NYC Replaces “Inmate” with “Person in Custody”
The New York City Commission of Corrections is eliminating the term “inmate” from its regulations, opting for “person in custody” instead. This change reflects a long-standing principle that individuals shouldn’t be defined solely by their incarceration.
This initiative builds on a 2021 effort to phase out “inmate” from the board’s minimum standards. At that time, it was concluded that the labels we use can be limiting. The board’s stance was clear: “People in DOC custody are individuals first, and their incarceration is not their main identity.”
As a part of these changes, the board started using terms like “people,” “individuals,” and “individuals in custody.” The new proposals aim to expand these updates to more sections of their regulations.
For example, a section once titled “Classification of Prisoners” has been updated to “Classification of People in Custody,” with references to “prisoners” and “inmates” being revised. The updated regulations now define “person in custody” as “any person confined in an institution.”
These amendments are part of an ongoing commitment to use person-first language. According to the proposal, the focus is on continuing the board’s previous work in modernizing the language used in Chapters 2 and 3.
Interestingly, New York City isn’t alone in this shift. In 2022, Governor Kathy Hochul enacted a law that replaced “inmates” with “incarcerated individuals” throughout state legislation, while New York City opted for “person in custody” instead.
The debate over terminology has gained attention again, especially after a recent FIFA World Cup viewing event at Rikers Island that included mayoral candidate Zoran Mamdani. His statements emphasized the importance of recognizing individuals’ identities beyond their incarceration.
While the name change may seem significant, it won’t affect the operational or disciplinary aspects of the jail. Rather, the board sees this as a chance to modernize and to better reflect the belief that individuals should not merely be defined by their incarceration experiences.
Questions remain about why the term “incarcerated persons” wasn’t adopted, especially since it aligns with the state’s terminology. The Prison Officers Benevolent Association and the Vera Institute of Justice have also been approached for their insights on these changes.
