Introduction
A conjugal visit is provided in the first Amendment, Section 1 in the US Constitution which protects a person freedom of religion and expression (assembly, speech and request the government to look into their problems) against the government intrusion. These visits are offered to inmates with the supervision of correctional officers in the prisons, “they are private meeting between inmates and their wife and during those meeting they are allowed to engage in anything including having sex. There are guidelines for these visits; the visits are allowed for inmates who are officially married” (Boudouris, 2008).
International Law on Conjugal visits
Many transexual, lesbian, bisecxual and gay (LGBT) usually face many challenges as prisoners and they usually bring challenges to many correctional facilities around the world, risks ob being sexual abused by other prisoners. There are no International Law that can protect these groups of people in various countries in the world; it only depends on the various legislations that are found in those specific countries.
In Argentina conjugal visits have been permitted for the opposite sex in the Cordoba province but other state do not permit this same sex conjugal visits. In Australia LGBT visits is only permitted in the capital and Victoria but in other places conjugal visits is not permitted of any type. The legislation in Brazil only allow conjugal visits for gay and straight couples but those couple which are lesbians they are not permitted for these visitations.
Conjugal Visits Do they Exist in US
At one time conjugal visits were quite common in many correctional facilities around the United State, “but most correctional facilities have abolished this system for security reasons” (Burstein, 2008). Many of these visits used to last even for a whole day in most of correctional facilities across United State which gave the inmates and their wives enough time to spend together. This visit used to be having security risks, imagine a wife of a prisoner came to visit an inmate; the prisoner officer will not monitor an inmate with his wife during the conversation because freedom for speech is provided in the first Amendment of the United State Constitution. In few correctional facilities which still allow these visits, “they are limited and only allowed to prisoners who have shown good behavior. This privilege is earned and not given because a prisoner must show he deserve this visit” (Burstein, 2008).
“The aim of conjugal visit was to encourage the prisoners and their spouses to preserve family ties. This was a way to maintain order in various correctional facilities that are available in the United State of America” (Lief, 2008), it was believed it prisoners will see their families after a period of time, they will maintain good behaviors while they are still in prison and other reasons was due to the increase of homosexuality and gang activities that was being experienced in most of the correctional facilities that are found in the United State of America. “But all this privileges to prisoners did not have an effect on their behavior” (Lief, 2008).
Argument on Conjugal Visits
Conjugal visits have been advocated in the correctional facilities around the nation in order o maintaining that bond in a family relation, but that goal has not been clearly attained. Most of these programs usually place unnecessary weight on the sexual part of a relationship rather than promoting family bonds. In addition these visits only recognize marriages which are legal between the opposite sex but those nontraditional support systems that are common in the country are not being recognized in these programs.
The unsupervised nature of these conjugal visits usually encourages physical risk to the safety of the member of the family, “it have been known male inmates during these visits have been committing further violence during these visitations, but only in supervised environment during these visitations that will minimize the violence that is being experienced during these visitations” (Pearlman & Cripe, 2004).
These visitations usually increases the spread of STDs in the inmates, while permitting these visitations to offenders who are infected the prisons authority don’t have the mechanism to prevent this infections from occurring. “In addition the tax payers will increase the cost of treating these inmates who have been infected with STDs” (Pearlman & Cripe, 2004).
These visitations also brings an ethical dilemma, the chances of female inmates getting pregnant during these visitations is increasing in various correctional facilities in the country. During this period the female inmate is pregnant the state will provide financial and emotional support to the inmate and the unborn baby and these cost the taxpayer will have to bear, “in additions those children who are born as a results of these visitations are denied emotional bonding with the inmate parent” (Pearlman & Cripe, 2004).
Reference List
Boudouris, J. (2008). Prisons and kids: programs for inmate parents. New York: American Correctional Association,
Burstein,J.(2008). Conjugal visits in prison: psychological and social consequences. New York: Lexington Books Publisher.
Lief, H.I (2008). Medical aspects of human sexuality: 750 questions answered by 500 authorities. University of Michigan: Williams & Wilkins, Publisher.
Pearlman, M. G., & Cripe, C.A. (2004). Legal aspects of corrections management. New York: Jones & Bartlett Learning.