What Does Senate Bill 256 Do?
Learn exactly what SB 256 does here.
Summary
Ohio Revised Code citations are in red.
The Teen Killer Empowerment Act bans life without parole (LWOP) for all juvenile offenders except those who purposely kill three or more people. R.C. 2967.132(C)(D).
The Teen Killer Empowerment Act mandates parole eligibility after no more than 25 years for juveniles who commit a single homicide that does not involve terrorism. R.C. 2967.132(C)(2).
The Teen Killer Empowerment Act mandates parole eligibility after no more than 30 years for juveniles who commit two homicides or who commit aggravated murder, murder, or any first degree felony during the course of a terrorist attack. R.C. 2909.24(B)(6). R.C. 2909.24(I).
The Teen Killer Empowerment Act allows LWOP for juveniles who are responsible for purposely committing at least three homicides. R.C. 2967.132(D).
The Teen Killer Empowerment Act mandates parole eligibility after no more than 18 years for juveniles who commit non-homicide offenses. R.C. 2967.132(C)(1).
The Teen Killer Empowerment Act requires that juvenile offenders be eligible for parole every five years. 2967.132(G).
The Teen Killer Empowerment Act applies retroactively. R.C. 2967.132(B).
The Teen Killer Empowerment Act Is Unjust And Poorly Written
The TKEA is poorly written and requires sentences that are lenient when compared to some crimes.
The TKEA On Non-homicide Offenders
The TKEA mandates parole eligibility for all juvenile non-homicide offenders after no more than 18 years of incarceration, regardless of the number of people victimized or the severity of the victimization.
Under the TKEA, a juvenile non-homicide offender is entitled to parole hearings after 18 years regardless of the number of people they victimize. For example, a juvenile serial rapist could rape five, 10, or 20 people, but is still entitled to parole hearings after 18 years. A juvenile could shoot and attempt to murder 20 people, but if they don’t succeed in actually killing any of their victims, they are required to be eligible for parole after no more than 18 years.
Under SB 256, a juvenile non-homicide criminal is still entitled to parole hearings after 18 years, even if they destroy someone’s life by inflicting permanent, disfiguring, and disabling physical injuries or devastating emotional trauma. While the victims live lives of pain and suffering, the criminals can move on when they are in their early to mid-30s. This is unfair.
The TKEA On Homicide Offenders
The TKEA mandates that juvenile killers be eligible for parole after no more than 25 years if they kill one person and after no more than 30 years if they kill two people. In order for LWOP to be considered, a juvenile must kill at least three people–and they must be the principal offender in all three killings.
The Injustice
For some murders, 25 or 30 years in prison is lenient when compared to the crimes and denies justice. Such sentences allow evil murderers to live decades of a free life, while their murder victims are dead and surviving victims live lives of pain.
For example, if Jacob Larosa, who was 15 when he murdered Marie Belcastro, were to be paroled after 25 years, he would be allowed to live a free and normal life from age 40 onward.
The TJ Lane Exception
The triple murder exception was added in for the sole purpose of preventing Chardon High School shooter T.J. Lane from being eligible for parole–due to the notoriety of Lane’s crime, making him eligible for parole would be politically unpopular.
The portion of the TKEA that deals with homicides is poorly written and makes little sense from both a legal and moral perspective.
The multiple homicide exceptions only apply to those who actually kill two or more people. They do not apply to attempted murders. If a juvenile were to go on a shooting rampage and shoot 20 people, injuring 19 and killing one, they would be entitled to parole hearings after 25 years. If this juvenile mass shooter were to kill two people and injure 18 people, they would be entitled to parole hearings after 30 years. If this juvenile were to shoot and injure 20 people and kill no one, they would be entitled to parole eligibility after only 18 years.
The murders of Joscelyn and Johnny Jones show the absurdity of the Teen Killer Empowerment Act’s triple homicide exception. Devontae Brown, 16, raped and murdered Joscelyn and murdered her brother Johnny. He also attempted to murder Joscelyn and Johnny’s mother Josiane, stabbing her 17 times. Under SB 256, Brown’s LWOP sentence was undone and he was made eligible for parole after 30 years. (Though Brown died in 2021, his death doesn’t diminish the ridiculousness of the TKEA’s impact on his sentence).
The multiple homicide exceptions only apply when the killer is the principal offender in each murder. They do not apply to accomplices. Under the TKEA, a juvenile could actively participate in the murders of five, 10, 20, 30, or 100 people but if they were not the principal offender in at least three murders they cannot get LWOP.
Let’s say that several people, including a 17-year-old, plan and engage in a murder spree involving several bombings and shootings. The 17-year-old shoots 20 people in a movie theater, killing two and injuring 18. He also assists in killing 30 people in a mall with a bomb. In total, he is the principal offender in two murders and 18 attempted murders and an accomplice to 30 murders. Most people would say that this mass murderer should never leave prison. But because of SB 256, such an offender would be required to be eligible for parole after no more than 30 years, even though he was involved in 32 murders and victimized a total of 50 people. This makes no sense from a legal standpoint or a moral standpoint.
Let’s say that the murder team in our scenario includes a 15-year-old. This 15-year-old isn’t involved in the mall bombing or in the 17-year-old’s movie theater shooting. The 15-year-old goes on a separate shooting spree at a school, killing three and injuring one. SB 256 allows the 15-year-old to receive a longer sentence than the 17-year-old even though he is responsible for fewer attempted murders and fewer murders than the 17-year-old.
This is ridiculous.
Our coalition believes that LWOP should be available for both the 17-year-old murderer and the 15-year-old murderer. Let’s forget about the 15-year-old for a second. The fact that the 17-year-old who murdered 32 people and injured 18 people cannot get LWOP is absurd. Just absurd.
And what happens if we cannot determine who the principal offender in several murders is? Consider the following example. Murderer 1 and murderer 2 are both 17-year-old-juveniles. They invade a home belonging to a family of six. During the course of the home-invasion, they kill all six members of the family, including four children. Both confess to the murders. But they each claim that the other one was the mastermind behind the crimes. A jury is able to determine that both murderer 1 and murderer 2 are responsible for the murders. But the jury cannot determine who the principal offender is in any of the six murders. Both murderer 1 and murderer 2 could be the principal offenders in every murder. Or maybe murderer 1 is the principal offender in each murder while murderer 2 is an accomplice to each murder. Or vice versa. Because we cannot determine that murderer 1 was the principal offender in at least three of the murders, he cannot get LWOP. Because we cannot determine that murderer 2 was the principal offender in at least three murders, he cannot get LWOP. We end up with a scenario where two 17-year-olds murder six people, including four children, yet neither of the mass murderers can receive LWOP.
You see what we mean when we say SB 256 is poorly written?
Aren’t One Or Two Murder Victims Enough?
Other than the triple murder exception, the TKEA makes no exceptions allowing LWOP for murders involving other aggravating factors. We believe that a juvenile who is the principal offender in less than three murders may deserve LWOP if their crimes involve other aggravating factors. Under Ohio law, aggravated murder can consist of: a murder involving prior calculation and design; a murder committed during the course of the commission of kidnapping, rape, aggravated arson, arson, aggravated robbery, robbery, aggravated burglary, burglary, trespass in a habitation when a person is present or likely to be present, terrorism, or escape; a purposeful killing of a child under age 13; a purposeful killing by one who is under detention as the result of a prior felony conviction or who breaks that detention; a purposeful killing of a law enforcement officer; or a purposeful killing of a military member or first responder.
Our coalition believes that LWOP may be an appropriate sentence for juvenile offenders who commit a single murder or two murders.
The law needs to consider factors other than a killer’s age and their number of dead victims. Whether or not a murder was premeditated, committed during the course of other felonies, or involved a police officer or child victim, for example, should be considered.
Let’s say a 17-year-old convict escapes jail, invades a home, robs the residents at gunpoint, kidnaps a 10-year-old child from the home, sets the home on fire in an attempt to kill the remaining occupants, and rapes and murders a 10-year-old child all as part of a calculated plan. He then murders a police officer while on the run. The crime spree involves numerous aggravating factors.
- The killer was under detention for a conviction and escaped
- He committed aggravated burglary
- He committed aggravated robbery
- He committed aggravated arson
- He committed kidnapping
- He committed rape
- His crimes involved prior calculation and design
- He murdered two people
- He murdered a child younger than 13
- He murdered a police officer
- He attempted to murder several additional people
Under SB 256, such a killer would be required to be eligible for parole every five years. Because, to put it bluntly, he didn’t kill enough people.
To say that life without parole is a disproportionate sentence for a murderer like this is asinine and appalling.
And juveniles do commit crimes with this level of barbarity. See here.
The crimes committed by those whose sentences are reduced by SB 256 are no less horrific than the crimes committed by Lane. The only difference is that Lane’s crimes garnered a significant amount of national media coverage. What message does the T.J. Lane exception send to victims? That we will only be considered if our cases get enough media attention? By including an exception only for the most notorious criminal, Ohio lawmakers have devalued victims of less well-known crimes. This is an inappropriate way to write the law.
If lawmakers are willing to allow T.J. Lane to live in prison without ever having a chance to be released, then they should be willing to let equally horrific criminals live in prison without a chance for release.
Apparently, when Devonere Simmonds murdered two people and attempted to murder two others during a crime spree, that wasn’t enough to warrant LWOP. Even though the judge who heard all the evidence sentenced the double murderer to LWOP, SB 256 has reduced his sentence to 30 years to life. Simmonds’s crimes just weren’t severe enough for his LWOP sentence to be maintained. When Clint Dickens kidnapped, robbed, raped, and murdered two young women, that just wasn’t horrific enough–his 95-year-to-life sentence had to be reduced to 30 years to life.
A double murder is a severe enough crime to warrant LWOP. So is a single aggravated murder. To claim otherwise demeans these crimes and devalues victims.