Protects the rights of people in prisons, jails and forensic facilities; limits the use of cell or segregated confinement; grants access to tablets, visitation, and certain items.
This bill, titled the “rights behind bars” act, would substantially expand and codify the rights of people incarcerated in New York state prisons, local jails, and certain forensic and secure mental health facilities. It adds new definitions and broad legislative findings grounded in constitutional and international human rights principles, and it expressly frames incarceration as not diminishing basic human dignity. The bill is aimed at addressing what sponsors describe as systemic failures in correctional facilities, including abuse, retaliation, restrictions on family contact, inadequate food, and noncompliance with existing solitary confinement and disciplinary rules.
The measure would amend the Correction Law to create or clarify rights to contact visits, packages, original correspondence, free phone calls and emails through tablets, commissary access, nutritious food, and meaningful out-of-cell time. It would also limit the use of cell confinement and segregated confinement, tighten standards for disciplinary hearings, require greater disclosure of evidence and representation rights, restrict restraints, prohibit certain force tactics and retaliation, and expand reporting requirements for facilities. The bill also creates a private right of action in state court for violations of the new provisions, allowing incarcerated people to seek injunctions, declaratory relief, damages, and other remedies.
If enacted, the bill would significantly amend multiple provisions of the New York Correction Law and related correctional standards, affecting DOCCS, local correctional facilities, and secure forensic/mental health facilities. It would impose new operational requirements on visitation, mail and packages, programming, property access, disciplinary procedures, use of force, restraints, and facility reporting, while also broadening the statutory definition of “special populations” and expanding protections for people with disabilities, older adults, and pregnant or postpartum people. It would also create enforceable statutory rights, including a new cause of action in state court, which could increase litigation and oversight of correctional practices.
The bill’s stated purpose and sponsor framing are strongly reform-oriented and rights-protective, reflecting a critical view of current prison and jail conditions. The text cites recent reports, court findings, and the death of Robert Brooks as evidence of systemic abuse and noncompliance, suggesting the measure is intended as a corrective response to widely documented problems. No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no recorded legislative debate or formal vote sentiment in the materials beyond the bill’s own advocacy-oriented findings.
The main points of contention are likely to be the bill’s breadth and its operational constraints on correctional agencies. Provisions limiting segregated confinement, restricting use of force and restraints, mandating extensive visitation and package access, requiring free communications, and creating a private right of action could draw concern from corrections officials, facility administrators, and public safety advocates who may argue they reduce institutional flexibility or increase security and administrative burdens. Supporters, by contrast, are likely to emphasize human rights, family contact, disability protections, and accountability for staff misconduct, especially in light of the incidents and reports cited in the findings.