From: Joel Sax <jsax@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: soc.religion.quaker
Date: 11 Nov 92 09:14 PST
Subject: Prison rule in Ohio prompts letter
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1744600027:000:3602
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!jsax    Nov 11 09:14:00 1992


From: Joel Sax <jsax>
Subject: Prison rule in Ohio prompts letter

/* Written 10:22 pm  Nov 10, 1992 by rrenner@igc.apc.org in igc:gen.quaker */
/* ---------- "Prison rule in Ohio prompts letter" ---------- */
Richard R. Renner 	
131 Park Avenue, N.W.   
New Philadelphia, Ohio  44663-1817   
(216) 364-1285   


November 11, 1992


Mr. Thomas Shermon
Executive Director 
Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review 
State House -- Basement Level 
Columbus, OH 43266-0604

Dear Mr. Shermon:

The Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction is
attempting to legislate new rules as part of its Penal Code
Agency Rules.

ARS 120-9-06, Para E, Rule 31 (A-D) reads:  

(31) Engaging in unauthorized actions, individually or in
concert with others, including but not limited to:  (A) Writing,
signing or circulating a petition of any sort without
authorization from the managing officer; (B) Acting to organize
or participate in inmate organizations not approved pursuant to
rule 5120-9-37 of the administrative code, including but not 
limited to unions and clubs; (C) Engaging in gang or disruptive 
group or other unauthorized organizational activities or meetings; 
(D) Displaying, wearing, possessing or using gang or disruptive
group or unauthorized organizational insignia or materials such
as signs or passwords.

This proposed rule raises concerns about what management
philosophy is most conducive to true rehabilitation and orderly
administration of our prisons.  As a parent, I believe that the
best way to promote mature behavior is to model that behavior. 
If we want prisoners to learn about our history and respect the
rights of others, we have to respect their rights.

More importantly, this rule is contrary to the fundamental
purpose of our nation.  Our government was never intended to
determine which insignia or material would be "authorized." 
Especially in a prison where our society has deprived convicts
of their freedom of travel, we should protect their freedom to
choose their own symbols, materials, and meetings.

I am particularly concerned about the prohibition against
unauthorized petitions.  Were not some of our most important
legal decisions on prison conditions decided on petitions for
writs of habeas corpus?  Is not the freedom to petition one of
the most basic tests of civilized law?  What possible penal goal
could be served by regulated the contents of prisoner petitions?

Finally, I am troubled by the overly broad and vague wording of
the prohibition against unauthorized clubs and unions.  How will
the state decide which clubs and unions to authorize?  Would
each governor be allowed to prohibit clubs of an opponent's
political party?  Will the club's religious, political, or
racial characteristics influence the likelihood of approval? 
Will unions be approved only if they accept the State's first
offer in any collective negotiations?  No regulation of
association should be permitted unless the state has narrowly
defined the purpose of its regulation, and establish due process
for adjudications of which associations have violated the stated
and reasonable regulations.

As a religious Quaker, I belong to a tradition that shares
responsibility for the establishment of penitentiaries.  These
institutions were intended to provide nonviolent atmospheres for
contemplation, and preparation for civil life.  These goals are
served by showing respect for the inner responsibility of each
person.

Please reject the proposed rule.

I would appreciate your written reply to my letter explaining
your decision and reasons.

Sincerely,


Richard R. Renner