The New York City Department of Correction (DOC) has recently come under scrutiny for its decision to halt public notifications of incarcerated individuals’ deaths. This abrupt policy shift has raised concerns about transparency and accountability within the department. Formerly, the DOC would issue press releases detailing basic information about the deceased, such as their name, housing facility, and the circumstances surrounding their death. However, over the past two weeks, the department has failed to notify the public of at least two deaths, prompting criticism from advocates and former inmates. This article delves into the implications of this change in practice and explores the wider context of transparency issues within the DOC.

The Shift Away From Transparency:

The cessation of public notifications regarding inmate deaths marks a significant departure from the DOC’s previous practices. The department’s new chief spokesperson, Frank Dwyer, dismissed concerns by stating that public notifications were merely a practice and not an official policy. However, critics argue that this decision represents a regressive step, reminiscent of the management of jails decades ago. Former Deputy Corrections Commissioner Stanley Richards, who experienced Rikers Island firsthand, contends that the DOC’s move is an attempt to isolate the jails from scrutiny and control the narrative.

Inadequate Disclosure Have Severe Repercussions:

The absence of clear information about prisoner fatalities gives rise to various issues. In particular, it deprives the general public of their entitlement to be informed about incidents that happen within the reformatory setup. By withholding vital facts, the Department of Corrections (DOC) impedes transparency and hinders accountability, thus creating an obstacle to public examination. In addition, due to the lack of public declarations, opportunities for advocacy groups, legal entities, and concerned citizens to probe possible cases of maltreatment or misconduct within the correctional system are significantly limited.

Efforts to Manage Information:

The choice to discontinue public notifications is not a lone occurrence, but rather represents a wider pattern within the Department of Corrections (DOC) to limit the availability of information. The DOC has likewise denied the Board of Correction, the entity responsible for overseeing the DOC, real-time video surveillance access from city jails like Rikers Island. This move has hindered the board from carrying out its oversight duties effectively. Moreover, the department has made unsuccessful endeavors to curtail the frequency of public meetings hosted each year, thereby restricting opportunities for public scrutiny.

Federal Monitor’s Criticism:

The Department of Corrections (DOC) has recently come under scrutiny for its lack of transparency. The federal monitor assigned to oversee the department has expressed concern about the DOC’s failure to communicate properly about a recent death and other incidents of harm to incarcerated individuals. In a special report, the monitor revealed that the DOC has relied on media sources for information, demonstrating doubts about its commitment to transparency and cooperation with oversight authorities.

Calls for Change:

Advocacy groups, legal organizations, and city officials have been actively advocating for increased transparency and accountability within the DOC. The Legal Aid Society, alongside other plaintiffs in the Nunez v. City of New York case, has requested the appointment of an independent manager to take over the troubled Correction Department. Their aim is to ensure that incidents of brutality and systemic failures are properly addressed.

Final Thoughts

The New York City Department of Correction’s decision to halt public notifications of inmate deaths has ignited concerns about transparency and accountability within the correctional system. By depriving the public of critical information, the department impedes oversight efforts and hinders the pursuit of justice. It is crucial for the DOC to reassess its policies and prioritize transparency to maintain public trust and ensure the well-being of incarcerated individuals. Efforts to hide incidents and control the narrative must be replaced with a commitment to openness and a dedication to rectifying systemic issues. Only then can the DOC truly fulfill its duty to protect those under its care.