[Syph]

I wanted to gauge the boards opinion on conjugal visits. The USA and UK have the strictest government policies and completely outlaw conjugal visits at a federal/national level. I think that for convicted criminals within prison, enforced celibacy and separation from spouses and co-habitants can only contribute mental health issues that can contribute to re-offending.

There is a trend amongst sexual criminals (arguably the worst crime considering the victim survives the crime) that fit the archetype of sexually repressed loners and these causes must be factors in their criminal activity. I am suggesting that a similar mechanism may contribute to criminal activity in general increasing the likelihood of prisoners to re-offend.

It is uneasy to consider that those being punished should be given the liberty to engage in conjugal visits but I believe it is a serious issue worthy of discussion.

[Arkady2009]

I wanted to gauge the boards opinion on conjugal visits. The USA and UK have the strictest government policies and completely outlaw conjugal visits at a federal/national level. I think that for convicted criminals within prison, enforced celibacy and separation from spouses and co-habitants can only contribute mental health issues that can contribute to re-offending.

There is a trend amongst sexual criminals (arguably the worst crime considering the victim survives the crime) that fit the archetype of sexually repressed loners and these causes must be factors in their criminal activity. I am suggesting that a similar mechanism may contribute to criminal activity in general increasing the likelihood of prisoners to re-offend.

It is uneasy to consider that those being punished should be given the liberty to engage in conjugal visits but I believe it is a serious issue worthy of discussion.

I don't care so much about the inmate, but I do care about their wife or girlfriend who is being punished because of the actions of her partner. If you deny him the right to have sex with his woman, you deny her the same right.
Conjugal visits should be permitted but only for the minor offenders. If you are a serious offender then I would object.

If congugal visits were frequently allowed, perhaps it would reduce the rate of sexual assault in prisons?

[Syph]

Conjugal visits should be permitted but only for the minor offenders. If you are a serious offender then I would object.

What about a serious offender with 10+ years good behaviour? Surely, rehabilitation must include some form of intimacy to rekindle a suspended relationship.

If congugal visits were frequently allowed, perhaps it would reduce the rate of sexual assault in prisons?

I doubt it, we're assuming that every prisoner has a wife or girlfriends. Those on the social fringes and those who are dumped upon being convicted will still have "needs" and will still sexually assault when they have the opportunity.

[mikema63]

shouldn't it just be up to the wardens discretion?

but its not much of an issue, i dont think hornyness causes mental health issues and they can still talk to people on the outside so i dont see any real issues weather they are aloud to or not.

[Arkady2009]

What about a serious offender with 10+ years good behaviour? Surely, rehabilitation must include some form of intimacy to rekindle a suspended relationship.

Good point, and certainly one to consider. I would probably lean toward allowing it.

[senor boogie woogie]

At least in the USA, it is not about rehibilitation but punishment. The punishment does not end when the person leaves prison either. It is difficult to get a job. Most professional licenses are off limit to felons. The military will not take you. One cannot teach in the schools. Leaving the country can be an option after parole ends, if the immigration of that country will allow the person (or any foreigner) to stay and work. I would think that few felons walking out of prison have the means to get themselves to a far away place to "start over".

It doesn't have to be a felony for someone to be screwed. I have a misdeamnor violation for theft 16 years ago, and because of that I could only get marginal jobs. I left the country, and am scared that the immigration of the new country will make a law making criminal checks a requirement to stay. I stole a f***ing steak drunk. I got caught and went to jail overnight. Got a lawyer and paid the fine. Got tired of being turned down for decent work and left the country. Now some countries demand Criminal Background Checks. I live year to year hoping that it wont be a requirement so I can keep my life, keep my job, stay in this country with my local wife. This is a pissant misdeamnor from 16 years ago. I should be able after a matter of time be able to go to court and show that I am not a criminal, nor have I been arrested for a crime since that time. Rather what happened was is that my state (where the crime occured) more than likely sent my prints to the FBI, which can be accessed by Interpol or anyone else. There are countless people with a DUI, possession of marijuana, misdeamnor assault and general "He's an idiot" type of crimes who decades later are underemployed and mired in an underclass.

Some states allow conjugal visits, unless the person is in prison for the rest of their lives. Tex Watson, one of the Manson killers was given conjugal visits for a time. However, people like the Menendez Brothers, who are doing life without parole, are not afforded this privilege. I dont think they should either. Sex leads to pregnancies. Should a child be raised by a single parent with another parent incarcerated for their rest of their lives? Should the social welfare system pay for their upbringing?

[SecretSquirrel]

There exist no grounds for which it is justifiable to keep a man in a cage against his will. This post seeks answers to the wrong question

[DudeWhoGetsIt]

I wanted to gauge the boards opinion on conjugal visits. The USA and UK have the strictest government policies and completely outlaw conjugal visits at a federal/national level. I think that for convicted criminals within prison, enforced celibacy and separation from spouses and co-habitants can only contribute mental health issues that can contribute to re-offending.

There is a trend amongst sexual criminals (arguably the worst crime considering the victim survives the crime) that fit the archetype of sexually repressed loners and these causes must be factors in their criminal activity. I am suggesting that a similar mechanism may contribute to criminal activity in general increasing the likelihood of prisoners to re-offend.

It is uneasy to consider that those being punished should be given the liberty to engage in conjugal visits but I believe it is a serious issue worthy of discussion.

If it were up to me then we would have a broader and more diverse rehabilitation system. Conjugal visits could be part of the mix.

Under the current system I would hesitate to just add conjugal visits but leave everything else the same.

When it comes to recitivism, our system is a problem. We rarely rehabilitate anyone, mostly prison is a place where a person goes to deteriorate in many ways. I would like to change this momentum without losing the "punishment" aspect of prison, but that would require a robust civil service backing up a reformed prison system and humanity is nowhere near that enlightened or intelligently led, yet.

[Andropov]

Yes, for most offenders. Cannibals, rapists, pedophiles, and the like shouldn't have the right.

[Syph]

There exist no grounds for which it is justifiable to keep a man in a cage against his will. This post seeks answers to the wrong question

It is justifiable if he has broken his unwritten contract (other than legal documentation) with society which justifies imprisonment if you break the contract.

When it comes to recitivism, our system is a problem. We rarely rehabilitate anyone, mostly prison is a place where a person goes to deteriorate in many ways. I would like to change this momentum without losing the "punishment" aspect of prison, but that would require a robust civil service backing up a reformed prison system and humanity is nowhere near that enlightened or intelligently led, yet.

Then we encounter the same problems from a public perspective. Why should we spend so much money rehabilitating those who have acted maliciously against others? I can see why, but the man on the street cannot or doesn't care.

Yes, for most offenders. Cannibals, rapists, pedophiles, and the like shouldn't have the right.

Absolutely, it is a tool of rehabilitation and murderers and rapists should not be rehabilitated unless they have served 20 years and had good behaviour and reformed atitude.

[SecretSquirrel]

no man has a right to deprive another of his god-given liberty unless it is the only way to prevent an actual, imminent breach of his own or that of another, and only to the degree of time which is required to do so. There is no reason for caging a man for years when he can merely be made an outlaw like the Greeks used to, and the Americans during frontier days.

If you think you have justification or rationalization, under any circumstances you can come up with, to deprive a man -- who does not present a pressing imminent actual violent threat -- of basic liberties or life, in cold blood, you are a psychopath.

[Stranger]

no man has a right to deprive another of his god-given liberty unless it is the only way to prevent an actual, imminent breach of his own or that of another, and only to the degree of time which is required to do so. There is no reason for caging a man for years when he can merely be made an outlaw like the Greeks used to, and the Americans during frontier days.

If you think you have justification or rationalization, under any circumstances you can come up with, to deprive a man -- who does not present a pressing imminent actual violent threat -- of basic liberties or life, in cold blood, you are a psychopath.

Interesting. So if someone breaks into your house, after being perfectly sure that no one is at home (to avoid any violent situation) and steals some valuables. Let's imagine he is also just a poor guy and will be able to live with the value of the loot for quite some time, so there is no imminent threat he might do that again anytime soon. Following your logic you would not want that person to be detained?
Or do you mean, that since you naturally want your stuff back if he's caught, he's left with no gain and would therefore be an imminent threat in your eyes? What if he manages to hide your stuff somewhere before he is caught?

[Syph]

no man has a right to deprive another of his god-given liberty unless it is the only way to prevent an actual, imminent breach of his own or that of another, and only to the degree of time which is required to do so.

I don't believe in God or Natural Rights so your rationale and justification have little effect on me.

There is no reason for caging a man for years when he can merely be made an outlaw like the Greeks used to, and the Americans during frontier days.

The "wash my hands of you" method is not justice. Punishment and rehabilitation are the consequence of misdeed. Exiling criminals is irresponsible as they have nothing to lose by returning and committing another crime. Punishment and rehabilitation turns criminals into citizens, exile turns them into bandits. The topic of this post is: should conjugal visits be part of rehabilitation or is sex reserved for released prisoners.

If you think you have justification or rationalization, under any circumstances you can come up with, to deprive a man -- who does not present a pressing imminent actual violent threat -- of basic liberties or life, in cold blood, you are a psychopath.

This isn't really an argument so I can't comment.

[SecretSquirrel]

The only time involuntary detention is acceptable is to prevent immediate physical harm as I believe I spelt out clearly.

Nonviolent theft, after the fact, clearly does not meet this standard. You still have the right, if you can prove the theft, to recover value in the form of money or property. Money and property are alienable possessions. Basic liberties (speech, action, movement) and life are inalienable rights.

[SecretSquirrel]

This isn't really an argument so I can't comment.

Strictly speaking, it offers a clear position in response to your question. Freedom of movement and association are basic liberties. Conjugal relations fall under those terms. If you deny this ability to someone in your prison you are evil (you are already evil for operating a prison, but this is a priori)

[redcarpet]

shouldn't it just be up to the wardens discretion?

Since when are prison officers above reproach?

Someone totally independent would be better, if we're talking about delegating authority to an individual

[ccdan]

sexual criminals (arguably the worst crime considering the victim survives the crime)

All the ideas about both the seriousness and the incidence rate of "sex crimes" are awfully exaggerated and mostly culturally induced.

It is uneasy to consider that those being punished should be given the liberty to engage in conjugal visits but I believe it is a serious issue worthy of discussion.

It shouldn't be uneasy at all, it already happens in many developed countries.

Conjugal visits should be permitted but only for the minor offenders.

Why only for "minor offenders?"

At least in the USA, it is not about rehibilitation but punishment. The punishment does not end when the person leaves prison either. It is difficult to get a job. Most professional licenses are off limit to felons. The military will not take you. One cannot teach in the schools. Leaving the country can be an option after parole ends, if the immigration of that country will allow the person (or any foreigner) to stay and work. I would think that few felons walking out of prison have the means to get themselves to a far away place to "start over".

Yeah, that's a very serious problem that's not yet understood/accepted. No one should have access to any criminal records, except the state for security positions. The current situation just leads to more crime. People should be completely rehabilitated the moment they get out of prison.

I dont think they should either. Sex leads to pregnancies.

Sex can lead to pregnancies, if no contraception is used. But the vast majority of people use contraception almost all the time.

Should a child be raised by a single parent with another parent incarcerated for their rest of their lives? Should the social welfare system pay for their upbringing?

What makes you believe that a single parent would remain single for the rest of the punishment period of the other parent?
What's so wrong about children being raised by a single parent? It already happens in Europe on a pretty large scale!

[Thane]

Conjugal visits should be a right, if a psycolgist passes them as not a threat to another person. If the person who wishes to visit signs a document taking any blame of any injury from the prison and body checks in and out of the cabin or trailer or structure would be neccessary. "Right" would best be limited to the Warren and be rarely applied.