New laws kicking in this week in Kentucky, dubbed “castle doctrine statutes” by proponents, allow Kentuckians the right to use deadly force in the protection of their home or vehicles, if they’re in them, adding Kentucky to a growing list of states having passed such laws. (Article)
Indiana passed its version February 23rd , it having gone into effect July 1st.
Ohio’s version, introduced March 21, 2006, is in the House’s Criminal Justice Committee.
“Castle doctrine” is not a new concept, according to Wikipedia dating back before colonial times and being mentioned in Blackstone’s Commentaries.
(See also our previous posting from March and April of this year.. )
Monday, July 10, 2006
Wednesday, July 05, 2006
Clermont County, Ohio, DUI Court
The morning’s online Enquirer has an article in praise of Clermont County’s DUI Court, the first of its kind in Ohio.
Evolving from the highly successful concept of drug courts, the Governor’s Highway Safety Office, together with the Ohio Supreme Court, Department of Alcohol & Drug Addiction Services, and Office of Criminal Justice Services began studying the feasibility of DUI courts in Ohio in 2004. Clermont County is the first of that ensuing three-year program. Athens and Summit Counties have also now started DUI courts.
According to the National Drug Court Institute, there are 86 DWI courts and 90 DWI/drug courts in the country. A national database of these and background on the concept is available on their site.
Additionally, for those interested, the National Center for State Courts published two articles on this developing DUI court trend, in 2002 and 2004, for more background information.
Evolving from the highly successful concept of drug courts, the Governor’s Highway Safety Office, together with the Ohio Supreme Court, Department of Alcohol & Drug Addiction Services, and Office of Criminal Justice Services began studying the feasibility of DUI courts in Ohio in 2004. Clermont County is the first of that ensuing three-year program. Athens and Summit Counties have also now started DUI courts.
According to the National Drug Court Institute, there are 86 DWI courts and 90 DWI/drug courts in the country. A national database of these and background on the concept is available on their site.
Additionally, for those interested, the National Center for State Courts published two articles on this developing DUI court trend, in 2002 and 2004, for more background information.
Monday, July 03, 2006
Ohio lethal injection procedures changed
Last Wednesday, as everyone’s heard by now, the State of Ohio announced it was modifying the manner in which lethal injections are administered in this state. No major changes, however, are seen as forthcoming. (Article)
Under the direction of the Governor, following unexpected problems with the execution of Joseph Clark on May 2, 2006, a meeting was convened on May 15, 2006 with representatives from the Ohio Attorney General’s Office, Department of Rehabilitation & Corrections legal staff and Southern Ohio Correctional Facility personnel, to examine and determine what changes or refinements could be made in carrying out future executions. A second meeting was held on June 12th after which a list of five recommendations were returned to Governor Taft.
Among those recommendations, as has been widely reported, is having execution teams now employing a low-pressure saline drip to test whether a vein being used for the lethal injection is open & continues to be viable, as opposed to a high-pressure syringe injection which had been used. Also advised is that it be iterated that there was no requirement to complete an execution within a certain time frame.
“A lot of people want to debate the death penalty,” said Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Corrections Director Terry Collins. “This wasn’t an issue of the death penalty or the lethal injection process in Ohio. It was about an isolated problem with the application of the death penalty, the statute, and the responsibilities of this department in enforcing the law.”
Relatives of Joseph Clark had an autopsy performed, and an article posted by the Toledo Blade yesterday reported their attorney’s feeling that “important questions were sidestepped by the internal review” and further litigation might be expected.
Also, pending in District Court is a suit by The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio over how much of an execution should be permitted to be viewed by witnesses. ( Complaint)
Under the direction of the Governor, following unexpected problems with the execution of Joseph Clark on May 2, 2006, a meeting was convened on May 15, 2006 with representatives from the Ohio Attorney General’s Office, Department of Rehabilitation & Corrections legal staff and Southern Ohio Correctional Facility personnel, to examine and determine what changes or refinements could be made in carrying out future executions. A second meeting was held on June 12th after which a list of five recommendations were returned to Governor Taft.
Among those recommendations, as has been widely reported, is having execution teams now employing a low-pressure saline drip to test whether a vein being used for the lethal injection is open & continues to be viable, as opposed to a high-pressure syringe injection which had been used. Also advised is that it be iterated that there was no requirement to complete an execution within a certain time frame.
“A lot of people want to debate the death penalty,” said Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Corrections Director Terry Collins. “This wasn’t an issue of the death penalty or the lethal injection process in Ohio. It was about an isolated problem with the application of the death penalty, the statute, and the responsibilities of this department in enforcing the law.”
Relatives of Joseph Clark had an autopsy performed, and an article posted by the Toledo Blade yesterday reported their attorney’s feeling that “important questions were sidestepped by the internal review” and further litigation might be expected.
Also, pending in District Court is a suit by The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio over how much of an execution should be permitted to be viewed by witnesses. ( Complaint)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)