What's next for Indiana's death penalty?

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Cost of Justice

Some in Indiana’s legal community say the death penalty system is broken and have dubbed it the state’s “other lottery” because it is so randomly imposed.

Authoritative voices on the topic say capital punishment is not effective in its current form, and it’s questionable whether the penalty is worth the cost. Change is needed, but no one has stepped up to implement that reform.

That means not much has changed in Indiana during the past 10 years. The system is stronger in some respects, such as requirements for legal representation and overall trends in wrongful convictions. But Indiana continues to struggle with the financial and economic tolls that imposition of the death penalty imposes.

The state has continued on a gradual decline in death sentences without anyone having to start the process toward controversial public policy revisions. But the conversation continues, and that could ultimately lead to change.

greg zoeller Zoeller

Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller has been trying to motivate discussion, starting with a criminal justice summit at Notre Dame Law School last November. That summit brought 75 prosecuting and defense attorneys, law professors, students, judges, and legislators together to explore the economic and financial aspects of capital punishment in the context of larger legal and philosophical questions.

“Capital punishment is one of those issues that no one ever wants to discuss and often goes unspoken, but it’s a tough issue that needs to be addressed,” Zoeller said. “We haven’t had a serious conversation in a number of years, and it’s time when you look at what’s happening nationwide on this. … Most agree from the summit that the system is broken, and there’s at least a general consensus that something needs to change.”

Understanding the problem

Proponents push for the death penalty to protect society from the “worst of the worst,” and they say life without parole isn’t an adequate alternative because it isn’t sufficient “justice” when compared to the crime. They add that some risk exists for that person to endanger society even while incarcerated.

Meanwhile, opponents and judges throughout the country note that the decision-making process often seems based more on emotions and retribution than what’s good for the legal system and public that must bear the cost. Data shows that it takes an average of 17 years to complete the appeal process on a death penalty case, and the likelihood of an execution occurring is about 5 percent. The price tag to complete a death penalty case is an average 38 percent more than a lifetime incarceration case.

As a result, death penalty filings have declined during the past 10 years as prosecutors are pursuing death sentences less often. Many states are examining whether they should have execution as an option, and some such as Illinois, Montana, and New Mexico have abolished the penalty in recent years.

“This just doesn’t make a whole lot of sense anymore, from a penal standpoint,” said Richard Dieter, executive director of the national Death Penalty Information Center that studies capital punishment. “If there was just one voice in the wilderness, it wouldn’t have as much sway. But because so many respectable legal community voices say it’s broken and something that often isn’t fixable, this reflects a bigger picture that needs attention. Discussion is good to some degree, but decisions have to be made.”

Where we stand

Indiana has not shown movement toward a change of policy, even though studies have occurred through the years. A comprehensive analysis in 2002 didn’t result in reform, nor did a review in 2007. In 2010 and 2011 lawmakers studied sentencing and its costs and implications, but no legislative action on the topic was taken.

Indianapolis attorney and law professor Joel Schumm chaired the American Bar Association task force in 2007 that recommended a moratorium on the death penalty in Indiana.

“There’s randomness to it, and that is still true,” he said, noting that some counties don’t pursue it for financial or other reasons while other prosecutors might have a different calculus and come to a different result. “It’s a difficult thing to explain to people because it’s so nuanced and that’s what makes this a complex issue. But beyond all of the justice and morality issues that are associated with capital punishment, you do have factors that can be measured and that’s what we have started at least recognizing. We still don’t seem ready to answer the question: Does it make sense from a public policy standpoint when you have this randomness?”

The 318-page ABA panel report said the state’s system is unfair and is known as Indiana’s “other lottery” because of its randomness. The group spent almost two years reviewing the state’s system, one of many multi-state examinations done by similar panels since the ABA began that process in 2001. The group determined Indiana has inadequate qualification standards for defense counsel, lacks adequate authority to review or assess the penalty’s use, has significant juror confusion on death penalty cases, and inappropriately uses the punishment on people with severe mental disability.

Randall Shepard Shepard

Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard praises the state’s evolution on capital punishment during the past two decades, pointing to both the creation of LWOP and Indiana Criminal Rule 24.

“Indiana was the second state in the country to create minimum standards for defense lawyers on these cases, and that made a dramatic difference in reliability and determinations that were necessary,” he said. “This rule puts Indiana in a better place than before.”

DNA use has become more common during the past decade and new procedures have been implemented concerning its use. Schumm says one of the most significant policy modifications came in 2009, but it wasn’t directed at capital punishment. In a 3-2 decision, the Indiana Supreme Court changed the state’s evidentiary rules and required law enforcement agencies to record their interrogations – a measure aimed at preventing wrongful convictions in general and something that legal experts agreed strengthened Indiana’s path to reformation on these issues.

Joel Schumm mug Schumm

That was a step forward, but unlike other states that have experienced higher trends in wrongful convictions, that isn’t something Indiana is overly concerned about, according to Schumm. The monetary aspects, representation, and decision-making are what seem to be the most pressing issues here, he said.

Members of the legal community and lawmakers who attended the Notre Dame summit aren’t convinced change is coming soon. Even Zoeller admits he doesn’t think Indiana has legislative interest in making death penalty law changes now, but he wants to continue the conversation.

“Even without a token moratorium, the greater self-imposed restraints are doing the same job,” Zoeller said. “We’ve improved the system remarkably since 1977 but have had a much more limited use recently. Where we go now is an open question: do we look at it from the economic reality of counties not being able to afford it, or the moral questions that are haunting us in pursuing that punishment?”

What’s next?

Two lawyer-legislators interested in this topic attended the summit – Sen. John Broden, D-South Bend, and Sen. Joe Zakas, R-Granger – and say that legislative support doesn’t exist for a death penalty moratorium or revocation, but lawmakers would likely be willing to look at how to help counties handle the costs.

zakas-joe-mug.jpg Zakas

“I’m certainly open to exploring this because the ability of a society to explore itself is a pretty important topic for me,” Zakas said. “I think that current laws are actually pretty well thought-out and have some good limitations. Some topics are difficult to define, and this died down in recent years but maybe it’s coming back.”

Zakas said he wouldn’t support abolishing the death penalty, and he is doubtful that other legislators would support that change.

“The ability of a society to defend itself is one of those basic principles that legislators are quite fond of,” he said.

At the criminal justice summit, participants made other suggestions for improving the state’s system. Rutgers University economics Professor Anne Morrison Piehl presented an academic study on the fiscal considerations of Indiana’s death penalty and suggested the state could develop stricter limitations on reimbursement for trial expenses, perhaps by limiting the number or type of expert witnesses, capping their fees, or developing more aggressive audit procedures after the fact.

Some say the expenses are justified to ensure an adequate defense at trial and on appeal, while others say reform is needed. But most agree cost is a key concern, according to Stan Levco, a former Posey County judge and Vanderburgh County prosecutor, and Clark County Prosecutor Steve Stewart, both considered experts on the death penalty.

“I think the present death penalty system that we have in Indiana is nearly broken,’ said Levco. “It’s almost at the point where it’s no longer viable, and unless we decrease the costs it’s not worth it.”

Revisions to CR 24 could be a way to tackle those costs, but changes could take years. The Indiana Public Defender Commission started establishing the rule in 1989 and used existing models from the ABA to draft a proposal for the Supreme Court’s consideration that following year, but it took another two years for the public comment and adoption process to be finalized.

The Indiana Prosecuting Attorneys Council has been studying potential reviews for CR 24 for more than a year, but the chief justice said nothing has been submitted to the Supreme Court.

While the state’s not perfect, Chief Justice Shepard said the state does a good job handling these incredibly complex and difficult cases compared to others across the country. That sentiment is echoed by other Hoosier jurists and attorneys who are considered state and national experts on death penalty cases.

“Likely, it’s the case that Indiana is well above the norm in assuring we get the right guy and a fair trial occurs with adequate counsel,” the chief justice said, noting that state public defender offices do not exist in many jurisdictions. “We see Indiana as a place that’s tough on crime and wants to make sure law enforcement and the legal community get it right.”•


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Applause, applause, applause ..... but, is this duty to serve the constitutional order not much more incumbent upon the State, whose only aim is to be pure and unadulterated justice, than defense counsel, who is also charged with gaining a result for a client? I agree both are responsible, but it seems to me that the government attorneys bear a burden much heavier than defense counsel .... "“I note, much as we did in Mechling v. State, 16 N.E.3d 1015 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied, that the attorneys representing the State and the defendant are both officers of the court and have a responsibility to correct any obvious errors at the time they are committed."

  2. Do I have to hire an attorney to get co-guardianship of my brother? My father has guardianship and my older sister was his co-guardian until this Dec 2014 when she passed and my father was me to go on as the co-guardian, but funds are limit and we need to get this process taken care of quickly as our fathers health isn't the greatest. So please advise me if there is anyway to do this our self or if it requires a lawyer? Thank you

  3. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  4. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  5. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)