On December 10, 2024, Robert Brooks, who was incarcerated in the Marcy Correctional Facility in Oneida, New York, died after an alleged assault by several state prison employees. It was one of the first times a prison altercation like this was captured on body-worn cameras and made public. With several states already deploying or planning to deploy body-worn cameras in their prisons, this incident serves as a possible inflection point for correctional practice.
Two weeks after the death, the office of New York’s attorney general released body-worn camera footage of 43-year-old Brooks being dragged, beaten, and stripped to his underwear by a group of correctional officers and sergeants. It also captured other officers and medical professionals observing but seeming not to interfere. Brooks was pronounced dead the next day, and a medical examiner’s preliminary determination was that he suffered fractures and soft-tissue injuries to his upper body, groin, neck, and head and may have died because of “asphyxia due to compression of the neck.”
His death sparked swift reaction among state officials. In the wake of Governor Kathy Hochul’s directive to initiate the termination process, 17 employees involved in the incident have been suspended and issued notices of discipline. The governor also pledged to make numerous changes within the prison system. Even the New York State Correctional Officers and Police Benevolent Association called the officers’ actions “egregious and repugnant…a disgrace to our profession.”
The Impact of Body-Worn Camera Footage
The speed at which officials have made these statements is noteworthy. Excessive force in prisons and jails can go unreported or lost in administrative bureaucracy. In 2023, a two-year investigation by the Marshall Project and the New York Times revealed a culture lacking accountability in New York’s prisons that protected officers against allegations of abuse. Some of the officers implicated in the death of Brooks were also facing lawsuits for allegedly abusing other prisoners and lying about their actions; they had remained on their jobs while that litigation was pending.
But the video in this case provides a stark, first-person accounting of the officers’ actions, repeatedly punching, kicking, and striking Brooks with a shoe as he remained shackled and unresistant. Without such footage, it would have been possible for officials to discuss the nuances of uses of force and urge patience as the investigation unfolds. The body-worn camera footage necessitated a definitive official response. I also think it represents a turning point in public demand for changes in correctional practices, of which body-worn cameras should be a key feature.
For over a decade, I’ve studied critical correctional incidents, body-worn cameras, and surveillance systems. In the first ever evaluation of body-worn cameras in a correctional setting, my colleagues and I found that cameras deployed in the Loudoun County Adult Detention Center, a jail in Northern Virginia, significantly and meaningfully reduced deputies’ use of force and injuries to the incarcerated population. We also found that body-worn cameras complemented the jail’s existing surveillance system, offering valuable insight about a use-of-force incident and enhancing the goals of transparency and accountability. We are now conducting a similar evaluation of body-worn cameras in five Minnesota prisons.
Three Steps to Make Cameras in Prisons More Effective
While I believe body-worn cameras hold potential for improving the corrections system, they are most valuable when used properly. To that end, I offer three suggestions for correctional officials looking to maximize the effectiveness of these devices.
First, because the cost of storage and privacy considerations make it prohibitive for all personnel to be equipped with cameras that constantly record, agencies must have clear policies in place around who is provided cameras and when they are to be activated. Cameras could also be configured to automatically activate under a variety of circumstances, like when officers enter certain parts of the facility, unholster a weapon, or get into an altercation.
Second, agencies must have strong ways of tracking and enforcing policy compliance. In New York, some of the officers were wearing cameras during the alleged assault of Brooks but did not activate them. Because the cameras passively recorded part of the incident while in standby mode, we have some footage, but it was cropped and without audio. We’re also missing video from the other personnel involved. Such an oversight limits the potential value of body-worn cameras in use-of-force investigations.
Finally, true transparency and accountability requires officials to release footage when an incident occurs, outline whether staff followed policy, and provide information proactively and swiftly on follow-up decisions. This includes both holding staff accountable for misbehavior and protecting them against false allegations.
The death of Brooks was a tragedy. Corrections systems can make meaningful changes that prevent these incidents from happening again. In policing, body-worn cameras are now ubiquitous after years of hard work and lessons learned. Corrections, too, should embrace the use of these devices to improve the safety and security of everyone who lives and works in these institutions.
