When New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani appointed Stanley Richards — a former Rikers Island inmate — to serve as commissioner of the New York City Department of Correction, he called the move “not merely symbolic,” but a testament to the leadership Richards would bring to both staff and incarcerated individuals.
For many Corrections1 readers, the historic nature of the appointment sparked immediate and deeply divided reactions.
Richards, who served over 4 years in prison in the late 1980s for robbery and later became executive vice president of The Fortune Society, is now the first formerly incarcerated person to oversee the city’s jail system. During a press conference on Jan. 31, the mayor said the goal is to prioritize safety, transparency and rehabilitation.
We asked readers: Does having served time in jail give a corrections commissioner valuable insight — or create blind spots when it comes to officer safety and operations? Why or why not?
Here’s what you had to say.
“A slap in the face” to officers
Many readers expressed concern that Richards’ incarceration history could undermine officer morale and institutional authority.
“This is a slap in the face [to] anybody working corrections in New York City,” one reader wrote. “I shudder at the thought of the hug a thug movement this will bring.”
Another questioned how officers and inmates would respond to leadership from someone who once served time: “I don’t judge or criticize anyone, especially being an ex-inmate, but to hire a convicted felon to run the jails gives a whole new meaning [to] the word crazy. The COs/inmates definitely do not want to take orders from this individual, which is going to create a whole lot of extra tension, so what are we solving here?”
Others raised concerns about implicit bias and officer safety.
“Bad idea. Any incarcerated individual now in a position of authority will have an implicit bias toward other perpetrators. He does not care about the violence within or the officer.”
Several readers questioned whether lived experience behind bars could create solidarity with incarcerated individuals that might conflict with operational realities.
“He is biased and probably feels some sort of solidarity with the inmates,” one reader wrote. “He could help with reentry as a consultant, but he shouldn’t run the department.”
Another added: “No ex-inmate should serve in corrections. Correction officers carry guns and the commissioner is an ex-felon and he cannot carry a gun legally.”
“Who knows the system better?”
Other readers saw Richards’ background as an asset rather than a liability.
“Valuable insight! Who knows the system better than him?” one reader wrote. “When you have paid dearly for a mistake you made, you often are grateful to have a chance to redeem.”
Another pointed to firsthand knowledge of conditions inside facilities: “As an ex-felon, he has firsthand knowledge of the heinous treatment inmates — both guilty and innocent — have suffered at the hands of other inmates and even those entrusted to protect them. I’m sure Stanley can attest to this reality, and hopefully he can help bring much-needed change to these facilities.”
One reader framed the appointment as an opportunity to restore balance: “It brings back the humanity to the agency that is needed to help rehabilitate troubled people, giving them a chance to become a healthy, functioning part of our community.”
Concerns about experience and operations
Beyond questions of bias, some readers focused on operational complexity.
“Absolutely not,” one commenter wrote. “An individual who does not know policy, procedures, regulations, state and federal laws, jail rules and regs, union rights, overtime, staffing issues, training, HR rules, federal law working rights and on and on.”
Others questioned whether symbolic appointments overshadow practical leadership experience.
“This is a publicity move,” one reader said. “He may be a very capable person, but I think his time inside will probably make him biased.”
Another reader compared Richards’ appointment to the naming of a former federal inmate as deputy director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, saying they would prefer formerly incarcerated individuals serve as consultants rather than lead an entire department.
Broader reflections on the future of corrections
Some responses widened the discussion beyond one individual to the future of the profession itself.
One reader argued that corrections careers require stronger educational foundations: “Corrections is a rewarding career but needs to be upgraded; a high school education is not enough nowadays. Corrections officers should be, and are actually counselors.”
Another raised concerns about housing strategies and safety policies, including solitary confinement and classification systems.
These comments highlight an underlying tension: whether reform efforts should prioritize rehabilitation models, operational security, or a recalibration of both.
A divided profession
Richards’ appointment has clearly struck a nerve within the corrections community. For some, his past represents hard-earned insight and credibility. For others, it raises concerns about morale, authority and officer safety.
As one reader put it simply: “I hope I’m wrong.”
The debate underscores a broader question facing agencies nationwide: How should lived experience factor into leadership — and where is the line between reform and risk?
What do you think? Share your perspective with Corrections1.
