Key Points

Highlight the central issue of New York City’s mayoral race: choosing between candidates advocating law and order versus radical incarceration reform.
Describe the candidates’ opposing stances on Rikers Island jail closure, with Cuomo and Sliwa favoring rebuilding on Rikers and Mamdani supporting scheduled closure and decarceration.
Report the crime surge and population decline linked to past inmate releases, which opponents use to criticize Mamdani’s jail abolition plan.

As early voting opens in New York City’s fiercely contested mayoral election, a pivotal question looms: will voters choose a candidate promising law and order, or one championing a radical overhaul of the city’s approach to incarceration? The stakes are high, the rhetoric sharper than ever, and the city’s future direction hangs in the balance.

On Wednesday night, the three leading candidates—Zohran Mamdani, Curtis Sliwa, and Andrew Cuomo—took to the debate stage for their final televised showdown before the November 4 election. The atmosphere was electric, with a packed university auditorium fueling pointed exchanges and raw emotion. According to BBC, the debate lasted over 90 minutes and spanned issues from housing and the Israel-Gaza conflict to the city’s relationship with the White House.

At the heart of the campaign is the fate of Rikers Island, New York City’s notorious jail complex. By law, Rikers is set to close in 2027, but the replacement county jails—already years behind schedule—won’t be ready until at least 2029. This logistical gap has become a flashpoint in the race, exposing deep philosophical divides among the candidates.

Both Andrew Cuomo, the former governor, and Curtis Sliwa, the Republican Guardian Angels founder, have made their positions clear: they’d scrap the current plan for new county jails and instead rebuild on Rikers Island. They argue the city can’t afford to lose jail capacity or risk public safety by releasing inmates prematurely. “The budget-busting county jails are already years behind schedule,” noted New York Post, echoing widespread concerns about cost overruns and delays.

In stark contrast, Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic frontrunner and state assemblyman, insists on closing Rikers on schedule—no matter what. He frames the move as a moral and legal imperative, saying it’s “required by law.” Mamdani’s platform, which includes making New York “affordable” through a slew of free public services, is underpinned by a more radical goal: decarceration, or the abolition of jails altogether. He’s embraced the City Council’s controversial plan to shutter Rikers and build smaller neighborhood jails—a stance that has drawn both fervent support and fierce criticism.

But the numbers are stark. Rikers currently houses 7,100 inmates, while the new county jails will offer only 4,100 beds. That means thousands—many charged with serious and violent offenses—could be released onto the streets simply for lack of space. According to New York Post, 96% of those held at Rikers are charged with felonies, and 47% face violent felony charges, including murder. Only 222 inmates are charged with misdemeanors. “If you woke up one morning and read that 3,000 inmates had escaped from Rikers, you’d be terrified,” wrote retired prosecutor Jim Quinn, warning that Mamdani’s plan could have the same effect.

History offers a sobering precedent. In 2020, as part of bail reform and pandemic measures, the city released 2,000 inmates, followed by 2,000 more violent offenders. The result? Crime surged almost 40%, shootings doubled, and by 2022, murders were up 33%. Even today, crime remains 32% higher than it was in 2019. If crime had stayed at 2019 levels through 2024, the city would have seen nearly 100,000 fewer crime victims, 3,000 fewer shooting victims, and almost 600 fewer murders, according to New York Post.

The consequences extended beyond crime statistics. Between 2020 and 2024, 800,000 people—nearly 9% of the city’s population—moved out. Despite an influx of new migrants, the population is still 326,000 below 2019 levels. Surveys consistently show that “quality of life,” a common euphemism for fear of crime, was the top reason former residents gave for leaving. Other large cities, by comparison, saw far less dramatic population declines.

These facts have become ammunition for Mamdani’s opponents. Sliwa, never one to pull punches, has positioned himself as the sole candidate who can keep New Yorkers safe. “I don’t trust you,” he declared to Cuomo during the debate, referencing subway safety under Cuomo’s governorship. After the debate, Sliwa promised to be Mamdani’s “worst nightmare” if elected and joked that Cuomo “had a couple Red Bulls” before taking the stage.

The debate also saw personal attacks and unresolved scandals resurface. Mamdani called Cuomo “a desperate man,” while Cuomo accused Mamdani of shirking his duties as a state assemblyman—an accusation Mamdani flatly denied. Both Sliwa and Mamdani pressed Cuomo on the sexual harassment allegations that led to his 2021 resignation, with Mamdani pointedly asking, “What do you say to the 13 women who you sexually harassed?” Cuomo, as he has before, denied wrongdoing and emphasized that the cases had been dropped.

Mamdani, for his part, faced scrutiny over a photo showing him with a Ugandan official who promoted anti-LGBTQ+ legislation. “Had I known that the first deputy minister was the architect of that legislation, I would not have taken that photo,” Mamdani responded, adding that Cuomo had failed to protect LGBTQ+ New Yorkers during his own time in office.

The debate wasn’t all fireworks and finger-pointing. On the recent federal immigration raid in Chinatown, all three candidates agreed that the New York City Police Department, not federal officers, should handle street vending issues. But their approaches to dealing with a potential Trump administration diverged sharply. Sliwa advocated negotiation—“With Trump, it’s always the art of the deal”—while Mamdani accused Cuomo of being “Donald Trump’s puppet.” Cuomo, meanwhile, touted his experience standing up to Trump: “He puts his finger in your chest, and you have to put your finger right back in his chest.”

The Israel-Gaza conflict also cast a long shadow over the campaign. Mamdani, who has made his pro-Palestine views central to his candidacy, has been accused by Cuomo and Sliwa of encouraging antisemitism and failing to sufficiently denounce the phrase “globalise the intifada.” Mamdani insisted he would be mayor for “all New Yorkers,” including Jewish residents, and attributed the criticism to being “the first Muslim candidate to be on the precipice” of winning the mayoralty. Cuomo, staunchly pro-Israel, stressed the right to protest but drew a line: “That doesn’t justify antisemitic behaviour.”

With polls suggesting Mamdani holds a double-digit lead, the outcome may hinge on whether voters are swayed by promises of reform and inclusivity or by warnings about public safety and stability. The city’s future, as ever, will be decided not just by policy platforms, but by the lived experiences and anxieties of its people. As early ballots are cast, New Yorkers face a choice that could reshape the city’s trajectory for years to come.