The fatal beating by correctional officers of inmate Robert Brooks at Marcy Correctional Facility in New York has sent shockwaves through the corrections profession and the public alike. The assault Brooks endured, while handcuffed and restrained, was disturbing not only for the excessive force used but for the inaction of those present.
As someone who has spent over two decades in the corrections field, I find it necessary to address this incident, not just to condemn it but to emphasize the critical importance of intervention — both as a professional obligation and as a human responsibility.
The incident
On December 9, 2024, Robert Brooks, a 43-year-old inmate serving a 12-year sentence for first-degree assault, was transferred to Marcy Correctional Facility from Mohawk Correctional Facility. Upon arrival, Brooks was handcuffed behind his back, restrained and subjected to a brutal assault by multiple correctional officers. Body camera footage shows officers repeatedly striking Brooks as he sat restrained on a medical examination table.
Brooks, bloodied and motionless, was declared dead the following day. The preliminary autopsy report cited asphyxia due to neck compression as the cause of death. Thirteen officers and one nurse involved in the incident were suspended, and termination proceedings began. One officer resigned, and investigations by the FBI and the New York Attorney General’s office are ongoing.
The duty to intervene
One of the most haunting aspects of this incident is not just the violence but the inaction of those present during the incident. Correctional officers are mandated by policy to intervene in situations where unnecessary force is being used. This obligation exists to prevent harm, ensure inmate safety and preserve the integrity of the institution.
Intervention is not optional. It is a professional responsibility that protects everyone involved — inmates, officers and the institution itself. Officers who fail to intervene are held just as accountable as those directly engaging in misconduct.
This expectation is driven by the need to maintain trust, not only among staff but with the public. When officers neglect this duty, it erodes confidence in the corrections system and tarnishes the reputation of the entire profession.
The role of supervisors and peer accountability
Supervisors bear the greatest responsibility in upholding these standards. They are given the authority to correct inappropriate behavior and are expected to lead by example. However, when supervisors either fail to intervene or actively participate in misconduct, the culture of the institution suffers.
What was most troubling in the Brooks incident was the involvement of supervisors. Their failure to act signaled to others that the behavior was acceptable, creating an environment where no one felt compelled to stop the abuse. This kind of leadership failure not only jeopardizes the safety of inmates but also compromises the integrity of the entire facility.
Peer accountability also plays a critical role. Officers work closely with one another, often more than with supervisors, which means their influence on one another’s behavior is significant. In healthy environments, peer accountability fosters a culture of integrity. When this accountability breaks down, it becomes harder for officers to intervene for fear of being ostracized or retaliated against.
The human responsibility
Beyond the professional obligation lies something deeper — the human responsibility to do what is right. Long before we put on the uniform, we were human beings. That instinct to protect others, to step in when something feels wrong, should not disappear the moment we enter the facility.
When people witness incidents like the one involving Robert Brooks, they often assume corrections strips officers of their humanity. The truth is that the profession constantly fights against this erosion. Those who lose sight of their values often allow negative cultures to shape them, but the profession does not create this mindset — individuals who choose to go along with misconduct do.
The cost of inaction
The consequences of failing to intervene extend beyond professional discipline. Officers who stand by and do nothing are left to wrestle with the emotional and psychological toll of that inaction. Even if they avoid external consequences, they are left to live with the knowledge that they could have made a difference but didn’t.
In the Brooks incident, not one person stepped forward to stop what was happening. If even one officer had intervened, that individual could have served as a reminder of the integrity and professionalism that exists in corrections. Instead, the absence of action painted the entire profession with the same brush of misconduct.
Moving forward
To those in corrections, this incident serves as a stark reminder of the importance of the duty to intervene. The public may judge the profession by the actions of a few, but that should not deter us from upholding the values that brought us into this career.
For supervisors and leaders, this is a call to actively cultivate and protect a positive culture within facilities. It is not enough to set expectations — they must be reinforced daily through action and accountability.
To the public, know this: the actions of the 14 individuals involved in this incident do not represent the corrections profession as a whole. The majority of officers carry out their duties with integrity, compassion, and professionalism.
The job is tough, but those who wear the uniform must be tougher. It takes courage to stand up, but that courage defines who we are and what we stand for.
