Conjugal visitation policies and practices

¶ … governor's request to provide an informed opinion regarding whether or not our state should provide conjugal visits for prisoners incarcerated in our state's penal facilities or not. The argument has been made that providing prisoners with normal family relations, including conjugal rights, will at least somewhat counteract the pain of being imprisoned. In addition, proponents argue that conjugal visits ease frustration among prisoners; that family ties are strengthened; and that conjugal visits encourage normal sexual patterns for married inmates. Those opposed to conjugal visits argue that only a minority of prisoners are married, so the program would not be available to all prisoners; that the state prisons don't have facilities to use for such a program; that this privilege would create jealousy among those prisoners unable or not allowed to participate; and that spouses might be embarrassed by the openly sexual nature of the program.

DISCUSSION

Justifications for conjugal visit programs are largely based on assumptions about the sexual behavior of prisoners. Hensley et. al. (2001), looked at the sexual practices of prisoners. They found that prison research has focused on aberrant sexual behavior, such as forcible rape and homosexual activity among men who had been heterosexual until they were confined to prison. In their review of the literature, they found, among other things, that male prisoners often redefined what it meant to be heterosexual (Hensley et. al., 2001). This is significant because most of the research done on conjugal visits relies on self-reporting by the inmates. Redefining something as basic as what it means to be heterosexual or homosexual suggests that self-reports may not be entirely reliable. In addition, the most serious problem with sexual behavior in prisons is not consensual sexual activity but forcible rape. If rape behaviors in prison are similar to those outside prison, then rape is not about sex but about power and control. It is possible that conjugal visits might have little or no impact on the problem of prison rapes.

The state with the longest history of allowing conjugal visits for prisoners exists in the state of Mississippi. Gray-Ray (2000) looked at Mississippi's history of allowing conjugal visits for selected prisoners and found that its roots are based upon tradition rather than science, as it appears that Mississippi has allowed conjugal rights for selected Mississippi prisoners for more than a century. Perhaps because of this history, Mississippi went to the expense of actually building apartments for prisoner use during family visits. While an expensive approach, the apartments provide a way for inmates to have normalized interactions with all family members including any children rather than with the spouse alone. Those visits can be up to three days and two nights ((Gray-Ray, 2000). This could certainly strengthen family ties, but the research offered no evidence that when the prisoners were released, the families of those who had conjugal visits were more likely to stay intact than those who did not. In addition, the prisoners themselves reported that conjugal visits did little to normalize sexual patterns within the prison during non-conjugal periods. In the Gray-Ray study, the prison officials believed that since having conjugal visits was a privilege that could be lost based on behavior, it helped control prisoners' behavior. No evidence was provided to support that belief. Prisoners self-reported positive results from the program, but the respondents had a strong personal motive for presenting the program positively. Researchers did not independently verify prisoner reports, so no evidence was offered to back up that claim. In summary, claims about benefits of conjugal visits. In short, support from both prison administration and inmates was based on opinion.

There are some significant flaws to conjugal visit programs. Mississippi, the state with the longest history for such a program, allows it only to a minority of inmates. Such visits can only serve only the minority of inmates who are married, who are housed in a minimum or medium security facility, and who are not discipline problems within the prison. Moreover, Mississippi has felt it necessary for special facilities to support their conjugal program, a significant expense. The argument that family visits will create jealousy among non-eligible prisoners seems less strong, especially as it is done in Mississippi, discreetly and away from the general prison population. Likewise, the argument that spouses may feel embarrasses does not hold up to scrutiny, as spouses have no reason to feel embarrassed for being with their marriage partners. However, the survey by Gray-Ray, (2000) demonstrates that even men who participate in conjugal visits often participate in male-on-male sex acts between those visits, which means that the men are at increased risk of becoming HIV-positive and can then pass the virus on to their spouses. While Mississippi provides these men with condoms, there is no way the prison administration can force them to use them. Another serious concern with such a program is that these conjugal visits could easily result in pregnancy. In those cases where the prisoner was the wage earner in the family, it seems reasonable that the parents will not be able to support this child on their own.

CONCLUSION