 
county prosecutors and Kratz’s defense.

Not only did the search for the four men appear on national television, but 
Kratz’s former defense attorney, Craig Penglase, last May leaked to at least 1 
Philadelphia television station a 2017 recording of Kratz and DiNardo speaking 
to investigators.

The leaked audio, which resulted in Penglase being taken off the case, came 
shortly after Kratz rejected a 59- to 118-year plea deal he was expected to 
accept — a move that left prosecutors vowing to pursue a death sentence.

This past May, Finley denied a motion by Kratz’s new defense attorney, A. 
Charles Peruto Jr., to throw out a confession on the leaked tapes, but he also 
denied a motion by prosecutors to subpoena Penglase to testify in Kratz’s 
trial.

In an effort to find an impartial jury, Bucks County Judge Jeffrey L. Finely 
allowed attorneys from both sides to access social media in the courtroom to 
check for posts and other information by potential jurors while they were 
answering questions during the selection process.

Many jurors said they knew of Kratz, but that they hadn’t been following the 
case very closely.

One potential juror was excused after disclosing she had a connection to a 
neighbor near the farm, and another was excused when she revealed she was the 
wife of the officer who arrested DiNardo.

Attorneys told potential jurors this week the trial would likely come in two 
parts: a guilt phase and a sentencing phase.

Peruto fielded most of the questions from Kratz’s defense team this week, but 
Neils C. Eriksen Jr., of Langhorne, said he was Kratz’s attorney arguing 
against a death penalty should Kratz be found guilty.

Bucks County Assistant District Attorney Gregg David Shore and Deputy District 
Attorney Mary Kate Kohler said during jury selection the trial was expected to 
be finished before Thanksgiving.

(source: The Intelligencer)








NORTH CAROLINA:

Federal Appeals Court Overturns North Carolina Death Sentence for Juror 
Misconduct Based on Improper Consultation With Pastor During Deliberations



A federal appeals court has vacated the death sentence imposed on a North 
Carolina death-row prisoner, finding that one of his jurors improperly 
consulted her pastor about her decision and then communicated the pastor’s 
advice to fellow jurors. In a 2-1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
Fourth Circuit ruled on September 12, 2019 that William Leroy Barnes (pictured) 
had been denied his Sixth Amendment right to trial by an impartial jury and 
reversed a lower court ruling that had excused the juror misconduct in his case 
as “harmless error.”

Barnes was tried in 1994 along with 2 co-defendants for the robbery and murder 
of a Rowan County couple. During the penalty phase closing arguments in the 
case, the lawyer for one of Barnes’ co-defendants invoked the biblical 
commandment “Thou shalt not kill” and asked the jurors, if they were “true 
believers” did they “want to explain to God, yes, I did violate one of your 
commandments.” According to court records, one of the jurors, Hollie Jordan, 
was offended by the argument and noticed that another woman on the jury “seemed 
visibly upset.’”

According to the transcripts from a later evidentiary hearing in the case, 
Jordan met with her pastor, Tom Lomax, for several hours that night. She 
testified that she had decided to vote for death and described to Lomax “how 
horrific the pictures [of the crime scene] were,” asking him “if we gave [the 
defendants] the death sentence would we burn in hell.” The pastor advised her 
that she “had to live by the laws of the land” and provided her with “some 
scriptures in the Bible … that explained everything.” The next day, Jordan 
talked to the jury for between 15 and 30 minutes about her conversation with 
the pastor. During that time, she read several bible verses out loud to the 
other jurors, including one commanding that “it is the duty of Christians to 
abide by the laws of the state.” Several jurors testified in the evidentiary 
hearing into Jordan’s misconduct that they experienced her talk as an attempt 
to counter the co-defendant’s argument and to “convince someone … it was okay 
to [impose] the death penalty.” The jury ultimately sentenced Barnes and one 
co-defendant to death and sentenced the second co-defendant, who had blamed the 
shooting on the others, to life in prison.

Barnes challenged his death sentence, arguing that Jordan’s misconduct violated 
his right to an impartial jury and a verdict based solely on the evidence and 
the law, and not on external factors. The North Carolina state courts and the 
lower federal court rejected his claim without an evidentiary hearing, but the 
Fourth Circuit ruled that Jordan’s contact with the pastor was improper and 
that Barnes was entitled to a hearing on whether the misconduct had been 
prejudicial. After that hearing, the federal district court again denied 
Barnes’ claim and he again appealed to the Fourth Circuit. The appeals court 
again reversed, finding that Jordan’s external communication with Pastor Lomax 
had created a constitutionally unacceptable tainted on the jury’s sentencing 
verdict. The court said that even if Jordan had already decided to vote for 
death before receiving religious reassurances from Lomax, she then improperly 
communicated her pastor’s views to the other jurors in an effort to persuade 
them to impose the death penalty. In those circumstances, the court said, it 
was reasonable to conclude “that Pastor Lomax’s external influence affected the 
jury’s decision” and that her “external communication was not harmless.”

Judge G. Steven Agee dissented, arguing that Jordan’s communication with Lomax 
had been harmless because the pastor had not said what sentence should be 
imposed and Jordan’s communications with him had no effect on the facts or the 
law that the court had instructed the jury to consider in reaching their 
sentencing verdict.

(source: Death Penalty Information Center)








SOUTH CAROLINA:

Defendant's mental state delays SC death penalty trial



A death penalty trial for a man charged with killing 2 South Carolina bank 
employees during a robbery is on hold.

A federal judge Friday delayed Brandon Council's trial at least through the 
weekend after defense attorneys asked for an evaluation to determine if he is 
mentally competent.

The attorneys said in court papers Council appeared to be unable to understand 
the charges against him or help his defense after prosecutors rested their case 
Thursday.

Authorities say Council killed a teller and manager at CresCom Bank in Conway 
in August 2017.

Council's lawyers say he is guilty, but they are fighting to keep him from 
facing the death penalty.

Prosecutors showed video of Council's confession. He cries and says he is sorry 
after learning the women he shot were dead.

(source: Associated Press)








GEORGIA:

Judge hears updates on 5 high profile murder cases in Columbus



Superior Court Judge William Rumer heard updates on 5 large profile murder 
cases Thursday morning.

Johnathon Swift, a suspect in the Pizza Hut murder from April 2018, is still 
not indicted on his charges. Prosecutors hope to have him and his other 
co-defendants indicted by the end of the year. The next status conference is 
scheduled for October 15.

Anna Stecenko’s attorney requested a motion for bond. Stecenko is charged with 
murder in the August death of aspiring rapper Jaylin Williams. Rumer asked the 
attorney to come back when the 90-day indictment period was over to make his 
motion again.

Brandon Connor is also charged with murder is and facing the death penalty. 
He’s accused of killing his girlfriend and child, then setting their home on 
fire in August 2014. Rumer told court today Connor’s lawyers should be ready 
for trial soon. A status conference is scheduled for October 15 to nail down a 
trial date.

Jamar Pipkin’s case went to a grand jury earlier this week. Pipkin is accused 
in a shooting death on Curry Street in 2018. A status conference is scheduled 
for Friday.

Lastly, Yashicer Pritchett’s case also went before a grand jury this week with 
a status conference scheduled for Friday as well. Pritchett is accused of 
killing Tommy Marshall inside his home in 2018.

(source: WTVM news)








ALABAMA:

Trump Judge Rules that Man with Possible Serious Intellectual Disability Should 
be Executed Without a Hearing to Determine his Disability: Confirmed Judges, 
Confirmed Fears



“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful 
impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties.

Trump 11th Circuit judge Lisa Branch wrote the 2-1 August decision in Jenkins 
v. Commissioner that rejected a request for post-conviction relief and held 
that a death-row prisoner with an IQ of 78, whose lawyer failed to present 
available mitigating evidence at the penalty phase of his trial, should be 
executed. Judge Charles Wilson vigorously dissented, pointing out that there 
should at least be an evidentiary hearing on the issue of intellectual 
disability, which was dealt with by the state court in “a mere three 
sentences.”

Mark Allen Jenkins was sentenced to death for a murder committed in Alabama in 
1989. 2 claims to prevent the imposition of the death penalty were raised but 
rejected by state courts and a lower federal court. First, during the penalty 
phase of the trial, after which the jury voted in favor of the death penalty by 
one vote, Jenkins’ lawyer Stan Downey failed to call witnesses or present 
mitigating evidence concerning Jenkins’ abusive childhood and other issues. 
Second, Jenkins never received a hearing that could have led to the conclusion 
that executing him would be cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth 
Amendment because of his serious intellectual disability under the Supreme 
Court’s Atkins decision.

In a 2-1 decision by Branch, the 11th Circuit affirmed these rulings and 
ordered that the execution could go forward. Branch adopted the view that there 
was no ineffective assistance of counsel because Downey adopted a strategy of 
arguing that the death penalty should not be imposed because of remaining doubt 
about Jenkins’ guilt, and thus he was not obligated to investigate other 
mitigating factors, and that there was no adequate proof of prejudice resulting 
from what Downey failed to do.

Judge Wilson demonstrated what was wrong with Branch’s reasoning. Under 
recognized Supreme Court precedent, Wilson explained, a lawyer’s strategy 
decisions “cannot be justified unless counsel first conducted a 
constitutionally adequate investigation.” In this case, Wilson went on, the 
record at a state post-conviction hearing showed that “Downey conducted no such 
investigation,” and another lawyer testified that Downey told him he had “not 
investigated potential mitigating evidence” at all. Downey did “even less” than 
attorneys in cases whose performance has been ruled ineffective in other 11th 
Circuit cases, Wilson noted, including failing to investigate Jenkins’ 
“significant deficits in cognitive functions,” his “juvenile history,” his 
“poor school records,” and his “abusive childhood.” For example, Jenkins’ 
stepfather beat him “on a semi-daily basis, would lock him in a room for hours 
without food, and even made Jenkins eat his own feces.”

The “compelling” and “horrendous” testimony that could have been presented for 
Jenkins, Wilson concluded, demonstrated a “reasonable probability that at least 
one juror” would have made a different decision on the death penalty if Downey 
had done his job properly. And the record showed that Downey spent only 
“fifteen minutes” in “preparation for the penalty phase,” which Wilson 
explained was a “wholly inadequate amount of time under Supreme Court 
precedent.”

Branch’s opinion also agreed with the state and lower federal courts that 
Jenkins’ Atkins claim should be rejected and asserted that he did not 
“diligently attempt to develop the factual basis for this claim in state 
court.” But as Judge Wilson explained, it was “not possible” to adequately 
analyze the contention based on the current record. The state court evaluated 
the claim in a “mere three sentences,” and Jenkins “never had an opportunity to 
present evidence” concerning it. Branch’s complaint that Jenkins did not 
explicitly ask for an evidentiary hearing was misplaced and “superficial,” 
Wilson went on, because Jenkins did specifically ask a state appeals court to 
“remand his case for further proceedings” in a lower court, which was 
“equivalent to a request for an evidentiary hearing” that would have occurred 
automatically in Alabama if the case had been remanded. Branch’s “rigid 
understanding” that the term “evidentiary hearing” must have been used, Wilson 
concluded, “should not bar a death row prisoner from bringing a constitutional, 
and potentially lifesaving, claim.”

As a result of Branch’s 2-1 ruling, however, Mark Allen Jenkins is all too 
likely to be executed despite his counsel’s deficient performance, and without 
any opportunity for it to be shown that imposing the death penalty upon him is 
unconstitutional because of his serious intellectual disability.

(source: People For the American Way)



OHIO:

Ohio’s death penalty not answer for healing



I know the pain of losing a loved one to murder and I know how urgently one 
wants the crime resolved. My beloved sister, Jennifer, was 21 years old when 
she was killed in her Cleveland home, which she shared with her 2-year-old 
daughter, Imani. Her murder remains unsolved. I learned of Jennifer’s death 
while attending a church convention. I rushed home, joined my sister Theresa in 
planning Jennifer’s funeral, and began integrating Imani into my household.

Every time I hear anyone say victim family members need executions in order to 
heal, I cringe. How would anyone who has not experienced this loss understand 
what one needs to heal? For the few cases where death is the sentence, victim 
families are putting their healing process on hold for a very long time.

This was starkly illustrated in The Lima News recently in coverage of the case 
of Cleveland Jackson, who is on death row for his murders of Jala Grant and 
Leneshia Williams in 2002. Jackson is set to be executed in Ohio on Nov. 13th. 
If it goes forward, Jackson’s will be the 1st execution under Governor DeWine.

In the article, Leneshia’s mother and grandmother shared that they no longer 
celebrate joyous occasions like Christmas and family events. They have put 
their healing process on hold while waiting for an execution which may never 
come.

I am not here to debate Ms. Williams and Ms. Smith, nor do I discount their 
feelings in any way. I offer instead pastoral presence if they are interested, 
and a different perspective.

First, it is important to note that the vast majority of Ohio murder cases do 
not result in a death sentence. Death sentences from Allen County are 
especially rare, and so too is the execution of a defendant when the victim is 
black. People of color are the victims of violent crime in Ohio roughly 66% of 
the time, yet of Ohio’s 56 executions so far, the victims in those cases were 
white about 66% of the time. The disparities of our legal system do not take 
away from the awfulness of any crime, but when we talk about the ultimate 
punishment, we also have to talk about how we decide who gets it and who does 
not. Race, politics, and the reality of county lines and county budgets 
certainly play major roles.

To me, it is a blessing that most murders do not result in capital punishment. 
Without a death sentence, murder victim family members are not being asked to 
wait decades to begin our healing process. We don’t have to re-open our wounds 
every time the case comes up in the news or whenever there is a next step in a 
very long legal process.

Ohio currently has 24 men with execution dates extending into 2024. By the time 
of their executions, 5 will have been on death row between 15 and 20 years. 11 
will have been there more than 20 years, and 8 will have been there more than 
30 years. It is absolutely unacceptable that some victim family members have 
waited over 30 years to begin healing. At 17 years, Mr. Jackson’s case is also 
an outlier because of Cleveland Jackson’s relatively brief time on death row.

Some say speed up executions, but then we run the risk of wrongful executions. 
Thirteen Ohioans who faced death at trial have been exonerated and freed. Four 
were released from life sentences, and nine after having been condemned to 
death — all for crimes they did not commit. For many, it was after decades on 
death row or in prison.

Ohio’s death penalty law was enacted in 1982, and our state has conducted 56 
executions since 1999. I don’t know how many murders have taken place in that 
time, but what is clear is that this rare and seemingly random practice begs 
the question of what government-sponsored services and supportive measures are 
available to the vast majority of murder victim families? I can tell you that 
my family received nothing.

Murder victim families deserve the truth about what happened to our loved ones. 
We all want dangerous offenders held accountable, and we certainly don’t want 
the wrong persons punished. Instead of the death penalty, what would be helpful 
would be a consistent standard of service for all murder victim families in 
Ohio. Currently, there is no statewide standard protocol of service, and 
services may vary widely depending on the budget of the county of the murder.

We can do better for Ohio’s murder victim family members without executions.

We must.

(source: Guest Column; Rev. Dr. Jack Sullivan Jr. is the executive director of 
the Ohio Council of Churches, a partnership of 17 Christian faith denominations 
encompassing roughly 4,000 congregations and 2 million members. He also serves 
as board chairperson of Ohioans to Stop Executions----limaohio.com)

*************************

A message for Gov. DeWine: kill the death penalty



Opinion writer Matthew Geiger, a freshman studying economics, explains why 
Ohio’s death penalty is archaic, inhumane and needs to be abolished.

Ohio has a death problem. The cause is not heroin, fentanyl, or any other 
substance, but rather the government itself.

The buckeye state’s criminal justice system is broken. Whether it’s a lack of 
consistency in death penalty sentencing from county to county, or the cruel and 
unusual methods used in the execution chamber, one solution seems to be the 
most obvious: Abolish the death penalty.

To add insult to injury, Ohio has more executions scheduled to take place than 
any other state in the nation, coming in at a whopping total of 31. That’s 21 
more than the next state on that list — Texas.

An important question remains: If these inmates are convicted of heinous 
crimes, should they face the ultimate punishment and be stripped of their right 
to life?

The answer should be ‘no’ for a number of reasons. For example, it was 
estimated in 2014 that the Ohio death penalty cost taxpayers a massive $16.87 
million.

We should not be spending such a large sum of money on those who have committed 
some of the worst crimes in our state. Abolishment of the death penalty would 
allow for these convicted criminals to rot in prison, rather than have the 
pleasure of using state funds to be put “out of their misery.”

Moreover, as more and more people realize the horrors of the death penalty, 
more and more businesses decline to sell the chemicals necessary to execute 
inmates. This has caused complications on death rows across the country, 
including here in Ohio.

Prior to Feb. 19, 2019, one could be executed in a manner that “will almost 
certainly subject [prisoners] to severe pain and needless suffering.” However, 
a recent court ruling from an Ohio federal appeals court claimed that 
suffocation did not qualify under the category of “needless suffering,” and 
this method was upheld.

This places Ohio in a predicament. Through a loophole, its execution system is 
constitutional, but it causes immense pain and suffering for those who are 
subjected to it.

Diving in more specifically, the cocktail of drugs used causes pulmonary edema, 
a build-up of fluid in the lungs that is “painful, both physically and 
emotionally, inducing a sense of drowning and the attendant panic and terror, 
much as would occur with the torture tactic known as waterboarding,” as noted 
by federal Magistrate Judge Michael Merz. The prisoner would experience the 
sensation of “fire … being poured” through his veins when those drugs were 
administered.

The lack of proper execution-related chemicals being sold to the state of Ohio 
has also impacted the lives of innocent civilians who use the chemicals 
medicinally. This is a result of pharmaceutical companies hesitating to sell 
medicine or chemicals to any state agency, for fear that it will be used in an 
execution chamber, and not for therapeutic use.

Ohio, stop killing people. It’s as simple as that. It costs too much, it’s 
inhuman and it endangers the medical prospects of innocent citizens. It’s time 
to finally abolish the death penalty.

(source: Opinion, thenewpolitical.com)