After spend­ing more than a year study­ing Oklahoma​’s cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment prac­tices, the Oklahoma Death Penalty Review Commission has unan­i­mous­ly rec­om­mend­ed that the state extend its cur­rent mora­to­ri­um on exe­cu­tions ​“until sig­nif­i­cant reforms are accom­plished.” The bipar­ti­san com­mis­sion issued its report on April 25, 2017, reach­ing what it char­ac­ter­ized as ​“dis­turb­ing” find­ings that ​“led Commission mem­bers to ques­tion whether the death penal­ty can be admin­is­tered in a way that ensures no inno­cent per­son is put to death.” The report con­tains rec­om­men­da­tions for more than 40 reforms to vir­tu­al­ly all areas of Oklahoma’s death penal­ty sys­tem. Oklahoma has not car­ried out an exe­cu­tion since January 15, 2015, when the state used an unau­tho­rized drug to exe­cute Charles Warner. On October 16, 2015, lawyers for the state agreed to a fed­er­al court order bar­ring exe­cu­tions until at least five months after a new exe­cu­tion pro­to­col is in place. Warner’s exe­cu­tion also prompt­ed a grand jury inves­ti­ga­tion, which, like the Commission report, was high­ly crit­i­cal of Oklahoma’s cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment sys­tem. The Commission, whose eleven mem­bers includ­ed for­mer Oklahoma Governor Brad Henry, Judge Reta M. Stubhar of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, attor­neys, law pro­fes­sors, men­tal health pro­fes­sion­als, and oth­ers, exam­ined the death penal­ty process from arrest to exe­cu­tion. The report states, ​“Commission mem­bers agreed that, at a min­i­mum, those who are sen­tenced to death should receive this sen­tence only after a fair and impar­tial process that ensures they deserve the ulti­mate penal­ty of death. … Unfortunately, a review of the evi­dence demon­strates that the death penal­ty, even in Oklahoma, has not always been imposed and car­ried out fair­ly, con­sis­tent­ly, and humane­ly, as required by the fed­er­al and state con­sti­tu­tions. These short­com­ings have severe con­se­quences for the accused and their fam­i­lies, for vic­tims and their fam­i­lies, and for all cit­i­zens of Oklahoma.” In par­tic­u­lar, the Commission raised con­cerns about wrong­ful con­vic­tions, focus­ing 10 rec­om­men­da­tions on the issue of ​“inno­cence pro­tec­tion.” Other rec­om­men­da­tions dealt with foren­sic prac­tices, train­ing of pros­e­cu­tors, defense attor­neys, and judges, deter­mi­na­tions of death eli­gi­bil­i­ty, the clemen­cy process, and the execution protocol.

(S. Vincent, ​“Keep exe­cu­tions on hold ​‘until sig­nif­i­cant reforms are accom­plished,’ Oklahoma Death Penalty Review Commission says,” Tulsa World, April 25, 2017; ​“The Report of the Oklahoma Death Penalty Review Commission,” Oklahoma Death Penalty Review Commission, April 25, 2017.) See Studies and Oklahoma.

Citation Guide