The U.S. government is failing to accurately track how many people die while in law enforcement custody, despite a law designed to do just that. A review of federal data found hundreds of deaths were missing, and many records lacked basic information like the cause or location of death. For example, George Floyd's death was miscategorized, and highly publicized cases like that of Joshua McLemore in Indiana and Alan Willison in Georgia were not included in the federal count.

States like Louisiana and Mississippi have significant gaps in reporting, with some officials admitting that local agencies do not always follow the required procedures. Many records are incomplete, with over 4,200 deaths marked as "unavailable, investigation pending," and thousands more missing details such as age, location, or the responsible agency. Even names are often incorrect or missing, with many individuals listed as "Decedent" or "unknown."

This lack of accurate data is a long-standing problem. The Death in Custody Reporting Act was passed in 2000 to address this, but the tracking of deaths related to arrests proved particularly difficult. Efforts to improve the system, including reaching out directly to local police departments and using outside data sources, were halted. The program was moved from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, which focused on research, to the Bureau of Justice Assistance, a grant-making agency, which experts believe has led to a decline in data quality.

Despite a penalty in the law that allows for withholding federal funding from agencies that fail to report, this penalty has never been used. Experts suggest that agencies may find it less costly to accept the penalty than to invest in proper data collection. Some believe the government is hesitant to enforce the law and release the data because it is embarrassing for law enforcement, prisons, and the Justice Department itself.

While the federal government struggles, some states, like Washington, have shown success in collecting and using data on in-custody deaths to implement changes that prevent future tragedies. However, a nationwide commitment to this level of data collection and action remains elusive, partly due to a culture of distrust between law enforcement and civilian oversight. Ideas for improvement include merging the program with FBI efforts, creating a centralized data portal, or returning the program to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Despite some progress, the federal government still does not have a clear understanding of how many people die in custody, and the data collection is considered worse now than it was a decade ago.

Original article

Actionable Information: There is no actionable information provided. The article describes a problem with government data collection but does not offer any steps a reader can take.

Educational Depth: The article provides some educational depth by explaining the history of the Death in Custody Reporting Act, the reasons for data inaccuracies (e.g., program relocation, lack of enforcement), and potential solutions. It highlights the systemic issues and the consequences of poor data collection.

Personal Relevance: The topic has personal relevance as it touches upon public safety, government accountability, and the justice system, which affect all citizens. While it doesn't offer direct personal advice, it informs readers about a critical failure in a system that impacts society.

Public Service Function: The article serves a public service function by raising awareness about a significant governmental failing in tracking deaths in custody. It highlights a lack of transparency and accountability in a sensitive area.

Practicality of Advice: No advice or steps are given, so practicality cannot be assessed.

Long-Term Impact: The article's long-term impact is limited because it doesn't propose solutions that individuals can implement. It points to systemic issues that require governmental action.

Emotional or Psychological Impact: The article might evoke feelings of concern or frustration due to the described failures and lack of accountability. However, it does not offer hope or practical ways to address these feelings.

Clickbait or Ad-Driven Words: The language used is factual and informative, not sensational or clickbait-driven.

Missed Chances to Teach or Guide: The article missed a significant opportunity to provide readers with ways to learn more or advocate for change. For instance, it could have suggested looking up the Death in Custody Reporting Act, contacting elected officials, or finding reports from organizations that monitor these issues. A normal person could find more information by searching for "Death in Custody Reporting Act" on government websites or by looking for reports from civil liberties organizations.

The failure to accurately track deaths within law enforcement custody weakens the bonds of trust and responsibility within communities. When records are incomplete or deliberately obscured, it erodes the community's ability to hold accountable those entrusted with public safety. This lack of transparency directly impacts the protection of vulnerable individuals, including children and elders, as it prevents a clear understanding of the risks they may face.

The absence of reliable data on these deaths suggests a breakdown in the duty of care owed to all members of the community. When specific cases are omitted or miscategorized, it signals a disregard for the truth and a failure to learn from past tragedies. This can lead to a sense of powerlessness among families and neighbors, who rely on accurate information to advocate for their loved ones and ensure justice.

The reliance on distant, impersonal systems for tracking such critical information, rather than fostering local accountability and direct community involvement, further fractures kinship bonds. It shifts the responsibility for safeguarding lives away from the immediate family and clan, creating dependencies that can weaken the natural duties of care and protection. The admission by some officials that local agencies do not always follow procedures highlights a disregard for the fundamental duty to report and protect, which is essential for the survival and well-being of the people.

The lack of enforcement of penalties for non-compliance indicates a systemic failure to uphold the basic principles of responsibility and accountability. This creates a dangerous precedent where the duty to protect and report is seen as optional, undermining the very fabric of community trust. When the truth about deaths in custody is suppressed or ignored, it creates a climate of fear and distrust, making it harder for families to feel secure and for communities to function cohesively.

The consequence of such widespread disregard for accurate data and accountability is a weakening of the community's ability to protect its most vulnerable. Children yet to be born will grow up in an environment where the value of life is diminished, and where trust in those who are meant to protect them is eroded. The stewardship of the land, which is intrinsically linked to the well-being of its people, will suffer as a result of this breakdown in social cohesion and shared responsibility. Without a renewed commitment to personal duty, local accountability, and the honest reporting of all lives lost, the continuity of the people and the health of their communities are jeopardized.

The text uses strong words to create a negative feeling about the U.S. government's data tracking. It says the government is "failing" and that hundreds of deaths are "missing." This makes the government look bad and suggests a serious problem.

The text uses passive voice to hide who is responsible for the bad data. For example, it says "efforts to improve the system... were halted." This doesn't say who halted the efforts. It also says "the program was moved," without saying who moved it.

The text suggests a reason for the government's inaction without providing proof. It says, "Some believe the government is hesitant to enforce the law and release the data because it is embarrassing for law enforcement, prisons, and the Justice Department itself." This is presented as a possible reason but is not stated as a confirmed fact.

The text uses a contrast to highlight a positive example and make the federal government look worse. It says, "While the federal government struggles, some states, like Washington, have shown success." This makes the federal government's failure seem even bigger by comparing it to a successful state.

The text uses a quote from "experts" to support its claims without naming them. It says, "experts believe has led to a decline in data quality" and "Experts suggest that agencies may find it less costly." This makes the claims sound more important, but we don't know who these experts are or if they are truly unbiased.

The text conveys a strong sense of frustration and disappointment stemming from the government's failure to accurately track deaths in law enforcement custody. This emotion is evident in phrases like "failing to accurately track," "hundreds of deaths were missing," and "many records lacked basic information." The mention of specific, high-profile cases like George Floyd's, Joshua McLemore's, and Alan Willison's, along with the description of incomplete records with missing names and details, amplifies this feeling of frustration. The purpose of this emotion is to highlight the seriousness of the problem and to underscore the government's shortcomings. It guides the reader's reaction by creating a sense of unease and concern about the lack of accountability and transparency. This emotional tone aims to persuade the reader that the current system is inadequate and needs urgent improvement.

Furthermore, the text evokes a feeling of concern and worry regarding the potential consequences of this data deficiency. The incomplete records, with thousands of deaths marked as "unavailable, investigation pending" or missing crucial details, suggest a lack of proper oversight and a potential for overlooked injustices. This emotion is particularly strong when discussing the penalty for non-compliance that has "never been used," implying a lack of enforcement and a possible systemic issue. The purpose here is to alert the reader to the potential dangers and the human cost of this data gap, suggesting that without accurate tracking, it is harder to prevent future tragedies. This emotional appeal aims to build a sense of shared responsibility and to encourage a desire for change.

A subtle undercurrent of skepticism or even cynicism is also present, particularly in the explanation for why the penalty for non-reporting is not enforced. The suggestion that agencies might find it "less costly to accept the penalty than to invest in proper data collection" and the belief that the government might be hesitant to release embarrassing data point to a distrust in the system's willingness or ability to address the problem effectively. This emotion serves to question the motives and efficiency of the government agencies involved, aiming to persuade the reader that the problem is not merely a technical one but potentially rooted in a reluctance to confront uncomfortable truths.

The writer uses several tools to amplify these emotions and persuade the reader. The repetition of the core problem – the failure to track deaths accurately – reinforces the sense of frustration. The use of specific examples, like the named individuals whose deaths were not counted, makes the issue more personal and impactful, creating a stronger emotional connection than abstract statistics alone. The contrast between the federal government's struggles and the success of states like Washington serves to highlight the severity of the federal failure and implicitly suggests a path forward, fostering a sense of hope for improvement while simultaneously emphasizing the current lack of nationwide commitment. The phrasing, such as "failing to accurately track" and "significant gaps," uses emotionally charged language to convey the severity of the situation, moving beyond neutral reporting to evoke a stronger reader response. These techniques work together to create a compelling narrative that not only informs but also persuades the reader of the urgent need for better data collection and accountability in matters of life and death.