When my sister-in-law, a Dayton resident, was serving as my mother-in-law’s primary caregiver, she dealt with incompetency regarding her care. I immediately contacted the Ombudsman’s office, who provided us with options to pursue. The timely information was just what I needed to help my sister-in-law advocate for her mother.
I turn to the Ombudsman’s office when dealing with such matters because it’s a recognized independent agency that delivers results. My youngest brother, also a resident of Dayton, is in a long-term health facility. As I was researching institutions, I reviewed the Ombudsman’s information to check on the reputation of certain facilities – learning which facilities to avoid.
I let the administrators know that I had been in touch with the Ombudsman’s office for the facilities I visited. Their reactions and responses helped me see that the administrators realized the office’s power, influence, and respect.
The Ombudsman’s office doesn’t only investigate complaints; the agency uses the data they collect about institutions to recommend and advocate for systemic practices and policies.
At least 60% of the people who contact the Ombudsman’s office are from the City of Dayton. My immediate concern is for the residents that know and trust the work of the Ombudsman’s office. Where will they turn?
As the City remains focused on transparency and citizen involvement, I encourage the leaders to reconsider the decision to terminate the Ombudsman’s funding and transfer these services to the Mediation Center. I understand the budgetary challenges brought on by the pandemic. However, while you focus on the bottom line, Dayton residents like my sister-in-law, mother-in-law, and brother will ultimately pay the price.
- Mary E. Tyler, Englewood
Former Justice Stratton writes in her op-ed about the recently enacted Senate Bill 256 to “set the record straight.” She begins her article by stating that “In 2010 and 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that sentencing juveniles to life without parole violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment” and that “In 2016, the Ohio Supreme Court followed suit.” That statement is legally false. In 2010, in Graham v. Florida the U.S. Supreme Court banned life without parole for non-homicide offenders and in 2012, in Miller v. Alabama, they banned mandatory life without parole sentences. The Ohio Supreme Court banned life without parole for non-homicide offenses in 2016 in State v. Moore.
Life without parole sentences for juvenile homicide offenders remain constitutional. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court said earlier this year in a case called Jones v. Mississippi, where the question before the court was whether the 8th amendment requires a court to find permanent incorrigibility before it can impose life without parole on a juvenile, that such a finding was not necessary and that in fact “a discretionary sentencing system is both constitutionally necessary and constitutionally sufficient to impose a sentence of life without parole on a defendant who committed homicide when they were under 18.”
Misstatements of the law by people with an aura of legal authority were a big reason SB 256 was enacted. It is these misstatements and the continuation of them in defense of this constitutionally unnecessary law that do a disservice to your readers and all Ohio voters.
- Louis Tobin, executive director of the Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association