News & Commentary

Most people don’t realize that Ohio has no laws protecting people from being fired from their jobs, denied housing, or refused service simply for being LGBT.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio supports a bipartisan bill which seeks to spare those with severe and persistent mental illness from facing execution in the state of Ohio. This bill came out of the Ohio Supreme Court Task Force, which recommends an end to this barbaric practice. Cruel and Unusual In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional to execute someone deemed mentally incompetent due to a diagnosed intellectual disability (formally referred to as mental retardation). This ruling paved the way for a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision that declared it unconstitutional to execute people who were minors at the time of their crime. Both decisions reflect an understanding of the Eight Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. Just as with youth and those with a diagnosed intellectual disability, people with a severe and persistent mental illness lack the culpability required to receive a death penalty sentence. In other words, it is cruel and unusual punishment to put someone to death who does not or did not have the capacity to understand their crime or what their punishment means. Equal Protection for All Supporters of banning the execution of individuals with severe and persistent mental illness also cite the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which promises “equal protection and due process” under the law. Individuals with severe and persistent mental illness are not receiving equal protection by the same bans that acknowledge diminished capacity and substantial impairment for individuals with intellectual disabilities. This right should apply to whomever experiences significant, diagnosed, diminished mental functioning as a result of any psychological disability.

The lack of procedure for determining who is “insane” or an “idiot” could allow persons whose opinions are unpopular or whose lifestyles are disapproved to be challenged at the polls, and they may lose their right to vote without the presentation of any medical evidence whatsoever.[1]
For reasons that are not clear, the General Assembly did not present this issue to voters. It remains a section of our constitution that is not only problematic because of the way in which it uses pejorative terms, but also because of its vagueness. This provision could be used to disqualify any voter whom poll workers deem incompetent.

During the meeting this past Thursday, 11 November 2015, University of Akron School of Law Emeritus Professor Wilson Huhn testified on behalf of the ACLU.
Read Professor Will Huhn’s testimony to the Constitutional Modernization Committee.

In Ohio, we have a problem with prison overcrowding. As a recent Department of Justice Report shows, Ohio's prison population ranks sixth among all states. Last year, Ohio only managed to reduce its prison population by 0.4%, which is exactly 210 people. In a state that currently locks up 11,854 more people than our prisons and jails are designed to house, that reduction is in no way adequate. Why does Ohio continue to have this problem? Why have our prisons been overcrowded for more than a decade? One factor is enhanced sentencing bills appearing in the Statehouse. Making a Tough Problem Harder to Solve According to a recent report by the ACLU of Ohio, the Ohio legislature continues to introduce bills that enhance criminal sentences, create new crimes, and extend the scope of current laws to cover new people and situations. These are bills that aim to incarcerate more people for longer periods of time. This legislative session alone, our representatives have introduced 54 new bills that will send more Ohioans to prison or jail.

“There are so many other factors. There are so many other consequences. It’s not even just about the retribution portion of being incarcerated. There is so much after the fact to deal with and to just try to get things together.”
– Michael W. Geauga County

Pay-to-stay fees bring an avalanche of financial, mental, and emotional stress for people after their release from jail. Michael W. of Geauga County depicts his struggles with these debts.
“I was doing pretty well and my credit score was high for my age, but once this occurred, I had lawyer fees. I had to pay thousands of dollars to take care of this and went into debt. When I got out I had to take care of myself, but I didn’t have anything anymore.
“I’m up to here in my eyeballs and then I get these emails saying ‘your credit score is dropping, your credit score is dropping.’
“I’ve looked into declaring bankruptcy, but it costs money to even do that. I’m kind of stuck for right now, just barely getting by. I think, if I can get the $700 together then I can declare bankruptcy and all the debt can be just gone and it can finally be off my shoulders. But right now I’m looking at, like, on top of the thousand that I owe them, I’ve got another $20,000 on my cards. And most of it was just lawyers.
“I had been couch surfing for about a month. My parents couldn’t handle me. My girlfriend, fiancé couldn’t handle me. It was like, I still don’t know.
“I used to have dreams that I was back in there. And I couldn’t stay at my parents place anyways because I slept in the basement and its cinder block walls. I’d wake up and think I was in jail again and I’d lose it. I couldn’t deal with it.”
Michael’s story is one of many. The details may vary but the common thread of disruption and struggle are the same.

Expectations Versus Reality

Many of us expect formerly incarcerated people to resume normal lives after serving time in jail. But this assumption neglects the need for continual support to reintegrate successfully. Adding debt onto a person who may already be struggling to succeed is a recipe for failure. These fees don’t add up either, providing very little in terms

Belle Likover and Piper Kerman