Email this page

Ohio Criminal Justice Program

Issues

Death Penalty

The Ohio Criminal Justice Program is an extremely active partner in Ohioans to Stop Executions. The views of the members that underlie that purpose are many but can be summarized in two broad categories of opposition, 1) a moral commitment to life that precludes the purposeful killing of any human being and\or, 2) recognition that the death penalty, as it is being implemented in Ohio, is not fair, fails to serve its legal purposes, and is overwhelmingly imposed on indigent, minority, underprivileged and disadvantaged members of society.

Solitary Confinement

AFSC has a decades long history of opposing the use of extended solitary confinement. In Ohio, a supermaximum security prison in Youngstown, Ohio is composed exclusively of small cells designed to hold human beings nearly 24 hours a day for indefinite periods of time. The Ohio Criminal Justice Program opposes this facility as well as extended solitary confinement of youth.

The Supermax Prison Document Database includes

• Transcripts of court hearings regarding death row transfer to the supermax
• The TRO decision in the death row transfer case
• AFSC publications regarding supermax prisons.

Voting Rights

Ohioans who are not in prison have the right to vote. If they were convicted of a felony after registering to vote, they can simply re-register after being released and/or granted probation or parole.

Human Rights and Prisoners

Analysis

• See generally, AFSC Prison Watch commentary on human rights abuses in prisons
  • Correlation of Prisoners' Issues and Conditions to International Covenants/Treaties: An AFSC Resource Guide
  • Commission on Safety and Abuse in America’s Prisons, Bonnie Kerness, 7/19-20/2005, Public Hearing (pdf)
  • Iraqi Prisoners Abuses, Bonnie Kerness, 5/6/2004, Star Ledger op-ed piece (pdf)
  • The Prison Inside the Prison: Control Units, Supermax Prisons, and Devices of Torture, Rachel Kamel & Bonnie Kerness, 2003 (pdf)
  • Torture in U.S. Prisons, Bonnie Kerness & Masai Ehehosi, edited by Julia Lutsky, Fall 2001 (pdf)
  • Prison Sketch Book, Todd (Hyung-Rae) Tarselli
  • Prison Sketch Book II, Todd (Hyung-Rae) Tarselli
  • Survivors' Manual, Nov. 1997 (pdf)
  • Prison Gang Workshop, Bonnie Kerness, 11/3/2000 (pdf)
• See generally, Pace Law Review Symposium on Prison Reform
  • Using International Human Rights Laws and Standards for U.S. Prison Reform, Alvin J. Bronstein and Jenni Gainsborough
  • Prison Reform Efforts Around the World: The Role of Prison Administrators, Andrew Coyle
  • Prison Reform and the Power of Ideas: Building Political Will, Baroness Vivien Stern
• Human Rights Watch, Prisons
• Amnesty International
• The U.S. Death Penalty and International Law: U.S. Compliance with the Torture and Race Conventions, Richard C. Dieter, Esq. Executive Director, Death Penalty Information Center
• Human Rights and Wrongs in Our Own Backyard:
  Incorporating International Human Rights Protections Under Domestic Civil Rights Law—A Case Study of Women in United States Prisons, Martin A. Geer

Key Cases

• Detainees of Brooklyn House of Detention for Men v. Malcolm,
  520 F.2d 392 (2d Cir. 1975) (Inmates at two correctional facilities in New York filed civil rights actions against the correctional officers for cruel and unusual punishment.  The inmates alleged that the overcrowding in the facilities led to inhumane and unsanitary conditions, such as eating on the toilet and increased aggressive tendencies.  The Court of Appeals found that the double-bunking of inmates in the small cells did constitute cruel and unusual punishment.  The court addressed the overcrowding and double bunking in part by noting the minimum standards for cells set forth by the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners *
  • Pretrial detainees "shall sleep singly in separate rooms, with the reservation of different local custom in respect of the climate."
• Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (An inmate filed suit against the prison physician and correctional officers alleging cruel and unusual punishment as a result of inadequate diagnosis and treatment.  The inmate sustained a back injury during a prison work assignment.  Doctors prescribed pain medicine, but the pain persisted.  The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals reinstatement of the complaint against the doctor but remanded the case against the correctional officers.  While the Court did not sustain part of the complaint, the Court noted that most authorities on minimum prison standards set forth the same standards of decency.  The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules was among the authorities cited.)*
  • It is noteworthy that this case was filed by the prisoner himself, handwritten, though it seems unlikely, based on the court's description of the complaint, that the prisoner briefed the court on the Standard Minimum Rules. They nonetheless receive just a passing mention, midway through the decision, and their seemingly tepid authority is apparently intended to be increased by mention of the fact that they are contained in the U.S. Dept. of Justice' Law Enforcement Assistance Administration Compendium of Model Correctional Legislation and Standards (2d ed. 1975). Authors of this text include American Bar Association's Commission on Correctional Facilities and Services and the Council of State Governments.
• Lareau v. Manson, 651 F.2d 96 (2d Cir. 1981)(The Court of Appeals affirmed the portion of the District Court’s decision which found the prison conditions unconstitutional.  In so doing, the Court of Appeals addressed the district court’s use of international human rights law, noting two other courts' review of the same international agreements to indicate the acceptable minimums.)*
  • Capps v. Atiyeh, 495 F.Supp. 802 (2d Cir. 1980)
  • Chapman v. Rhodes, 434 F.Supp. 1007, 1021 (S.D.Ohio 1977), aff'd, 624 F.2d 1099 (6th Cir.), cert. granted, --- U.S. ----, 101 S.Ct. 353, 66 L.Ed.2d 214 (1980)
  • Also cites Estelle v. Gamble, above.
  • Pre-trial prisoners and convicted prisoners were double celled in small cells, and in some cases sleeping in groups in day rooms on mattresses on the floor.
  • Note the stinging dissent by Judge Friendly:  “While it is salutary that organizations that devote their time to the study of prisons often conclude their efforts by proposing standards designed to improve them, it does not follow that such standards can be relied upon to determine the constitutional requirements to which every state in the nation must immediately conform even though the conditions actually prevailing in most of the nation's prisons do not come near to meeting them.
• Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002). (Execution of the mentally retarded is unconstitutional, stating that "within the world community, the imposition of the death penalty for crimes committed by mentally retarded offenders is overhwelmingly disapproved").
• Roper v. Simmons, 125 S.Ct. 1183 (2005) . (Execution of people who were juveniles at the time of the murder, where Missouri and and US Supreme Courts both referenced Article 37(a) of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child).
  • Links to respondents' and amicus briefs (many citing human rights arguments): American Bar Association and Criminal Justice Reform Education Fund
• Kane v. Winn, 319 F. Supp. 2d 162 (D. Mass. 2004) (Includes extensive analysis of sources of international law and its applicability in U.S. Courts, especially with regard to prisoners' rights).

*Case summary source: National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty “Fact Sheet:  U.S. Federal and State Case Law Asserting Economic and Social Rights as Human Rights”

UN Training Materials: No. 11  Training Package for Prison Officials**

• Human Rights and Prisons - A Manual on Human Rights Training for Prison Officials: Arabic | English | Spanish | Russian
• No. 11/Add. 1 Human Rights and Prisons - A Compilation of International Human Rights Instruments concerning the Administration of Justice: Arabic l Chinese l English l Russian
• No. 11/Add. 2 Human Rights and Prisons - A Trainer’s Guide on Human Rights Training for Prison Officials: Arabic l English | Russian
• No. 11/Add. 3 Human Rights and Prisons - A Pocket Book of International Human Rights Standards for Prison Officials: Arabic l Chinese l English l French l Spanish | Russian

**Write to publications@ohchr.org if you would like to receive an e-mail when new publications become available. E-mail: mabdelazim@ohchr.org to receive free hard copies.

^ Top of page