Investigative report reveals 90% of corrections officers keep jobs despite misconduct

NEW YORK STATE — The death of Robert Brooks, an inmate who was beaten by corrections officers in an Upstate prison, has brought renewed scrutiny to New York State’s prison system.

Journalists with The Marshall Project, a non profit news organization that focuses on the criminal justice system, have published a series of reports uncovering systemic failures in holding corrections officers accountable for abuse.

Journalists, like Joseph Neff, a staff writer with The Marshall Project, spent two years investigating how New York disciplines corrections officers for misconduct. They said they analyzed hundreds of cases, scoured thousands of pages of documents, examined videos, and conducted interviews with prisoners, officials, and experts.

“We asked– The Marshall Project asked– for all the disciplinary records of correctional officers, and it took a while, but we finally got a big treasure trove of about 4,000 disciplinary records involving prison correctional officers,” said Neff in an interview with CBS6’s Briana Supardi.

Neff said they decided to focus on use-of-force cases when officers were charged with beating or conspiring to beat up a prisoner.

“So out of these, we found 300 cases over the past 10 years where the Department of Corrections had charged a prison guard with assaulting a prisoner,” said Neff. “What was surprising to us, out of those 300 cases where the system tried to fire the guard, they succeeded 10% of the time and basically the rest of the time, the officers kept their jobs.”

They looked into why so few officers got fired when DOCCS was serious about firing them.

“Half of the time, the prison system settled with the guard, maybe accepted a monetary fine or a three month suspension or something,” said Neff. “And other times when they really wanted to fire someone, under the contract that the New York State has struck with the union that represents the correctional officers, you have to go to arbitration. There’s a third party arbitrator that gets to decide whether the guard should be fired or not.”

According to Neff, their investigation revealed that the arbitration process often shielded officers from accountability, with many decisions heavily favoring the officers, even when clear evidence of misconduct existed.

JOSEPH NEFF: “75% of the time, the arbitrators gave the officers their jobs back.”

CBS6’S BRIANA SUPARDI: “Why is that?”

JOSEPH NEFF:“Arbitrators will rule for guards for a number of different reasons. Let’s say that the guard has a clean record and doesn’t have a history of violence or misbehavior. Well, then the arbitrator may give the guard a second chance on the theory that you shouldn’t be fired on your first time out. Other times the arbitrators don’t believe the testimony of the prisoners.”

Neff said they examined cases over a 12-year period where lawsuits were filed and a monetary settlement was either reached or ordered.

“And some of these cases involved deaths, homicides, where the prisoner was killed by guards,’ said Neff. “80% of these cases where the department paid out money to a prisoner or family, no discipline was pursued, no disciplinary charges were filed against an officer. And some of these were really disturbing.”

One such case involved Karl Taylor, who was killed in prison by officers at Sullivan Correctional Facility in 2015.

The case went to trial, but was ultimately settled when the state agreed to pay his family $5 million and install cameras in the prison.

“Now, there were about a dozen officers involved in the killing of Carl Taylor. The department did not file a single internal disciplinary charge against any of those officers,” said Neff.

Out of their two year investigation, Neff said what he found that struck him the most is “a playbook that is followed when there’s a use of force on a prisoner.”

“The guards will injure or assault someone and then in the records prove this they will file a charge against the prisoner, charge the prisoner of assault and then they will send the prisoner off to solitary confinement. Solitary confinement makes it more difficult for a prisoner to contact his family, contact a lawyer to even file complaints and develop a case against the officers,” said Neff.

Neff said they then file false records with the department, charging the prisoner with assault.

“I mean there is going to be legitimate use of force in prisons. But when it’s illegitimate, when it’s excessive, when it’s malicious, that’s one thing but it’s the culture of cover-up that’s basically putting lies on paper while you’re working for the state being paid for, your salary is paid for by us the citizens,” said Neff.