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.

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 prisoners (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-eligible) 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 incarceration, 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 question arises as to what level of difficulty these inmates pose for prison administrators, staff, and other inmates throughout their incarceration. The current study seeks to shed light on this question by examining conduct violations from a jurisdiction housing LWOP inmates alongside other inmates in maximum security prisons, wherein classification decisions are based on adjustment to confinement rather than an inmate’s eligibility for parole.

Method Sample The sample includes LWOP inmates entering the Missouri Department of Corrections (MDOC) for the period August 2006 through February 2014. The starting point was chosen due to a change in the manner in which inmate rule violations were recorded. February 2014 was chosen as the cutoff date for sample selection to allow a full year follow-up period of observation; data were downloaded at the end of February 2015. During this time period, 189 LWOP inmates entered the prison system, with 93% (n = 176) having been convicted of first-degree murder and 7% (n = 13) convicted of sex offenses, either persistent or committed against a child. To best control for potential confounds, the analysis herein is limited to the 176 LWOP inmates convicted of murder. For comparison purposes, all 319 LWP inmates were extracted from the larger cohort of inmates entering the MDOC during the same time period. Again, the final comparison sample was limited to inmates convicted of murder (n = 172), although sentences of LWP are generally issued to defendants convicted of second-degree murder. Despite this difference in degree, the group of LWP inmates is the closest equivalent to LWOP inmates for the purposes of the current comparison (Sorensen & Wrinkle, 1996). While LWOP inmates were not eligible for release on parole, those serving LWP sentences could become eligible for parole after serving 50% of their maximum sentence, calculated as 15 years on a 30-year life-sentence. This group of inmates was chosen to equalize the comparison group as much as possible in terms of their crimes, as well as the conditions of confinement under which they would serve their sentences. Both groups of inmates were classified to C-5 institutions, currently five facilities, upon entering the prison system. Measures Data were derived from computerized records of inmate misconduct provided by the MDOC and from which the prevalence and frequency of disciplinary misconduct were calculated. The Missouri Offender Rulebook assigns a specific definition and code number for each infraction. Outcomes in the current study were based on an omnibus measure that includes all substantiated incidents of disciplinary misconduct regardless of level or type. Depending on the specific analysis, disciplinary misconduct is coded in various ways including a raw count of conduct violations, number of months to commission of the initial act of misconduct after entering prison, and the prevalence of misconduct during 6-month intervals. Because time at risk varies, time served (in years) during August 2006 through February 2015 was also included as a control variable in the regression models. The main variable of interest was coded as a binary indicator, wherein LWP = 0 and LWOP = 1. Several variables shown to be important correlates of inmate misconduct in the literature were selected as control variables for the analyses (Steiner et al., 2014). Most influential among these is age at intake, coded as a continuous variable. Two other dichotomous demographic variables were also included: marital status, married at intake = 1, else = 0; and race, White = 1, else = 0. Marital status was dichotomized in such a manner because marriage has been shown to be an indicator of social stability. Race was dichotomized in such a manner because there were very few inmates, less than 1%, of racial descent other than Black or White in the prison system. Ethnicity was not included because the variable was recorded as Hispanic in only 3.7% of the cases and unknown in 12.6% of the cases. The total number of prior felony convictions was selected as a measure of the extent of an inmate’s criminal history. Three needs-assessment codes indicating the level of inmate need or the severity of a condition were included. A classification specialist assigns these codes based on inmate interviews and records reviews upon an inmate’s entry to prison. The codes range from 1, indicating the lowest level of need, to 5, indicating the highest level of need. Mental health codes at intake, as determined by screening assessments and mental health staff, include 1 = no treatment needs, 2 = mild level of treatment needs, 3 = moderate level of treatment needs, 4 = serious functional impairment due to mental disorder, and 5 = severe functional impairment due to mental health disorder. Educational needs codes are as follows: 1 = educationally prepared, 2 = minimal educational impairment, 3 = mild educational impairment, 4 = moderate educational impairment, and 5 = severe educational impairment. Institutional risk was based on prior institutional adjustment, misconduct, and escape history, and ranged from 1 = low risk to 5 = high risk. These needs-assessment measures are relied on by classification personnel in determining inmate security and custody levels, housing assignments, and programming selections. Procedures First, descriptive statistics are presented for LWOP inmates in comparison with the LWP inmates to determine the extent of similarity and differences between them. T tests were computed to test mean differences between the groups; chi-square was used to test percentage differences in categorical comparisons. Second, a negative binomial regression model was used to predict the total number of rule violations. Negative binomial regression is the most appropriate method of analysis when modeling over-dispersed count data (Walters, 2007), which is the case in the current situation (M = 10.5, SD = 13.5). Third, survival analysis was used to predict the time (in months) to the commission of a conduct violation. Used to model time to an event, survival analysis is employed on a sample, which includes some “survivors,” those for whom the outcome event had not yet occurred by the end of the observation period (Luke & Homan, 1998). Observations for the survivors are then “censored” at the end of the observation period to indicate survival up to the point that the observation period closed. Specifically, proportional hazard models are estimated using Cox regression to determine the extent to which LWOP and other predictor variables influenced the likelihood of committing a conduct violation across time intervals. Finally, the pattern of rule violations was plotted for LWOP and LWP inmates during their first 3 years of incarceration.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.