The Death Penalty in the OSCE Area On 8 September 2011, Ohio announced that it would establish a task force to review the administration of the state’s death penalty.76 The task force, which comprises the Ohio Supreme Court and the state bar association, is examining current death penalty laws in Ohio and other states, the statistics on its application and the costs. In December 2011, the American Bar Association released a report on Kentucky’s use of the death penalty following a two-year study that looked at issues of fairness and accuracy in capital cases. The report stated that more than 60 per cent of all death penalty sentences since 1976 have been overturned on appeal by Kentucky or federal courts as a result of significant legal errors. Subsequently, in March 2012, eleven current and former Kentucky prosecutors endorsed the recommendations made in the report. Among the recommendations was the adoption of legislation exempting the severely mentally ill from the death penalty.77 Kentucky has not implemented this recommendation, despite the submission of a bill on the issue of exempting the severely mentally ill.78 In December 2011, a study was released by Michigan State University analyzing the exercise of peremptory challenges during jury selection in trials of North Carolina’s death row inmates.79 This study will be discussed in more detail in the non-discrimination section. The Pennsylvania Senate passed a resolution in December 2011 requiring a task force to conduct a study into the state’s use of the death penalty.80 The study would focus on issues of fairness, equality and the costs of capital punishment. In the United States, an argument frequently cited in support of capital punishment is that the threat of execution influences criminal behavior more effectively than imprisonment. In April 2012, the National Research Council released a report, which stated that studies claiming that the death penalty has a deterrent effect on homicide rates are “flawed” and should not be used when making policy decisions. 81 76  “Ohio justices, lawyers task force to study death penalty”, The Raw Story, 8 September 2011, <http://www.rawstory. com/rs/2011/09/08/ohio-justices-lawyer-task-force-to-study-death-penalty/>. 77  “Kentucky Prosecutors Call for Death Penalty Reform”, Death Penalty Information Center, 7 March 2012, <http:// www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/new-voices-kentucky-prosecutors-call-death-penalty-reform>. 78  “Life and death: individuals impacted by capital punishment push for reform”, Witness to Innocence, 12 June 2012, <http://www.witnesstoinnocence.org/view_news.php?Leo-Weekly-Life-and-death-Individuals-impacted-by-capital-punishment-push-for-reform-290>. 79  The study considered the trials of all those on North Carolina’s death row as of 1 July 2010, <http://digitalcommons. law.msu.edu/facpubs/331/>. 80  “Pennsylvania Senate initiates study of State’s death penalty”, Death Penalty Information Center, 2 January 2012, <http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/pennsylvania-senate-initiates-study-states-death-penalty>. 81  D. Nagin and J. Pepper, “Deterrence and the Death Penalty,” Committee on Law and Justice at the National Research Council, April 2012; D. Vergano, “NRC: Death penalty effect research ‘fundamentally flawed’,” USA Today, 18 April 2012, <http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-national-research-council-concludes-deterrence-studiesshould-not-influence-death-penalty>. 16