Ohio Supreme Court Justice: Death Penalty Is Inherently Cruel And Unusual

Ohio Death Chamber

A newly elected Ohio Supreme Court justice who achieved the unlikely feat of ousting an incumbent without accepting any campaign contributions is not wasting any time in asserting his opposition to the death penalty. In an order this week setting an execution date for a convicted murderer, Judge William O'Neill issued a strong dissent blasting capital punishment as "inherently cruel and unusual," even in the most egregious cases:

Without expressing an opinion as to appellant's guilt or innocence, however, I would hold that capital punishment violates the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and Article I, Section 9 of the Ohio Constitution. The death penalty is inherently both cruel and unusual and therefore is unconstitutional.

Capital punishment dates back to the days when decapitations, hangings, and brandings were also the norm. Surely, our society has evolved since those barbaric days. The United States is one of just a few civilized countries that still permit state executions.

To date, 17 states and the District of Columbia have eliminated the death penalty altogether. It is clear that the death penalty is becoming increasingly rare both around the world and in America. By definition it is unusual.

Additionally, death, even by lethal injection, is a cruel punishment. One need only look at the recent Ohio case of Romell Broom for a demonstration of that proposition. Although the executioners spent over 2 hours attempting to find a vein through which to administer the lethal injection, they ultimately failed. Subsequently, the governor granted a 1-week reprieve. Broom remains on death row today. A more chilling definition of cruel is hard to imagine.

The time to end this outdated form of punishment in Ohio has arrived. While I recognize that capital punishment is the law of the land, I cannot participate in what I consider to be a violation of the Constitution I have sworn to uphold. I must respectfully dissent.

Conceding that this particular case involved a "horrific act deserving of the strongest punishment possible" - the kidnapping and stabbing of a child - O'Neill makes the point that even the most compelling cases do not merit a punishment that violates the U.S. Constitution. In so doing, he does not even touch upon the other compelling rationales for abolishing the death penalty - its arbitrary and racially discriminatory imposition, and the alarming frequency of wrongful convictions. It is because there are so many reasons to oppose the punishment that the consensus against it is increasingly overwhelming.

In addition to being an experienced appeals court judge, O'Neill is also a registered nurse who worked in a pediatric emergency department during his campaign, lending particular credence to his analysis of lethal injections as inherently cruel.

O'Neill proved during his judicial campaign that he is not afraid to speak truth to power. He ran on a platform that "money and judges don't mix," and responded to a request from the state's bar association that he refrain from making "statements that impugn the court's integrity and imply that justice is for sale" by saying, "I am not implying that justice is for sale. I am stating it as a matter of fact."

Source: thinkprogress.org, January 31, 2013

Ohio Supreme Court Justice William O'Neill dissents from death penalty ruling

The Ohio Supreme Court's newest justice wants no part in scheduling state executions.

Justice William O'Neill, who took office Jan. 2, dissented from the court's decision last week to schedule the execution of a Southwest Ohio man convicted in 1995 of murdering a 10-year-old girl.

The execution of Jeffrey Wogenstahl is the 1st to be scheduled by the high court during O'Neill's tenure.

The staunch critic of the death penalty would not comment on whether he would dissent on all execution scheduling.

"While I recognize capital punishment is the law of the land, I cannot participate in what I consider to be a violation of the Constitution I have sworn to uphold," O'Neill wrote in his dissent.

Wogenstahl was found guilty of kidnapping Amber Garrett from her home in Harrison, Ohio, in 1991 before stabbing and beating her to death.

His execution was scheduled for May 14, 2015, in a 6-to-1 decision.

"If there exists a case that is appropriate for the imposition of the death sentence, this case clearly qualifies," O'Neill wrote in his dissent.

"There can be no disputing that this was a horrific act that is deserving of the strongest penalty possible."

But O'Neill, the high court's lone Democrat, says the death penalty is a violation of the Eighth Amendment, which protects citizens from cruel and unusual punishment.

Ohio State University law professor Douglas Berman found O'Neill's dissent to be compelling, but not out of bounds.

"Not only is he within his rights, but he feels it's obligatory based on his judicial oath to uphold the Constitution," Berman said.

Past U.S. Supreme Court justices have been known to dissent on death penalty rulings, Berman said, including William Brennan, whom O'Neill echoed in his letter.

"Death is truly an awesome punishment," Brennan is quoted. "The calculated killing of a human being by the state involves, by its very nature, a denial of the executed person's humanity."

O'Neill's vote against Wogenstahl's execution is more of a protest statement than a decision that will carry weight in court, Berman said.

"It may embolden the defense bar to believe they have a vote in the bank, but he is just one man," Berman said. "Things would become a lot more intricate if he had more justices on his side."

If more justices aligned with O'Neill, they could create an instant roadblock for capital punishment cases moving through the court, Berman said.

But even Justice Paul Pfeifer, who vocally opposes Ohio's death penalty, did not side with O'Neill.

Pfeifer helped draft the state's current capital punishment laws in 1981 when he was a state senator, but reversed his stance in 2011 when he said Ohio is not well-served by its ongoing attachment to executions.

Pfeifer, who has been with the Ohio Supreme Court since 1993, did not return a request for comment on O'Neill's dissent.

O'Neill, of Geauga County, was elected to the court last year after running a campaign that rejected outside contributions, saying money in judicial races has a corrupting effect. He unseated Justice Robert Cupp, a Republican.

O'Neill has been a trial attorney, appeals court judge and a pediatric emergency room nurse.

Source: The Plain Dealer, January 31, 2013