mea culpa
yes the only way to keep lifers in line is something worse than life. otherwise there is actually an incentive FOR them to kill.they gain in status
Yes, someone who has killed while in prison gains status. The issue is if, when, where and how they are permitted to use that increase in status for their benefit.
The way you keep lifers (and the rest of those doing time) in line is to offer them an either/or choice. Follow the rules (as much as one can) and partake of the privileges or violate the rules and participate in the progressive withdrawal of privileges until all you are left with is the bare minium of care constitutionally required to avoid being considered cruel
and unusual (which are the minimum levels/amonts of food, clothing, shelter, and medical care along with 30 minutes twice a week of "exercise").
The question has always been how long an inmate can endure the loss of privileges and which privileges they can endure losing. Some have made it in the "hole" (literal isolation from human contact and no privileges) for several years and come out essentially unchanged as regards folloing rules. Others can be "controlled" by something as simple as taking away the privilege of watching TV, or better yet the threat of losing tjhat privilege. In the first case it was a scrawny little Milquetoast-looking 28-year old psychopath who never seemed to spend more than 48 hours outside of administrative segregation. The second case was a three-time murderer (first two were 2nd degree murder convictions) of about 45 who looked, and sometimes sounded, like he would tear your head off just for being alive in his presence. He never became a "gentle giant" but he did stop trying to kill people. Of course, getting beat by him was no picnic, but it was an improvement.
I have interviewed about 15 people who were on death row. It was part of a federally funded study that came up with the "wrong" results so was buried in some archive. What I got was that while they were waiting for the final execution warrant the concept of death and of being executed were just that - psychological concepts. Not until they had exhausted all their appeals and knew that barring the Second Coming there would be no last-minute reprieve did they actually begin to respond viscerally to the fact of impending death. Yes, 15 is a pretty small sample, and there was no control for anything except they were on death row, had received a warrant of execution, and agreed to be interviewed. Many more did not agree to be interviewed.
Guys on death row were never worried about getting a second death sentence - they knew they copuld only be executed once. Lifers were a mixed bag - many (a plurality?) actually looked at death as being better than wasting their life away locked up, but none volunteered to be executed. Unless you put credence to the stories of some lifers arranging to be killed on the yard/tier/cellblock to avoid doing any more time.
But I'd really like to get off this thread drift and get back to the issue of how we actually execute people. Not thje specific modality, but how we use execution as a means of social control and whether or not it is effective. Because in spite of what Amnesty International and my own observations tell me about prolonged incarceration, and especially prolonged incarceration in isolation, I want to hear why we kill some folks instead of locking them up underneath the prison and throwing away the key.
stay safe.
