Why are spies (and child molesters) the lowest of the low in prison?

Factual Questions
1

It’s a staple of fiction: the spy convicted of selling secrets for money to an enemy of his government (or the child molester) is sent off to prison. There, he encounters hard-boiled criminals (murderers, rapists, etc.) who look down on him, with an air of, “I may have hacked 20 women into little pieces, but I would never do that!”

Is this for real?

What I mean is, do these kind of sociopathic personalities really feel anything like moral outrage?

Or is it just because spies and child molesters are likely to not be expecially formidable compared to other hard-time convicts? And thus easier to make into quivering victims?

Or neither of the above?

(Everyone’s opinion is welcome, but shrinks are especially encouraged to reply).

2

This will likely get moved to another forum.

WAG:

Child molesters: take advantage of children who generally look to adults to take care of them. It’s a violation of trust.

Spies: Sell out their entire country for a few bucks. Of course, what they forget: If I am an evil country wanting to bring down your country and you help me, when I take over your country, you’ll be the first to die. You can’t be trusted.

3

It seems pretty common sensical to me that anyone who molests a child is the lowest of the low.

Period.

As far as spies, if they got caught spying and landed in prison, well, they can’t be trusted. Even by mass murderers.

4

I understand that this may need moved into (probably) GD – I was interested in the concensus (if one exists) in the behavioral sciences, and should have stated so. But debate is fine with me too.

5

I guess I’m just confused how a man who lures an innocent, unsuspecting woman half his size to her death could get upset at someone who can’t be trusted.

6

Another WAG: someone who “may have hacked 20 women into little pieces” is most likely mentally ill and MAY not be in control of his actions. Spies know exactly what they’re doing. Same with child molesters to a point.

7

Prisoners who themselves were victims of molestation when they were children are probably going to be very pissed about it their whole lives, and when a child molester gets sent to prison, those victims are going to want to get revenge somehow. That’s why child molesters get beaten in prison.

8

He’d probably say something like “She had it coming”.

Really hard to make that arguement as to why to like to rape childern.

9

I can never understand this logic. It seems worse to me to kill a child. But that said, your sentiment is very common. So to address the OP, I don’t think this is anything peculiar to prison. Most members of the general public consider spies and child molestors especially contemptible, so it only makes sense that this attitude would be prevalent among prisoners as well.

10

There was a book I read called “You Got Nothing Coming” by a guy in prison. No idea how accurate he is, but he reports that quite a few child molesters try to get into sick wards or individual cells for psychological prisoners because of the beatdowns they’ll get in the regular cells. As to why, I’m going to guess it’s because quite a few prisoners have kids and, secondly, it’s pretty hard to justify. For a rapist, “she had it coming/she really wanted it.” For a robbery, “I needed the money.” But you can’t justify molesting a child.

As for spies, I’d say it’s because they’re already known to be rats. And criminals tend to hate rats, given their profession.

11

Well, what little I know of prison life says that rapists are only just above child molestors in the “heirarchy.” What I’ve heard says that what heirarchy exists is mostly based upon three (selfish) factors - respect for the act that landed the prisoner in prison (which puts murderers and “creative” theives at or near the top), trustworthiness (which is incredibly important in the closed environment of a prison - and why nobody likes a narc), and, surprisingly, empathy for the victim. The most common refrain I’ve heard to justify this last is “They could have done that to my sister,” or “they could have done that to me when I was a kid.” For reference, this cite (Acrobat file) indicates a significantly higher incidence of child abuse in prisoner populations than in the general public.

FWIW.

12

D’oh! :confused: I’ll bet there’s also a higher incidence of theft in prisoner populations than in the general public. :eek: Probably a higher incidence of murder in prisoner populations than in the general public too. :dubious:

13

I think what Redhawk meant is that a higher percentage of prisoners were abused as children than in the regular population. This is why I’ve always guessed that child molesters would be at the bottom of the prison hierarchy, since the previously molested prisoners would hold a special hatred for people who had committed such crimes.

14

A hierarchy will come to exist in any society, and that part of prison society that remains outside of the authorities’ direct mandate (whether by nature, choice of the authorities or both) will create an heirarchy that demands that someone occupy the low slot on the totem pole. You can’t have an hierarchy without somebody on the bottom.

Why child molesters and spies? Some ideas have been floated, and I don’t embrace them all. One thought expressed above is that perhaps these classes of criminals generally consist of those less physically intimidating - I don’t know if that’s true, but it seems a thought worth investigating.

Other thoughts that imply some sort of moral outrage on the part of an almost exclusively sociopathic population are harder to accept. Those in for drug law violations are probably the single biggest class of violators that may include non-sociopaths, and there are so many of them, some likely affable and smart enough to both dodge a lot of the shit and be useful to organizations, that they skip the bottom end, physically iiintimiidating or not.

And, while drug violators and gangstas can often claim some, child molesters and spies are usually (I’d guess - without a cite) relatively shy on the outside supporters.

15

Child molesters get targeted for the reason others have already written; many prisoners were victims of abuse themselves as children and are looking for revenge.

As for spies; I’ll admit I don’t know why, but many criminals are surprisingly patriotic. Spies, protesters, flag burners, etc all suffer in prison.

But the group that is in the biggest danger? Thiefs. Not the guys who stole out on the streets; they’re usually considered as being okay. But anyone who steals inside the prison from his fellow prisoners is in mortal danger when his crimes are discovered.

16

Another factor is how seriously their crimes are viewed by the outside. Blind eyes are much more likely to be turned towards beatings and the like of people who’ve been child molestors, and are even facilitated at times.

The other issue is machismo. Basically killing another man is ok, attacking more helpless victims isnt, so rapists and child molestors are seen more as cowards, its not only empathy for the victim, its also contempt for the bravery of the perp.

They’re also more likely to be seen as solo rather than having friends, so again an easier target to pick on. Prisons arent happy places so having a justifiable and easy target to take things out on has its attractions too.

Its also a way to convince oneself that one isnt ‘all that bad’, I know it might seem amazing that people can excuse horrific acts they’ve done themselves like this, but its extremely common. Ive frequently seen people in DV groups talking about how horrified they were by the thought of child molestors, only minutes after they’ve talked about breaking their partners arm or the like.

As said earlier hierarchies are almost inevitable, and several factors come together to make it more likely they’ll usually end up on the bottom.
Otara

17

I think Otara has a good point here: it’s necessary for everyone to have some kind of sense of morals and right and wrong. If you go around every day beating up, robbing and killing people, your sense of morality is going to be very warped, but that doesn’t mean you won’t have one.

I think Fritz Lang’s film M makes a nice argument about this, how the child molestor who has been captured by criminals (gangsters, thieves, organised crime) points out that he’s not in control of his actions, being mentally disturbed, whereas they have made a totally deliberate conscious choice to go against the rules of society, and therefore by some measure they are far worse morally than a child molestor.

Naturally organised criminals tend not to see things this way, and therefore have elaborate rules regarding honour, justice and acceptable behaviour to pretend to themselves that they are not loathsome beasts.

18

You can dismiss the physical weakness aspect if you want, but I’ll bet 20 - 1 that Mike Tyson didn’t get the crap whacked out of him when he was in for rape…

19

It is one less than pleasant aspect of human nature, that we all too willingly look for someone to hold in contempt.

In society we may look down on blacks, homosexuals, illegal immigrants or whatever our prejudice leads us toward.

Jail is a closed society, with its own ‘rules’ which can be bent, broken, modified or exceptions made at any time, one thing is certain, that the logic of most posters on this board does not work all that well in prison.

By this I mean - do not think that hatred in jail has a real point, envy, jealousy, manipulation and sometimes a certain realpolitik are just as important.

I have seen rapists who get left alone, and armed robbers have a real hard time, but these are exceptions.

As far as spies go, well most criminals would treat them as if they were informants, which is, to a large extent what they are, plus spies are usually from fairly high skill level backgrounds with many of lifes advantages, and envy is one destructive emotion in prison.

Sex offenders in general are hated, in the UK roughly 33% of all inmates have lived in state care, and this amounts to around 66% of all those who have been in state care, in other words, about 33% of children that have been in state care live what most would call succesful lives.

Pretty damning numbers.

Institutional sexual abuse of children in UK state homes, especially in North Wales, was frighteningly common, I myself was threatened with it but my obnoxiousness and hateful defensive nature as a child made me a less than pliable prospect.( I spent 17 years in state ‘care’)

This defensive mechanism I developed might explain why many of my contemporaries ended up in jail, with a hatred of anything resembling authority.

It also might explain why child sex offenders are so despised in jail.

Add to this that a goodly number of inmates have children of their own, that there is a notion that sex offenders get sent to easier jails and have more prospects of parole release (neither of which are true but perceptions are what count in jail)

Sex offenders in general are despised, and there is a certain amount of Kudos to be gained by an inmate who has the nerve to injure one, and this Kudos is a very valuable thing to possess in jail as it can automatically make you more trustworthy in the eyes of other inmates.

This is not the full picture though, because not far above them is the street junkie, one who will do and say anything to get the next fix, pathetic individuals who make all kinds of false promises, who will sell out their own families, who will steal property from other inmates (this is a very big NO-NO) to feed their habits, and will get into debt they cannot repay.

Those who attack pensioners are not particularly highly regarded either.

Many of these are classified in jail parlance as ‘nonces’, short for nonsense criminals, there being no material gain from their offences these crimes are deemed as being pointless.

As for Mike Tyson not being attacked in jail, trust me, there would have been a queue waiting to get at him to prove something, but he will have done what all ‘celebs’ in jail do, they pay significant sums for protection.

20

… and at those odds, I’d put a hundred on it. Tyson is good when he’s in a ring and Marquis of Queensberry rules are applicable but it would be a different story in gaol. I think Mike would have smoked some dick and there would have been a line of men drooling for the rights to that bout.

As for the OP, I think it’s because even the most reprehensible like to believe there are people lower on the scale of possible morality. The various cons and losers in prison can do this by maintaining the honour amongst thieves myth by making a dubious moral distinction that places themselves in the honourable camp of thieves.