COLUMBUS, Ohio — May 16, 2018, 2:54 PM ET

Judge says Ohio can't cut off convicted killer's dreadlocks

#

A federal judge says Ohio can't force a convicted killer to cut off his dreadlocks, calling it a violation of religious rights.

U.S. District Judge Patricia Gaughan (gon) sided with inmate Deon Glenn, who says his faith of Rastafarianism (rah-stah-FARE-ee-ah-nizm) requires him to wear his hair in dreadlocks.

Gaughan's ruling Monday said Ohio's blanket policy against dreadlocks in prison violates the law because it doesn't permit a religious exemption, and the state didn't prove Glenn's hair couldn't be searched for contraband or is a safety risk.

The judge limited her decision to Glenn and said other similar complaints should be analyzed individually. A prison's spokeswoman declined to comment.

Law students at Cleveland's Case Western Reserve University sued on behalf of the 29-year-old Glenn, who is serving 15 years to life on a murder charge.

News - Judge says Ohio can't cut off convicted killer's dreadlocks

RRelated Posts

CComments

  • SSiderSense

    It's so inspiring to see our best and brightest students pursue true justice! Give that law professor a medal too!

  • KlintzDisqus

    So, if an Amish man were sent to jail in Ohio, the prison (prior to this judgement) could just lop off his hair?

  • zayperformance

    If you know nothing of the religion and what it defines and comment stupidly. Then your comment is ignorant

  • peteringa

    Well hell, confinement violates his rights too. Set him free? This judge is brain dead.

  • gs12

    Gives bubba something to pull on.

  • rosaliecesar

    the prison should not provide him with extra shampoo for free that's all.

  • GW

    What is next, Pastafarian's being allowed to wear pasta strainers in jail ?

  • John Michael Davis

    A killer and he's "religious"?

  • Quantez Williams

    ?:"P)5

  • Quantez Williams

    Why should anyone receive a religious exemption? If we're 100% honest about religions, we will acknowledge that they are really nothing more than glorified superstitions: Belief in an unseen entity that has supernatural powers; their benevolence can be influenced by certain rituals, traditions and talismans. They are no different than African witch doctors and the like.

    The law should only concern itself with logic and empirical facts. Having said that, I agree with the ruling based on the lack of proof that the dreadlocks pose a safety risk.