Missed opportunities: learning from the mistakes at Attica

Abstract

The Attica prison riot was the culmination of years of increasing tension between the urban, racial, and ethnic minorities held at the prison and the rural, white officers, and administrators responsible for incarcerating them. While race was certainly an important factor in the riot, there were also a number of problems at the prison that prompted inmates of all races to unite against the New York State Department of Correctional Services and the state government. Inmates’ frustration increased as they waited for reforms that were promised but never materialized. As inmates’ patience waned, the prison administration made a number of decisions that damaged its ability to maintain peace and respond to problems. A review of the circumstances leading to the riot at the Attica Penitentiary in September 1971 is included as well as an analysis of some more recent riots where similar conditions and warning signs were present.

Keywords:

• prison riot
• Attica correctional facility
• Attica commission
• Inmates’ rights

Notes

1. The Attica Commission is also frequently referred to as the McKay Commission, since Robert McKay, Dean of the New York University School of Law, served as the chairman. The members of the commission interviewed 1600 of the 2243 inmates housed at Attica during the riot, all but two of the hostages, 400 of the 450 corrections officers, 50 civilian staff members, 270 of the 300 New York State Troopers stationed at the prison during the riot, members of the New York National Guard who were called to the prison, legislators, the governor and his staff, members of the media, local townspeople, and families of the inmates and hostages. The commission also reviewed documentation and pictures relating to the riot, the re-take of the prison, and the reprisals afterwards (Attica Commission, 1972).

2. The Attica Observers was a group of people considered to be sympathetic to the inmates’ concerns and were either asked to come to the prison by the inmates or volunteered to go into the yard to try to help with negotiations. After Commissioner Oswald’s refusal to return to the prison yard following an inmate’s threat to hold him hostage, the Observer’s Committee resorted to assuming a much larger role in the negotiations than was originally intended.

3. The Attica Commission (1972) reported that the demands included legal representation before the Parole Board, improvement of food and sanitary conditions in the cafeteria, improved medical care, improvement in inmates’ ability to keep up their personal hygiene, recreational facilities, improved working conditions in the shops, uniform set of rules in all prisons, adjustment of commissary prices and an end to segregation of prisoners as a result of their political beliefs.

4. See Kerle (1998) for a discussion of the history of jail training and Tartaro (2006) for a modern example of the differences in mandated training.

5. In his memoir, Oswald (1972) claims that each institution was required to submit riot control plans by 1 May 1971 and that follow-up meetings to discuss those plans were held. There is no mention of the quality and detail of those plans. Oswald also did not make any mention of the availability of training to communicate those plans to the officers and civilian staff members.

6. See Montgomery and Crews (1998) and Useem et al. (1995) for examples of tactical strikes on prisons that did not involve the level of deadly force used at Attica.