A bill named after a slain Ohio deputy has cleared the state House and now sits before the Ohio Senate, where lawmakers must decide whether to permanently eliminate parole as a sentencing option for anyone convicted of intentionally killing a police officer, first responder, prosecutor, or member of the military.
Ohio House Bill 372, the Larry Henderson Act, passed the full House in March after unanimously clearing the House Judiciary Committee in four hearings. The Ohio Senate Judiciary Committee has held two hearings on the measure but has not yet voted on whether to advance it, cleveland.com reported.
The bill carries 51 co-sponsors, the vast majority of them Republicans, and has drawn proponent testimony from the Fraternal Order of Police of Ohio, the Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association, the Ohio Association of Chiefs of Police, the National Police Association, the Ohio Association of Professional Fire Fighters, and Northern Ohio Fire Fighters. Opposition has come from the Ohio Public Defender's Office and the Sisters of Charity of Cincinnati.
Under current Ohio law, specifically Ohio Revised Code Section 2903.01, the aggravated murder of a police officer, prosecutor, first responder, or military member can already carry the death penalty or life imprisonment with or without parole. The operative word is "or." Judges and juries retain the discretion to impose a sentence that includes the possibility of parole. HB 372 would close that door entirely and expand the statute's coverage to corrections officers.
The killing that launched the bill
The legislation bears the name of Larry Henderson, a retired Hamilton County Sheriff's Office deputy who served 33 years before stepping back into special-duty assignments for the agency. Henderson was directing traffic when, prosecutors say, Rodney Hinton Jr. drove onto a sidewalk and struck him fatally, targeting Henderson because of the uniform he wore.
Hinton Jr. has pleaded not guilty to aggravated murder by reason of insanity. His trial date has been postponed, and he has not been convicted.
The backstory adds a grim layer. Earlier that same day, police had shown Hinton Jr. body camera footage of the fatal police shooting of his 18-year-old son, Ryan Hinton. Investigators said Ryan Hinton fled the scene of a stolen vehicle investigation and pointed a loaded handgun at officers during a pursuit. An officer shot and killed him. Hamilton County Prosecutor Connie Pillich determined the use of force was legally justified.
Rep. Cindy Abrams of Harrison, a former Cincinnati police officer and co-sponsor of HB 372, framed the bill in direct terms:
"One man made the decision to hit and kill Deputy Henderson because of the uniform he was wearing. Ohio's law enforcement, first responders and military members risk their lives daily for our safety. It is our turn to prove to them that we have their backs."
Her co-sponsor, Rep. Phil Plummer of Dayton, a former Montgomery County sheriff, went further in describing the stakes.
"When someone murders a peace officer, they are not only taking an innocent life but rather they are attempting to intimidate our entire system of justice and public safety. That demands the strongest possible penalty."
A widow, five children, and a Statehouse plea
Lori Henderson, Larry's widow, traveled to Columbus to address lawmakers directly. Every court hearing in her husband's case, she told legislators, has reopened the wound.
"The thought of the person responsible for Larry's death being given another chance to walk free and fighting to prevent that is cruel and unfair to the families of the victims who are forced to endure this process over and over again."
Henderson's five children submitted a joint statement that captured what it means to grow up as the child of a law enforcement officer, and then to lose one.
"As young children, the five of us understood that our father's job was dangerous and put him at risk while protecting our community. It was our worst nightmare that came true the day when we each received the call that he was fatally struck and to get to the hospital as soon as we could if we wanted to say our last goodbyes."
Lt. Timothy Nash of the Hamilton County Sheriff's Office, who served alongside Henderson for nearly three decades, told lawmakers that the possibility of perpetrators walking free "makes a hard job even harder." That sentiment carries particular weight in a state where, as the Fraternal Order of Police of Ohio's Jay McDonald testified, four officers had been killed in the line of duty in a single year while at least 14 others had been shot.
The toll is not abstract. Five Ohio officers and deputies were named in connection with the bill's push: Henderson, Cleveland Police Officer Jamieson Ritter, Euclid Officer Jacob Derbin, Morrow County Deputy Daniel Sherrer, and Lorain Officer Phillip Wagner, all killed within roughly a year of one another. The FBI's most recent national data confirms that assaults on law enforcement have reached a decade high, making the Ohio numbers part of a broader and deeply troubling pattern.
The Ritter family's case
Jon and Karen Ritter, the parents of Cleveland Police Officer Jamieson Ritter, also testified in support of HB 372. Their son was killed in July 2024 while attempting to arrest a man accused of killing his grandmother. The suspect fatally shot Officer Ritter with a handgun.
Jon Ritter, himself a 28-year police officer, presented a chart comparing officer homicide rates in Ohio to states with what he characterized as strong deterrence laws. The document cited sources for its figures, though it did not explain the methodology behind its conclusions. Karen Ritter argued that Ohio's parole-eligible sentencing options "embolden criminals."
The case is a reminder that individuals convicted of attempting to kill police officers sometimes face consequences that fail to match the severity of their crimes, a gap the Henderson Act is designed to close in the most extreme cases.
The opposition's argument, and its limits
Two groups submitted formal opponent testimony. Zachary Miller, a legislative officer with the Ohio Public Defender's Office, raised the broadest legal objection, arguing the bill creates "a two-tiered standard for justice" by making punishment contingent on a victim's occupation. Miller warned that limiting sentences to death or life without parole would strip judges and juries of important discretion while expanding the number of costly capital cases. He also stated there is no evidence that harsher penalties discourage would-be offenders.
Mackenzie Doyle of the Sisters of Charity of Cincinnati took a different tack, urging lawmakers to consider what she described as the emotional trauma surrounding the police shooting of Hinton's son as a factor in any eventual sentencing:
"I do not believe he was in his right mind when he killed Larry, and I believe that both families have been through horrible damage and grief. Yet, I also believe that Rodney Hinton deserves reconciliation, just as the officer who took Ryan Hinton's life also deserves that chance. This bill would deny Rodney that ability."
That framing deserves scrutiny. The argument essentially asks the state to treat the killing of a law enforcement officer as a grief response, and to preserve the possibility of release for someone prosecutors say drove onto a sidewalk to target a man in uniform. Whatever sympathy one may have for a father who lost a son, the logic leads to a place where the deliberate murder of a cop becomes something less than what it is.
The Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association's Louis Tobin acknowledged that prosecutors generally oppose creating enhanced penalties for specific categories of victims. But his organization made an exception here, reasoning that attacks on law enforcement officers undermine the justice system itself. That distinction matters. Officers do not choose their victims; they respond to calls. The uniform makes them a target precisely because it represents the state's authority to enforce the law. Treating an attack on that authority the same as any other homicide misses the point.
Rep. D.J. Swearingen of Huron anticipated pushback from the ACLU, saying a representative from the organization would likely come "crawling in here saying why this is a bad bill." As of the most recent reporting, the ACLU had not formally challenged the legislation.
Where the bill goes next
The Senate Judiciary Committee has held its two hearings. No vote has been scheduled. Rep. Josh Williams of Sylvania has suggested expanding the bill to cover all elected officials, citing the growing threat of political violence. Rep. Plummer expressed full agreement with the idea, though the expansion has not yet been added to the legislation.
The bill's path through the House was decisive, unanimous at the committee level, strong on the floor. Whether the Senate moves with the same conviction will say something about how seriously Ohio's elected officials take the promise that the state stands behind the people who stand between the public and danger.
Courtrooms across the country continue to grapple with the question of how severely to punish the worst offenders. Juries in high-profile cases have broken down in tears confronting the evidence of what violent criminals do to their victims. And when sentences do come down, the question of whether they are strong enough to serve justice, and to deter the next attack, never fully goes away. Life sentences without parole remain one of the sharpest tools the system has.
Five Ohio families buried someone who wore the badge. The least the state can do is make sure the people responsible never walk free.
