Solitary confinement ban comes into view, but city challenge remains
/By Jacob Kaye
Advocates, lawmakers and public defenders on Monday urged the city’s jail watchdog to ensure that the City Council’s ban on solitary confinement be fully implemented before the end of next month, despite ongoing efforts from the city and Department of Correction to delay the law’s enactment.
On Monday afternoon, the Board of Correction, which provides oversight for the Department of Correction and the the city’s jails on Rikers Island, heard testimony on its proposed rules for the implementation of Local Law 42, which was passed by the City Council at the very end of last year’s legislative session and aims to effectively ban solitary confinement in the city’s jails.
All but one who gave testimony before the BOC on Monday spoke in support of the ban on solitary and only recommended the board’s proposal for implementation of the law be more specific so as to prevent the DOC from finding legal ways to skirt the intention of the law.
But as the specifics of the solitary confinement ban got ironed out on Monday, Mayor Eric Adams and his administration continued their fight against the law. Not only did Adams veto the bill after it was passed by the Council in December – the Council quickly overrode the mayor’s veto of the bill – but the Adams administration this month asked a federal judge to halt the implementation of the bill, claiming that the city would fall out of compliance with an ongoing consent judgment related to dangerous conditions on Rikers if the law were to be enacted.
Barring a successful legal challenge, the solitary confinement ban is scheduled to go into effect on July 28.
Public Advocate Jumaane Williams, who served as the prime sponsor of the bill, told the BOC on Monday that he believed it was “imperative that the board ensures compliance with this law as written [because the Adams administration] has made clear that they do not wish to comply with” it.
“Instead of trying to delay and circumvent their legal obligations to continue this deeply harmful practice, the administration should act immediately to implement this law,” Williams said.
Williams wasn’t the only lawmaker to speak in favor of the bill this week.
City Councilmember Carlina Rivera, who previously served as the chair of the City Council’s Committee on Criminal Justice, wrote to the BOC in support of its rules for enacting the bill she helped pass, alongside with a supermajority in the council.
“Advocates, experts and employees inside the jail system agree that solitary does not make anyone safer — in fact, it only puts people further into harm’s way and is often a death sentence for incarcerated New Yorkers,” Rivera said.
The mayor’s office did not respond to the Eagle’s request for comment.
The Department of Correction acknowledged receipt of the Eagle’s request for comment but did not provide comment before print time.
Under the BOC’s rules, incarcerated individuals would be prevented from being held in an isolated cell for more than two hours per day within a 24-hour period and for more than eight hours at night directly after an alleged offense occurred – the confinement would be referred to as a “de-escalation” period.
Should corrections officials determine that further confinement is required to de-escalate a situation, an incarcerated person could be held for up to four hours total in a 24-hour period.
The law would also allow for people in custody being placed in restrictive housing to have a hearing on whether or not their placement in restrictive housing is necessary. During that hearing, they would be allowed to be represented by an advocate, be it a law student, paralegal or another incarcerated person.
Several people giving testimony on Monday said that the BOC’s rules should be adjusted to specify that an attorney also be allowed to represent detainees during their hearings.
Local Law 42 will also require that people in restrictive housing are given access to at least 14 hours of out-of-cell time per day. That time's supposed to include programming and activities, according to the law.
Though the city has repeatedly denied that it currently uses solitary confinement, advocates, lawmakers and others on Monday said that the DOC’s restrictive housing effectively acts as solitary and that their practices have continued to lead to violent outcomes for both detainees and staff.
“We know that while the department has publicly stated that it doesn't use solitary confinement, in fact, it continues to isolate people in custody and various names and unnamed units,” said Lauren Stephens-Davidowitz, an attorney with Legal Aid's Prisoners' Rights Project.
“The board now has the chance to improve the department's restrictive housing practices and increase its scrutiny of these practices,” she added. “Given the department's abysmal track record, we urge the board not to squander this opportunity.”
The only person to give testimony against the solitary confinement ban on Monday was Antoinette Anderson, a correctional officer and a representative of the Correctional Officers’ Benevolent Association.
But even in her opposition to the bill, Anderson said that restrictive housing is not a long-term solution for correcting behavior behind bars.
“Whether people agree or not, we need [restrictive housing because] we have a lot of mentally ill that we cannot control,” Anderson said. “What are we supposed to do with them, how are we supposed to handle them?”
“I don’t have the answer for you when I’m wrestling with a 6’5 man who hasn’t been on his meds for days,” she added.
When asked by a BOC member what help the board could give officers, Anderson said that more mental health beds need to be opened up in hospitals throughout the city.
“They do not belong on Rikers Island,” Anderson said. “We are a jail system, there’s only so much help that we can give them.”
While the BOC plans to vote on the final rules for the law at its June 25 hearing, what comes next remains unclear.
In a filing in federal court last week, attorneys for City Hall said that they planned to challenge solitary ban, arguing that implementing the law would violate the consent judgment in the ongoing civil rights case known as Nunez v. the City of New York.
The city’s attorneys called on federal Judge Laura Swain, who oversees the case, to suspend the law until the federal monitor Swain appointed to track the Department of Correction’s compliance with the consent judgment has had time to approve its implementation.
The monitor, Steve J. Martin, has previously called into question the DOC’s ability to safely implement the law, while also lauding its intention.
Swain is expected to make a decision about the city’s request on July 9.
Should the judge rule that the ban could proceed, it’s unclear whether the city and the DOC would be able to prepare themselves to implement the law by July 28, the legal start of the ban.
When asked by the Eagle on June 5 what the DOC was doing to prepare for the bill’s implementation, DOC Commissioner Lynelle Maginley-Liddie said that the agency was “working with the Law Department on [the law’s] implementation.”
When asked if she meant the agency was preparing to challenge the law in court, she said, “We’ve just been working with the Law Department on next steps.”
City attorneys filed their challenge of the law in Swain’s court later that day.