Nothing to Lose? An Examination of Prison Misconduct Among Life-Without-Parole Inmates

• Author: Jonathan R. Sorensen,Thomas J. Reidy
• DOI: 10.1177/0032885518814719
• Date: 01 January 2019
• Published date: 01 January 2019
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885518814719

The Prison Journal

2019, Vol. 99(1) 46 –65

© 2018 SAGE Publications

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0032885518814719

journals.sagepub.com/home/tpj

Article

Nothing to Lose? An

Examination of Prison

Misconduct Among Life-

Without-Parole Inmates

Jonathan R. Sorensen1 and Thomas J. Reidy2

Abstract

Inmates serving life-without-parole (LWOP) have been described

as having “nothing to lose” by virtue of their sentence, leading to an

assumption that they are more prone to disciplinary violations. This study

refutes such an argument and is consistent with research demonstrating

that LWOP inmates do not pose a disproportional risk for disciplinary

misconduct. Results from our study comparing LWOP with parole-

eligible, life-sentenced (LWP) inmates revealed neither significant

differences in the total violation count nor the time to commission of

an act of disciplinary misconduct. Trajectories of misconduct showed

slightly higher prevalence of misconduct among LWOP inmates, a pattern

of declining prevalence during the first 18 months of confinement, and

a convergence with LWP inmates thereafter. The failure of assumptions

of high violence risk for LWOP inmates has important public policy and

correctional implications.

Keywords

life-without-parole, prison violence, prison misconduct, long-term inmates

1East Carolina University, Greenville, NC, USA

2In private practice, Monterey, CA, USA

Corresponding Author:

Jonathan R. Sorensen, Department of Criminal Justice, East Carolina University, Office 238,

Mail Stop 505, Greenville, NC 27858, USA.

Email: sorensenj@ecu.edu

814719TPJXXX10.1177/0032885518814719The Prison JournalSorensen and Reidy

research-article2018

Sorensen and Reidy 47

Introduction

Throughout most of the 20th century, inmates sentenced to life imprisonment

could be released on parole at some point in the future. The federal system

had in place a policy of parole review after 15 years of incarceration dating

back to 1913 (Nellis, 2013). Eligibility for parole among such lifers was

widespread and consistent with indeterminate sentencing models in force in

all states. A shift to structured sentencing and tough on-crime policies (e.g.,

three strikes laws, truth-in-sentencing) enacted since the 1980s has increased

the number of persons subjected to life-sentences and the amount of time to

be served prior to parole eligibility. Currently, 49 states utilize life-without-

parole (LWOP) as a sanction in certain instances, while six states and the

federal system have completely abolished parole for any life-sentenced pris-

oners (American Civil Liberties Union [ACLU], 2013; Death Penalty

Information Center [DPIC], n.d.).The most recent figures available show that

the number of inmates nationwide serving LWOP sentences was 53,290 as of

2016, a 328% increase in the LWOP population since 1992 (Nellis, 2017). As

of January 2015, there were 4,436 inmates serving LWOP sentences in the

Federal Bureau of Prisons (Schmitt & Konfrst, 2015).

Historically, correctional personnel espoused a belief that (parole-eligi-

ble) lifers (hereafter referred to as LWP inmates), along with other long-

term inmates, were generally among the most manageable prisoners

(Flanagan, 1980, 1995; Wardlaw & Biles, 1980; Zamble, 1992). Perhaps

this was owed to an acceptance of their fate, the effect of aging, the process

of adjusting to the prison environment that comes with a lengthy incarcera-

tion, growing accustomed to minor privileges accorded for good behavior,

or the hope of eventual release (Johnson & Dobrzanska, 2005). With the

advent of LWOP sentences, fears surfaced about an emerging group of

inmates who, arguably having nothing to lose, would become a “new breed

of super-inmates prone to violence and uncontrollable behavior” (Stewart

& Lieberman, 1982, p. 16).

While some have suggested that LWOP inmates be housed under austere

and extremely restrictive conditions of confinement, barring misbehavior,

they are generally housed alongside parole-eligible inmates under similar

conditions ranging from medium to maximum security confinement (Blecker,

2013). Given that so many more inmates are receiving sentences of LWOP

and will likely serve the bulk of their sentences under conditions that allow

them to interact routinely with other inmates and correctional staff, the ques-

tion arises as to what level of difficulty these inmates pose for prison admin-

istrators, staff, and other inmates throughout their incarceration. The current

study seeks to shed light on this question by examining conduct violations