When Death Happens in Government Custody, Accountability Must Follow

When someone dies in government custody, the question is not only what happened. The deeper question is whether the system designed to enforce the law is also capable of protecting human life.
That question has returned after the death of Geraldo Lunas Campos, a 55 year old Cuban immigrant who died in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody in January. An autopsy concluded that he died from asphyxia caused by compression of his neck and torso, and ruled his death a homicide.

ICE initially suggested Campos had attempted suicide and that guards intervened to save him. Witness accounts and medical findings now raise serious doubts about that explanation. The gap between official statements and emerging evidence is not just a detail. It is the heart of the problem.

A system under strain

Campos’ death was not an isolated incident. Three detainees died at the same facility within roughly two months, and dozens have died in ICE custody nationwide in recent years. In 2025, the number of deaths reached the highest level in two decades.
These events fit into a broader pattern in which official narratives, public perception, and institutional accountability collide. Similar dynamics have been explored in reporting on how political narratives spread and take hold.

Supporters of aggressive immigration enforcement argue that detention is necessary to uphold the rule of law. That argument deserves consideration. Governments have the authority to enforce borders and detain individuals who violate immigration laws.
But authority does not eliminate responsibility.

When transparency breaks down

When deaths occur repeatedly in custody, they reveal systemic weaknesses: overcrowded facilities, inadequate medical care, poorly trained staff, opaque oversight, and conflicting accounts of critical incidents. These are not ideological claims. They are documented patterns.

The issue is not whether immigration laws should be enforced. It is whether enforcement is being carried out in a way that is transparent, humane, and accountable. Questions about how authority is exercised without sufficient oversight appear across other areas of U.S. governance.

Deaths in detention often fade quickly from public attention. They rarely dominate headlines for long, and investigations can take months or years. Meanwhile, families struggle for answers, witnesses face deportation, and institutions close ranks.
This cycle erodes public trust.

The difference between authority and accountability

When government agencies provide incomplete or shifting explanations for deaths in custody, skepticism is inevitable. Transparency is not a threat to law enforcement. It is a prerequisite for legitimacy.

Calls for accountability are sometimes framed as opposition to immigration enforcement itself. That framing is misleading.
A system that enforces laws while failing to safeguard detainees is not strong. It is fragile.

Real strength lies in the ability to enforce laws while upholding standards of care, oversight, and human dignity. That means independent investigations, clear use of force rules, medical accountability, and meaningful consequences when standards are violated.

The United States has long claimed that its legal system is built on due process and equal protection under the law. Those principles do not end at the doors of detention centers.

Geraldo Lunas Campos died in custody, but the implications of his death extend far beyond one man or one facility. The real issue is whether the country is willing to confront what repeated deaths in detention say about its priorities.

If enforcement is necessary, accountability is non negotiable.

Until the government treats deaths in custody not as unfortunate anomalies but as urgent warnings, the same questions will continue to surface, as ongoing analysis of power and accountability continues across platforms such as The Political Rift.