To Chairman Thomas, Vice Chair Mathews, Ranking Member Synenberg, and members of the House Judiciary Committee, thank you for this opportunity to provide opponent testimony on House Bill 338.
As this committee knows, HB 338 is a direct response to the brutal and senseless killing of a corrections officer at Ross Correctional Institution in December 2024. As was expressed via sponsor testimony, HB 338 “will reform Ohio’s prisons and make them a much safer environment to work.”
However, HB 338 contains numerous provisions appearing to have nothing to do with this killing, nor do we predict they will make Ohio’s prisons safer. Ohio is already one of the very top incarcerators of people on the entire planet and HB 338 further rachets the punitive aspects of prisons at the expense of rehabilitation, a purported, but often ignored, goal of prisons in our state.
More specifically, House Bill 338:
- Eliminates all higher education programs at all higher security prisons (Lines #2330-2331);
- Bans participation in vocational programs at higher security programs for anyone who has violated any conduct rules during the previous year (Lines #2365-2371)
- Requires all visitations at higher security prisons to be no contact (Lines #2309-2310)
- Bans individual use of tablets at higher security prisons and for those in restrictive housing (Lines #2346-2350)
- Requires DRC to create and maintain a public registry of those who commit any sexual offenses while in prison, publish all the data involved regarding an offense on the DRC website, and keep all that data posted for ten years after the offender’s final discharge (Lines#2394-2398, 2403-2406, 2410-2412)
Still unknown is any relationship between any of the above provisions and making Ohio’s prisons safer and preventing any future killings. Indeed, the more likely outcome is people exiting Ohio’s prison system less equipped to adjust to outside life, find employment, and keep themselves out of further trouble.
In addition, HB 338 requires these changes and many more with apparently zero data discussed, received, or requested by this committee regarding the current prevalence of problems HB 338 addresses or their predicted impacts once enacted into law.
That is, how often is violence targeted by HB 338 committed against prison staff? How often do people get caught smuggling contraband into prisons (and how often is it the result of prison staff, not visitors)? What is the prevalence of prison staff being assaulted by, or threatened with, the throwing of and exposure to bodily substances?
We understand some of you may be unbothered by this list of changes and sentencing enhancements found in HB 338. Nonetheless, these changes will still impact Ohio’s prison population and the capacities of individual prisons (as well as our youth system). After all, that is what HB 338 is designed to accomplish. This is especially relevant because Ohio’s prison system is over capacity and has been for decades.
Currently, the budget for the Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections is over $2 billion per year. As this committee knows, there are also notable shortages and vacancies in prison staff across DRC. And, of course, the number one reason a person enters an Ohio prison continues to be for drug possession, as has been the case for many years now, in a state that continues to embrace and perpetuate the thoroughly failed War on Drugs.
Some past prison directors would use this combination of factors to point out to the General Assembly their belief we put too many people in Ohio’s prisons for the wrong reasons. That the strains and stresses this places on the prison system, and Ohio taxpayers, could be minimized via a combination of comprehensive efforts to reserve prison sentences for those who are truly dangerous and a threat to public safety.
Occasionally, some legislators would agree, leading to bills addressing these issues. Such rhetoric and responses now seem to be a distant memory. Whether or not one agrees with that assessment, it still appears HB 338 is on a path to become yet another law where it is never revealed, never asked, what impact these changes will have.
At a minimum, the ACLU of Ohio respectfully asks this committee to obtain and review this data, providing it even exists in all these instances, before rushing to pass yet another bill without examining and considering the financial, personal, and societal impact of these changes.
The ACLU of Ohio further advocates for a narrower version of HB 338 that directly addresses issues of serious prison violence instead of a kitchen sink bill that dilutes the focus on the stated goal of reducing that violence and, we believe, contains various changes that will prove to be counterproductive.
Making prisons safer for staff, visitors, and those incarcerated is a laudable goal. However, for the reasons listed, and more, the ACLU of Ohio encourages this committee’s rejection of House Bill 338.