Federal manager’s action plan echoes a decade of jail failure

To end the NYC jail crisis newly appointed remediation manager Nick Deml must take swift and bold action to regain control of Rikers Island jails and establish order or the Department of Correction will remain locked in a cycle of lawlessness, carnage and non-compliance. 

Without control of the jails, violence flaunts its arrogance, reform is apprehensive, compliance remains elusive and death extends its hand further.  

The German system

In May, while Deml and DOC Commissioner Stanley Richards visited Germany to observe correctional facilities, two incarcerated individuals died at Rikers within 24 hours. 

On July 14, Deml submitted his first yearly report to federal district court Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain titled “The Remediation Action Plan” delineating his strategies to eliminate constitutional violations in NYC.

He cited Article 1 (1) of Germany’s Basic Law which states, “Human dignity shall be inviolable."

It’s a profound constitutional principle that applies to everyone in Germany. 

The manager lauded German facilities saying they “are regarded as among the most humane and professional in the world." However, he suddenly pivoted and said “German correctional systems are not directly transferable to New York."

Consider this. 

Germany is able to provide humane, safe and orderly facilities that emphasize human dignity and rehabilitation because it has control of its jails and prisons whereas in NYC detainee gangs have de facto control.  

On Oct. 15, 2021, on PIX11 News former correction commissioner Vincent Schiraldi admitted “The inmates are in control." Richards was second-in-command at the time. 

Germany provides an extensive two-year training curriculum for correction officers far surpassing NYC’s thirteen weeks of Academy training.  

Pursuant to the German Criminal Code-Division 6, Sections 113, 114, 115 and 121, Germany doesn’t tolerate resistance to state authority by persons in custody.  

Federal oversight, city politicians and recent NYC correction commissioners do. 

Section 185 of the German Criminal Code prohibits disrespect, insults or contempt to another through words or gestures. Abusive language and gestures directed at correction officers can result in discipline, loss of privileges, solitary confinement, fines and criminal charges which can add up to an additional year in prison.  

NYC’s incarcerated incessantly disrespect and insult correction officers with abusive language and gestures with impunity. 

And appointments to high level positions based on political partisanship aren’t as prevalent in Germany as they are in America. German Basic Law Article 3 (3) prohibits individuals from being favored or disfavored because of political opinions.

Therefore, cherry-picking the constitutional principle “Human dignity shall be inviolable” only to stick the words on a report like a bumper sticker is superficial especially considering human dignity was borderline ignored by federal oversight as dystopia triumphed with glee. 

'Daily dysfunction'

The manager must bring life to that constitutional principle and immediately provide safety and care for incarcerated persons and stop federal monitor Steve Martin from continuing to lambaste, disrespect and disparage DOC’s uniformed force.  

To his credit, Deml did direct DOC to draft a values statement “emphasizing the dignity of all persons in custody and DOC staff" by April 1, 2027, although the absence of urgency is telling.  

Will this values statement apply to Martin who disregarded the dignity of DOC’s uniformed force and brought it public dishonor and discredit?    

Nonetheless, this values statement should be drafted and implemented in eight hours not eight months. Further, it can’t be a veneer that simply conceals reality.  

The manager must lay a solid foundation for success by implementing effective policies that transform NYC jails into humane and safe environments.  

Deml asserted, “DOC struggles to perform even the most basic correctional functions” and Rikers is significantly more violent than other jail systems. He said he and DOC leadership inherited a failed system yet doesn’t acknowledge that Richards was one of the benefactors who bequeathed that failed system to him, and oddly to himself. 

He cited two recent jail incidents which he argued “illustrate the daily dysfunction and routine security lapses in the city jails."

The first was in an enhanced supervision unit “filled with smoke” due to fires set by detainees. In the second “violence erupted in two housing units” involving 30 detainees fighting. Additionally, from January to May detainees set 130 fires and were involved in 2,978 fights.  

Media outlets didn’t report on either incident. Seemingly, the media became aware of the fires and violence in July only after the manager’s action plan was made public.  

Is DOC suppressing violence and spinning crime statistics or is the media giving Richards only favorable coverage?   

Richards was appointed on Jan 31. He pledged “I will work tirelessly to make sure the department centers our work on transparency.”

And in March he said, “Nick and I want to bring... transparency."

So much for the transparency Richards promised. I digress.  

Deml continued to explain: “By the next day, both units had returned to typical operations, with no apparent change in practice."

He concluded NYC jails aren’t functional declaring: “In a functional system," these incidents would result in “full lockdowns” and "department-wide changes in correctional practices."

Still, he didn’t blame Richards for neglecting full lockdowns and failing to implement dapartment-wide policy changes. Rather, he praised his appointment.  

Today, 22 bureaucrats are part of federal oversight. Dysfunction, chaos and violence have conquered NYC jails like an occupying army.  

Meanwhile, behind the gate one correction officer is responsible to supervise up to 50 incarcerated persons and one captain is accountable for several housing units and hundreds of people in custody.  

Does this supervision ratio allow for correction officers and captains to engage with incarcerated individuals and emphasize human dignity? 

The ratio is inadequate and reduces supervision to mere crowd control and contained chaos instead of individual care. It’s a mechanical approach to the group that produces conveyor belt institutionalism instead of individualism which emphasizes the value and dignity of each person.  

It’s not judicious for Deml to build his action plan on an unstable foundation of sand which for 10 years has imploded every prior action plan built on it?   

Still, I’m encouraged that Deml said he will hold incarcerated persons accountable and “support a culture in which staff are empowered to perform their duties effectively,” because both are essential elements of successful jail management.  

However, I’m skeptical because for a decade detainee gangs have been empowered by NYC politicians and bureaucrats and I don’t foresee the staff empowerment or detainee accountability returning under the mandate of federal oversight, the laissez-faire philosophy of the city council and city hall and the quixotic perspective of the sitting commissioner. 

Surprisingly, Deml declared “The system has reached the point where incrementalism is itself a form of failure."

Deml’s action plan is built on incrementalism. He wrote, “progress will be incremental."

Is he prophesizing his own failure?  

Deml specified “The political structures that failed to lead the City into compliance during this crisis will not lead it out of contempt."

Ironically, Stanley Richards and Steve Martin were part of that structure that failed to gain compliance. Today, they’re embedded with Deml and tasked with leading DOC out of the contempt they helped create.  

The appointment of the remediation manager by Judge Swain was a watershed moment that offered a golden opportunity to quickly achieve jail safety and reform.

Instead of changing course and seizing both, Deml will repeat the monitor’s failures, likely petition the Court for relief from legal or contractual requirements and continue imposing harsh discipline against the uniformed force while simultaneously choosing the path of the least resistance when dealing with the incarcerated population. 

Accordingly, to insure self-survival and minimal blame, Deml’s remediation action plan errs on the side of caution. It establishes a low-expectation threshold that encourages delays, eliminates any urgency for reform and pursues incremental progress.  

While aiming to avoid failure, Deml chose to stay on the path that will lead him directly to it.