Abstract
This Article advocates for an amendment to the statutory provisions that make up Ohio’s indefinite sentencing scheme to better protect offender’s constitutional rights. Through an analysis of the Reagan Tokes Law and the Ohio Supreme Court’s ruling in State v. Hacker, this Article traces the evolution of Ohio’s indefinite sentencing framework, which was reinstated in 2019. It contrasts the current scheme with the previously invalidated, but very similar, Bad Time Law, which was struck down in 2000 for violating the separation of powers clause and due process rights. While the Reagan Tokes Law emerged from concerns for public safety and rehabilitation, it has faced constitutional scrutiny regarding its procedural protection. Although the Supreme Court of Ohio upheld its constitutionality in State v. Hacker, Justice Brunner’s dissent highlights critical due process concerns, including inadequate notice and the absence of the right to counsel during hearings that could extend an offender’s restriction of their physical liberty beyond their presumed release date. To address these issues, this Article proposes legislative amendments to improve compliance with procedural due process, recommending the adoption of procedural safeguards akin to those implemented in other states. These include clear notification of hearings to offenders, definitions of ambiguous legal terminology, and fair hearing processes. Ultimately, this Article emphasizes the need for reforms that strengthen offenders’ rights within Ohio’s indeterminate sentencing framework, thereby promoting both accountability and the protection of constitutional liberties.
Recommended Citation
Sophie M. Piteo,
Improper Indeterminate Incarceration: Navigating the Constitutional Quandaries of the Reagan Tokes Law's Powers and Procedures,
73 Clev. St. L. Rev.
215
(2024)
available at https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/clevstlrev/vol73/iss1/15