Editor’s note: This article is the second in a series titled “Words Matter Series: Critical Messaging in Corrections,” which takes a multi-part look at how correctional agencies communicate during their toughest moments. From officer injuries to inmate deaths, disturbances, misconduct and internal communication, the words leaders choose can either build trust and safety or deepen risk and mistrust. Each article offers practical strategies to help correctional professionals use communication as a tool for leadership and credibility.
You open the news app and see the face of the man who assaulted you years ago. The headline says he has died in custody. No one from the corrections department called you. No one prepared you. The shock is immediate, but so is the anger. Were you forgotten again?
For victims and survivors, an inmate death in custody is not just a statistic. It can reopen trauma, raise questions about justice and deepen mistrust of the system. For families of the inmate, it is devastating news. For staff, it is a test of their work environment and leadership. For the public, it is another chance to question whether corrections can be trusted.
This is why the words you choose in the first hours matter. Silence or sterile language will not protect credibility. Compassion, clarity and timeliness will.
| RELATED: Officer injuries and line-of-duty deaths: Communicating with compassion and clarity
Building on part one
In the first installment of this series, we covered the fundamentals of crisis communication: families must be notified first, executives and unions must be informed, staff deserve to hear from a person and not the institution, and the public should only be informed after those audiences.
Every holding statement should include three key parts: acknowledgment of the incident, a status update and clear next steps. When it involves a death at a correctional facility, strong consideration needs to include a confirmation of family notification and reassurance about safety at the facility. Next steps may include whether an autopsy is required by law, when it will be completed and when or if the results will be made public. Those details may vary by state or statute.
Those principles apply here, but inmate deaths add new layers of complexity that communicators cannot ignore.
Why compassion must come first
It is easy for the public, and sometimes for staff, to minimize inmate deaths. The sentiment of “they’re just inmates” can creep into the language. That mistake is costly. Families are watching. Advocates are watching. Victims are watching. Elected officials are watching.
Compassion does not mean excusing crime. It means respecting the humanity of the person who died and recognizing the impact on their family. It also means acknowledging the pain these deaths can cause victims and survivors, who may feel that justice was cut short.
If your words sound cold or indifferent, you may lose the trust of all these groups in a single statement.
The unique challenges of inmate deaths
Unlike officer injuries or deaths, inmate deaths often carry built-in complications.
- Stigma: Too many statements are written as if the person did not matter. That erodes credibility.
- Multiple audiences: Families grieve, staff question, victims react and the public speculates. Each requires careful consideration.
- Cause of death: Suicide, overdose, medical and use of force all require different communication strategies.
- Litigation and oversight: These cases frequently attract legal scrutiny and external investigations. Careless words create risk.
The profession too often defaults to sterile, procedural messaging. That may feel safe, but it leaves a vacuum of empathy. And when there is a vacuum, critics fill it for you.
Cause-based communication nuances
Different types of inmate deaths demand different tones and approaches.
Suicide
Requires sensitivity and compassion. Avoid graphic details and stigmatizing language. Acknowledge staff efforts to save the individual. Provide reminders of support resources for staff. The American Foundation for Suicide Prevention provides helpful guidelines for safe and ethical reporting at afsp.org/ethicalreporting and reportingonsuicide.org.
Example (internal): “I want you to know that an inmate in our custody died this morning in what appears to be a suicide. Staff responded immediately with emergency care, but the inmate could not be revived. Their family has been notified. Please take care of yourselves and each other, and remember that peer support and EAP resources are available.”
Overdose
Deaths linked to contraband introduce operational concerns. Messaging must balance transparency with reassurance that steps are being taken to address security and safety.
Example (external): “This afternoon, an inmate at [facility name] died after an apparent overdose. Their family has been notified. The incident is under investigation, and steps are being taken to review security procedures and prevent future incidents. Staff secured the facility without disruption.”
Medical or natural causes
While less likely to draw headlines, these deaths still deserve clear, respectful communication. Acknowledge the care provided and the dignity of the individual.
Example (external): “This morning, an inmate at [facility name] died of what appears to be natural causes. Medical staff responded immediately, and lifesaving efforts were unsuccessful. The inmate’s family has been notified, and the incident is under review.”
Use of force
These incidents bring intense scrutiny, and deservedly so. Every agency should be prepared to communicate promptly and accurately. The department should issue an initial statement confirming the incident and that it is under investigation by another agency. Further comment should be referred to the investigating authority. This requires coordination but demonstrates transparency and respect for process.
Supervisors and leaders may feel pressure to publicly defend their staff, especially in the earliest hours when emotions are high and information is incomplete. While that instinct is understandable and often admirable, it can create long-term credibility problems if the facts later change. What is believed to be true on day one may look very different by day three.
We’ve seen this pattern play out in other fields. In the recent former NFL player Mark Sanchez case, for example, early reports portrayed him as the victim of a vicious attack. Within days, new evidence identified him as the suspect facing felony charges. The lesson is universal: Be cautious about making definitive statements before investigations are complete.
Be prepared to address questions about the employment status of involved staff, if allowed by policy or law. In some cases, officers may be placed on leave during an investigation. In others, privacy or personnel statutes may limit what can be said. What matters most is acknowledging the event, confirming it is being reviewed and explaining that the facility is secure.
Example (internal): “I need to share that an inmate died today after staff used force to respond to an incident. The family has been notified. The facility is secure. A full investigation is underway, led by an external agency, and I will update you as soon as more information is available.”
Words in action: Wrong way vs. right way
Wrong way (suicide): “At approximately 0815 hours, staff discovered an inmate deceased in Housing Unit B. EMS was contacted, and the incident remains under investigation.”
Right way (suicide): “This morning, an inmate at [facility name] died in what appears to be a suicide. Staff provided emergency care immediately, but the inmate could not be revived. The family has been notified, and the incident is under investigation. I will share more information later today.”
Wrong way (use of force): “The Department of Corrections announces the in-custody death of an inmate following a staff intervention. No further details are available.”
Right way (use of force): “I need to inform you that an inmate died today after staff used force to respond to an incident. The family has been notified, and the facility is secure. A full investigation is underway, and additional details will be provided tomorrow.”
One version reads like a report. The other reads like leadership. Which one sounds like your agency today?
Beyond the first words
A holding statement buys time, but it is not the end. Families, staff and the public need consistent updates.
- Staff updates: Even short, daily briefings prevent speculation and show respect.
- Families first: Each new development should be shared with families before it is made public.
- Empathy through people: “As commissioner, I extend my condolences” means more than “The department expresses condolences.”
- Victims and survivors: Few agencies acknowledge how an inmate death may affect those harmed by their crimes. Even a simple line such as “We recognize this news may be difficult for survivors of crime” can show awareness.
When messaging sounds like a lawyer wrote it
In the aftermath of an in-custody death, every word will be reviewed — by attorneys, investigators and the media. Legal teams are right to be cautious, but excessive legal phrasing can strip away the humanity that audiences need to hear.
Phrases like “the decedent was discovered unresponsive and subsequently pronounced deceased” may satisfy a legal review but fail to show compassion or leadership. Families, staff and the public don’t expect legal briefs; they expect honesty and empathy, and they deserve plain language.
Public information officers and legal counsel should work together, not against each other. The goal is to protect both the agency’s legal position and its credibility. Clear, plain language can do both.
Planning and preparation
If your only communication plan is to wait until the investigation is complete, that is what’s missing.
Strong preparation means:
- Templates for different types of inmate deaths that can be adapted quickly.
- Clear assignments for who notifies families, executives, staff and the public.
- Coordination with investigators and medical examiners.
- Training for leaders to deliver compassionate words under pressure.
- Protocols for staff support and daily updates.
Silence in the first hours creates rumors that no later detail can undo.
Conclusion
Every inmate death is a test of leadership, compassion and credibility. Families expect dignity. Staff expect honesty. Victims expect acknowledgment. The public expects transparency.
Meeting all four requires communication that is timely, respectful and human.
If your agency is not prepared to communicate tomorrow about an inmate death, the gap is already costing you trust today.
Because in corrections, words matter — and when a life is lost in custody, the words matter most of all.
The next installment in the Words Matter Series will focus on facility disturbances, exploring how leaders can communicate during fights, riots or large-scale disruptions without losing credibility or control.
Training discussion points
- How can agencies balance compassion with legal precision in crisis messaging?
- What does “families first” look like in practice during an inmate death?
- How can communication templates help avoid sterile or defensive tone?
- What steps can ensure updates remain consistent without compromising investigations?
Tactical takeaway
At the end of each shift, ask yourself: Did my use of discretion build safety, fairness and respect — or just paperwork?
