New York City Mayor Eric Adams proposed that his administration oversee Rikers Island jails.
His proposal comes after a federal judge found the city in contempt of a 2015 deal agreed upon in the Nunez v. City of New York lawsuit. At least a dozen plaintiffs, who were current and former inmates at the time of the lawsuit, sued the city’s Department of Correction for excessive force and abuse at Rikers Island.
Rikers is the country’s second-largest jail system. The agreement required the New York City Department of Correction to develop and implement myriad new practices, systems, policies, and procedures designed to reduce violence in the jails and ensure the safety and well-being of inmates.
Mayor Eric Adams Says His Administration Is Most Suitable To Oversee Rikers Jails
According to the Gothamist, Mayor Adams believes Lynelle Maginley-Liddi, the current Department of Correction Commissioner, is the best person to oversee Rikerr.
In 2023, Adams reportedly replaced Louis Molina, the head of the Department in Correction, with Maginley-Liddie. Critics argued Molina failed to improve conditions at Rikers. The court ordered the city to improve conditions in the deal ahead of the jails’ anticipated closure in 2027.
“The Commissioner’s good faith attempts to meet the Nunez requirements and abilities as an administrator have not been questioned by the Court or the Monitor,” city lawyers reportedly wrote in paperwork filed to the federal court. “Her willingness to pursue transformational change is reflected in her accomplishments in just her first year of service.”
With the federal court’s ruling, the court could appoint a receiver, finding the city in contempt. The city argues, however, that a federal court-appointed receiver would “unnecessarily multiply bureaucracy, burden and expense.”
The city says that if it appointed Maginley-Liddie, she would “receive only the salary and benefits of a Commissioner.”
However, criminal justice reform advocates are against the city’s proposal to have Maginley-Liddie oversee the jail.
“The City’s proposal is untenable and patently inadequate to address the Court’s finding that Defendants are in contempt of 18 separate Court order provisions that relate directly to safety and the excessive violence in the jails,” plaintiffs’ lawyers wrote in court filings. “The City’s proposal does little more than preserve the status quo when, as this Court has recognized, the Department of Correction needs transformational change.”
RELATED CONTENT: FDA Finally Revokes FD&C Red No. 3 For Food And Drugs
