Public deserves access to records of prisoners

Public deserves accessto records of prisoners
Ohio's taxpayer-supported prison system is emerging as the latest battleground in the ongoing war on the public's right to know.
Specifically, the state's Correctional Institution Inspection Committee wants records of inmate complaints sealed to the public and the press. Such a wholesale closure would violate the letter and the spirit of the state's open records statutes, and should be snubbed.
Clearly, Ohioans have an interest and a right to know what's going on inside the 32 prisons -- including two in the Mahoning Valley -- that they fund so generously in taxes. Like police departments and courts, prisons are an integral part of our criminal justice system that an informed public should be permitted and indeed encouraged to monitor.
Watchdog's position
Shirley Pope, director of the CIIC, a legislative watchdog committee, argues that inmate complaints should be sealed, citing dangers prisoners could face if their allegations against other inmates or guards became public.
"In the prison system, snitching is forbidden, and it comes with serious consequences," Pope said.
We can understand concerns over potential acts of revenge and retribution between inmates should certain personal complaints become common knowledge. As to complaints against guards, if the prison system is so loosely managed that prisoners are in danger from the guards who are being paid to monitor and protect them, the system has problems that secrecy will not solve.
We can support a tightly structured compromise position that would exempt records if disclosure presented a demonstrable danger.
There is precedent for limited and reasonable exemptions to open access statutes. In recent years, for example, Ohio amended its law governing public access to state university donor records so that certain detailed personal aspects of donor's lives were withheld.
But inmate reports that describe broad-based complaints about living conditions, prisoner-guard relations and other general issues must remain fair game for public access. Such first-person testimonies can help identify problems and craft solutions.
If the Correctional Institution Inspection Committee wants to live up to its watchdog role, it would move cautiously to ensure any legislation that is developed works to preserve or strengthen the Ohioans' right to know the workings of the prison system they support.
In recent years, restriction of public access to legitimate public records has gained momentum in state legislatures across the country. In Ohio, a pending House bill would shield coroners' autopsy photos and reports, as well as preliminary investigative reports and suicide notes, from the public domain.
It is time for legislators to focus less on restricting access and move toward broadening access to legitimate public information. Clamping down too harshly on reports of prisoner complaints would represent a step in the wrong direction.