By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Ricky Wassenaar, a Tucson prison inmate serving 16 life sentences for a prior hostage situation, is the sole suspect in the deaths of three fellow inmates following a Friday altercation. The ADCRR investigation is underway, and while the cause of death remains undisclosed, preliminary reports suggest intentional harm. The deceased inmates, Alvarez, Harnage, and Lashley, were serving sentences for various violent crimes. Authorities have stated that there is no current threat to the prison.
Read the original article here
A prisoner in Arizona, already serving sixteen consecutive life sentences, has been accused of murdering three fellow inmates. This raises significant questions about prison security and the management of extremely dangerous individuals within the system. The sheer number of life sentences this individual was already serving suggests a history of extreme violence, making the latest accusations tragically unsurprising.
The fact that he’s now facing accusations of additional murders highlights a critical flaw: what recourse is there when dealing with someone who has seemingly nothing left to lose? A person serving multiple life sentences has already been deemed beyond rehabilitation and faces no possibility of release. This reality might embolden such individuals, making them potential candidates for becoming prison enforcers, operating outside the constraints of typical prison rules and discipline.
The details surrounding the victims are equally concerning. Two of the deceased inmates were incarcerated for sex crimes against minors, suggesting a potential motive related to vigilante justice within the prison system. This raises complex ethical questions, even if acknowledging the abhorrent nature of their crimes. The idea that a violent act, however terrible the victims’ crimes, is acceptable is dangerous, but it’s also a reality within a prison environment.
The question of why this particular prisoner was housed with these individuals, particularly given the known history of the accused, is crucial. There’s palpable anger regarding the apparent failure of prison staff to adequately assess and mitigate the risk. The notion that prison officials might have known the potential for a violent outcome, yet failed to take preventative measures, indicates a serious lapse in security protocols and risk management. This lack of foresight could easily be considered negligent, if not actively malicious.
The comments regarding the prisoner’s past actions, including the hostage situation involving a female prison guard, paint a disturbing picture. The intensity of this past event, combined with the new accusations, creates a portrait of an extremely dangerous and unpredictable individual. It begs the question of what effective steps can be taken to prevent future incidents of this nature, when dealing with individuals whose potential for violence has already manifested so severely.
The added sentences resulting from this new accusation seem almost inconsequential. Adding another life sentence to an existing mountain of life sentences hardly seems a viable deterrent. It raises the question of what is the appropriate response to individuals who, having already been condemned to spend their lives behind bars, still engage in such heinous acts of violence.
Some have suggested the death penalty as a solution, while others advocate for placing the prisoner in a supermax facility like ADX Florence, characterized by severe isolation and strict security measures. ADX Florence is designed to house the most dangerous inmates, offering the highest level of confinement and reducing interaction with others.
The sheer brutality of this event highlights a fundamental challenge in managing extremely dangerous individuals within the prison system. The reality is that the prisoner’s capacity for violence far surpasses the potential deterrents currently in place. Perhaps this situation, however horrific, highlights the need to explore alternative, more effective, and arguably more humane approaches to managing the most dangerous members of society, approaches that prioritize the safety of both inmates and prison staff, without simply resigning ourselves to the inevitability of more violence. This situation demands a comprehensive review of prison security protocols and a reevaluation of sentencing strategies for those who demonstrate a continued and unrepentant capacity for violence. Ultimately, the goal should be to prevent future tragedies, a goal that clearly remains elusive in this case.