Ethical behavior of inmates

I’d love to feed the trash who murdered that little girl to some hardcases behind bars, which is the idea behind these questions: From what I understand, Dahmer was kept away from the general population while he was in prison. My question is twofold: is this typical for serial killers who are sent to prison as opposed to a mental health facility? And are certain criminals (rapists, child molesters, serial killers, ect) considered to be “at risk” and are therefore not placed near other inmates out of concern for their wellbeing?

I’m not normally so bloodthirsty, but in this case :(…anyway, thank you for your answer.

Yes. That’s called “protective custody.” Usually it’s not too different from solitary confinement.

It’s darkly ironic that the same term is used when hiding both innocent people and sickos.

Our Special management Unit where I work houses those prisoners who would be likely preyed on by other inmates: Sex offenders, former police officers, judges, prison guards, effeminate males, etc.

Qadgop:

I’m just curious. When you say “sex offenders”, does that include men who rape adult women, or does it usually refer to just the ones who had child vicitims (molesters)? That is to say, do rapists who commit heterosexual adult-on-adult crimes fall into this preyed upon catagory?

Child molesters specifically get some pretty harsh treatment due to a larger incidence of inmates having been molested themselves as children.

Apparently, nobody likes child molesters.

b

The basic rule of thumb is that we seperate out inmates we feel would be the cause of problems in general population; either because they would perpetrate trouble or because they would be the target of trouble.

Child molesters generally fall into the latter category. Apparently due to whatever psychological darkness motivated them to commit their crimes, molesters are often prone to talking about their crimes even when they know they will be targeted because of it. So the identities of molesters are usually known.

To answer c-of-cyn’s question, rapists who target adult victims are generally not shunned the way child rapists are. As Billy Rubin wrote, many inmates were themselves the subject of abuse as children and therefore hate child abusers. But they generally lack empathy for adult victims.

Sorry. Meant to write “child sex offenders” ie those in prison for molesting children.

During the recent CNN coverage of Samantha Runnion’s murder, I heard the belief expressed several times that the man who raped and murdered her would essentially be ‘taken care’ of by his fellow inmates. I think it was Polly Klaas’ father who stated that the fellow would be raped and get a shiv stuck into him. This seems to be a case of wishful thinking. In reality the most likely men to be raped are small white guys who are first time offenders with no gang affiliations. Apparently Child molestors and murderers are protected in prison.

In our state prison system, child molesters are on the bottom of the inmate hierarchy. There’s noone lower, in the felons’ eyes. Just above the molesters are the guards, then the effeminate inmates, then the non-security personnel (Like Me!), the murderers, etc.

Our molesters are generally housed in special areas, so they’re less likely to be preyed on. Their punishment is supposed to be the fact that they’re in prison. NOT that they’re imprisoned so they can be tortured by other inmates or staff.

Now, the system doesn’t always work. Jeffrey Dahmer was housed in ultra-secure areas, but eventually got offed by a fellow inmate.

As for homosexual rape in prison, I know it occurs, but I’m not seeing much of it. Our warden is tough on those types that look the other way and let it happen, and the guilty do get punished.

But our facility is a village with 1600+ residents, none of which want to be there. They outnumber us by a large ratio, and as a result, security comes before inmate safety or health.

It’s an interesting world.

Is that so? Makes sense, but a few years ago I had a long conversation with a couple of friends about why convicts were so hard on perverts. One of the guys, an ex-con himself, was of the opinion that the convicts had a psychological need for someone to be lower on society’s pecking order than themselves. It could be, though, that the cons didn’t want to admit to having been sexually abused as children.
I do know, from some research I did thirty-five years ago for a school paper, that the majority of prisoners were abused as children. But most of the abuse was physical and psycholigical, and not as much sexual.
My cousin, in and out of prison all his life, was somewhat neglected but not terribly abused as a child. But he would jump at any chance to victimize someone he considered lower than himself.
Peace,
mangeorge

mangeorge the evidence/information I have is all anecdotal. I installed machinery in prisons for a time, had to get involved with inmates, my comment is merely a reflection of my experiences there. Certainly your comment about pecking order flies as easily.

b.

That’s cool, Billy Rubin. :cool: I’m no social anthropologist myself.
I’m just curious about warped minds, and about what warps them.
The prison culture, while parallel to our’s, is also very different. It is, indeed, a world apart. To comment with authority on the ethical behavior of inmates I think I’d have to understand that culture a lot better than I do now. I do, though, have some trouble admiring the so called “noble” actions of murderers and other victimizers.
Peace,
mangeorge

Of no great consequence but Dahmer was, by his own request, allowed greater contact with the general population than would normally be considered wise.

I tend to agree with mangeorge on this, behavior towards these individuals has more to do with creation of a pecking order than any actual feelings about the persons crimes. No different then a schoolyard bully gaining status by picking on the unpopular kids.

Heh. Given the outcome, I’d venture to say that the request was of pretty important consequence, indeed.

Axe murderer to child molestor in prison: “You SOB! I’m gonna kill you!?”

CM: “Why?”

AM: “Because YOU’VE got a SERIOUS problem!”

There is also a pecking order for those who can kill another inmate, but the target has to be justified as either an undesirable, such as a nonce(short for nonsense eg: sex-crimes and granny bashers) or it has to be another dangerous inmate, if an inmate can get a notorious killer then it all adds to his kudos, hence one inmate tried to kill Peter Sutcliffe with felt tip pens, and succeeded in inflicting serious injury by stabbing him through the eyes.

Inmates who are never going to be released enjoy the status that they have through having nothing to lose.

Among the lowest of the low are hard drug users(smackheads), since they can be basically bought and sold by other inmates for almost any task, and they are also the ones most likely to steal from other inmates, default on debts, or they may seek protection from other inmates they owe out to ,by offering information to staff, in exchange for a prison transfer.

In the UK armed crime is relatively rare compared to other offenders, those who target security vans, wages snatches and the like, these are pretty near the top of the heap.

We do have serious organised criminals in our higher grade jails who try to control things, and in the past prison staff have fallen into the trap of allowing such individuals help keep things operating smoothly.

I would agree that prisoners seem to have a need to look down on others, their world is filled with percieved injustices, paranoia, petty hatreds, self-justification, jealousy, envy and competition.

Yet underneath this there can be acts of huge generosity, great loyalty, companionship and shared dependancy.

In some ways ‘Lord of the flies’ applies well to many inmates not just in their amorality, but in a lack of education and immaturity, many inmates seem to have the education and emotional level of a thirteen year old.

One of those fellow janitors killed him.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/dahmer/dahmertrial.htm