Jim Petro (pictured), former Attorney General of Ohio, strongly supported the death penalty as a state legislator, believed the state would save money because of the death penalty, and that it would act as a deterrent. But, he recently said, "Neither of those things have occurred, so I ask myself, 'Why would I vote for it again?' I don't think I would. I don't think the law has done anything to benefit society and us. It's cheaper and, in my view, sometimes a mistake can be made, so perhaps we are better off with life without parole." He added, "We are probably safer, better and smarter to not have a death penalty." Many of Petro's concerns are in his book, False Justice: Eight Myths that Convict the Innocent, in which he underscores the risks of mistake and identifies flaws in how police and prosecutors have handled capital cases. He also noted that many prosecutors recognize these problems: "I would bet certainly well over half the prosecutors in the country looking at this book would ultimately agree with most of the issues," he said.
Frank Thompson, a former state penitentiary warden, has recently joined efforts to repeal the death penalty in Oregon. Thompson, who supervised the only two executions carried out in the state since capital punishment was reinstated in 1984, described the death penalty as a “failed public policy," and said that “capital punishment fails terribly in meeting any evidence-based outcomes.” Thompson, who recently joined the Advisory Council of Oregonians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty, said the state cannot afford the death penalty during these tough economic times when Oregon is threatening layoffs and cuts in public services. He estimated the cost of maintaining the state’s death penalty system as $9-20 million each year, and said he supports life without parole as an alternative to capital punishment. In November 2011, Governor John Kitzhaber declared a moratorium on all executions in the state, calling on legislators to bring potential death penalty reforms to the 2013 legislative session and to consider alternatives to the death penalty. Thompson remarked, "I think taking another look at capital punishment is very timely, and with the governor's decision it really moves it to the forefront." 
The Pennsylvania Senate recently passed a resolution that will result in a study of the state’s death penalty and look at issues of fairness, equality and costs of a punishment that is rarely carried out in the state. The resolution was sponsored by Sen. Stewart Greenleaf, a Republican, who said, “Questions are frequently raised regarding the costs, deterrent effect and appropriateness of capital punishment. I believe that we need to answer these questions." Since Pennsylvania reinstated the death penalty in 1978, only three people have been executed, all of whom waived their rights to appeal their sentences. The last execution in the state was held 13 years ago. Over 200 remain on death row. David Rose, a retired corrections officer, said he has observed inequalities within the system that prevent defendants from receiving fair trials. Rose said, "When you work in corrections, you realize the guiltiest people aren't the ones on death row.” The study committee, which will be composed of four senators and a team of advisers, has not been formed yet. It can take two years to complete its work.
New Hampshire state representative Phil Greazzo, who has proposed a broad expansion of the death penalty, will also offer an alternative bill to abolish the death penalty entirely because it is so unfair. Rep. Greazzo, a Republican, previously introduced legislation to expand the state's death penalty to include any intentional murder, maintaining the law should protect all people equally. But he said he would rather have lawmakers do away with the punishment altogether than maintain the status quo. The current law restricts the death penalty to certain murders, such as killing a law enforcement officer. Greazzo pointed out the inconsistencies of the current statute saying, “If I hire someone to commit a murder for me, that would bring the death penalty. If I did it myself, there's no death penalty. So the law is a little bit askew in fairness.” In proposing both the expansion and repeal bills, Greazzo intended for lawmakers to consider a full range of possibilities for improving the current law. He said, “Why not just have the argument once? It's sort of a waste of time to have the conversation for years.”
On December 19, Dallas District Court Judge Teresa Hawthorne held that Texas’s death penalty was unconstitutional because it could lead to death sentences that were arbitrarily sought and obtained. In ruling in favor of a defense motion, Judge Hawthorne acknowledged that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and other courts have upheld the statute, but judges still have the obligation to review the law based on its current practice. The judge found parts of Texas's statute regarding findings of future dangerousness and the definition of mitigating evidence to be vague or misleading. The prosecution has filed a motion to recuse Judge Hawthorne from the case. In 2010, another Texas judge, 
