Bitcoin Forum

Wondering what the general consensus is regarding conjugal visits in prison. The way I see it, these criminals broke the law and it's been determined by a judge or jury that their freedom is to be taken away.

So why let criminals have sex in prison?

Do they let inmates on death row have them? If not. Why not?

What do you guys think?

I say let them fuck.

Depends on their crime in my opinion. If they are in jail for battery,domestic,diddling or anything against kids the answer should be "No"!

What if they are a drug dealer? Where does the line get drawn?

This really breaks down to how you want to treat people that have done society wrong. Do you want to create monsters or do you want to bring these people back into the fold? Pedophiles and serial killers are the only people I would not give a 2nd chance if I ran the world.

Have to remember a good majority of inmates are in there due to the war on drugs. Also have people that should be medicated rather than thrown in jail to rot and fend for themselves. So coming back around to the question,I stick to the line I mentioned in my first post.
Being pedophiles and people that beat or manipulate the opposite sex. Now that said I am presuming we are looking at men for the question.

Its a rabbit hole because you start pulling on all kinds of factors that could put us on one side of the fence or another.

Hell, here in Texas they banned and confiscated any and all pornography - even pictures from wives, girlfriends. For the states that allow conjugal visits, it seems to be a tactic to keep inmates on their best behavior as conjugal rights will be stripped if the inmate receives any write-ups, etc. I don't have a problem with it as long as those receiving them aren't rapists, child molesters, etc.

I guess you have to look at the pros and cons of it. I'm sure the instance of rape are higher in prisons where they're not allowed conjigal rights, plus it will be easier to sneak contraband into the prison whilst they're left in a room together.

.... As a straight white guy with an existing sex drive do I seriously have to explain why any form of restricting sex or masturbation is a seriously bad idea for men?

Yeah, I think it should be allowed. Seems like rape issues would definitely be increased if they removed this.

But if you raped, or robber or murdered maybe you don't deserve to have sex. I don't think they can stop you for jerking the jimmy though. How would they enforce such a rule?

If a murderer or a rapist gets raped in jail because jail disallows conjugal visits I'd see that as a bonus sentence to whatever the judge hands down.

You are coming to this conclusion presuming everyone in jail deserves to be there in the first place. Mental health and drug abuse make up a large segment of the population.

Non Violent yes

Others if perfect discipline records and married or have children with person. This would help the children by keeping the family unit intact.

OK. Let's go a step further. We should allow the prisoners to bring in commercial sex workers, in case they don't have any girlfriends.  ;D These people are in prison to serve their sentence. They are not there to enjoy sex. Conjugal Visits can be allowed to people who are in for smaller charges, such as the possession of weed. But I oppose granting such privileges to the rapists and murderers.

Of course people shouldn't be incarcerated for smoking flowers anyway.

Haha, thats a bright idea. Conjugal visits should not be granted for people who have a problem with rape and murder. Rather, they should be provided psychology classes and helped with their issues. The complete idea  of a man going to jail is that he understands his mistakes, works on them and comes back as a better person.
Punishment is secondary, the idea of becoming a better person is the motive.

I think they may do it to give the inmates another avenue to stay calm. I imagine tensions can run pretty high in prison, which could lead to fights and general violence. Let some of these guys knock one off every month and you may have a more chill community inside the bars. Just a guess...

Don't forget: most inmates will be released one day (at least in my country, where life in prison means 30 years, and 30 years means 15 years effective incarceration)...

If you treat an inmate like an animal for 15 years, you will release an animal to society.

If he is not fit to be released in to the society, then he should be locked up until he becomes one. And why prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment are released after 15 years? They should be there for life. Take the case of Anders Behring Breivik. He will be released from prison in less than 10 years time, despite killing 77 people in cold blood.

You are 100% right... I didn't vote for the politicians that wanted to go soft on crime, but apparently most of my fellow inhabitants did, hence they are releasing monsters in our society.

Contrast this with DPR aka Ross Ulbrect, whose charged crimes were limited to drug related crimes and money laundering.  He gets two life sentences without parole.  

On sex behind bars being good or bad.   I cannot say.  I have never tried it.  :D

sdp

Emotionally I'd say no. There should be blood, tears, mouldy bread and water only, hard labour and suffering. If they raping each other that's part of their punishment. Logically I'd say yes, as theoretically they are there for improving their moral state, and raping or getting raped not good for that.

You guys are talking like every other jail offers such facility. Here, read this:

https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/02/11/conjugal-visits

Although conjugal, or “extended,” visits play a huge role in prison lore, in reality, very few inmates have access to them. Twenty years ago, 17 states offered these programs. Today, just four do: California, Connecticut, New York, and Washington. No federal prison offers extended, private visitation.Last April, New Mexico became the latest state to cancel conjugal visits for prisoners after a local television station revealed that a convicted killer, Michael Guzman, had fathered four children with several different wives while in prison. Mississippi had made a similar decision in January 2014.

Conjugal visits are not just about sex. In fact, they are officially called “family visits,” and kids are allowed to stay overnight, too. In Connecticut, a spouse or partner can’t come alone: the child of the inmate must be present. In Washington, two related inmates at the same facility, such as siblings or a father and son, are allowed to arrange a joint visit with family members from the outside. Only about a third of extended visits in the state take place between spouses alone.

If I'd want to be cynical I'd say in many cases the children of inmates going to be inmates themselves too in a few years, so it's beneficial if they get used to the jail quite early.

Atleast Anders Behring Breivik needs to send some time behind the jail... unlike people such as OJ Simpson and Oscar Pistorious, who were virtually let off. Oscar will be serving less than 10 months for murdering his girlfriend! And regarding Ross Ullbricht, he became the victim of the banker cartel. The judge (who happens to be a bisexual radical feminist with links to prominent bankers) gave him a sentence which was greater than the one which was demanded by the prosecution.  

With the Libertarian nature of this board, I am sure almost everyone here agrees that only violent people should be incarcerated.  Your not cynical, I would imagine these offspring and prime candidates to follow in their dads footsteps.


Federal prisons seems to have under 20% violent inmates, with drug offenses comprising of 48%
http://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_offenses.jsp

In 2012, the last year listed, for state and county inmates those with violent offenses are at 47.7%
http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004339


Of course some people pled down to non-violent offenses, but is still amazing in a revolting way.

studies support sexual gratification theory by showing that states permitting conjugal visitation have significantly fewer instances of reported rape and other sexual offenses in their prisons.

Can you imagine that. A room in the prison for inmates to search craigslist to order up a hoe for their once a month bang.

LMAO.

I guess the question is do you want revenge or do you want to make them more likely to function when the 85% of them get out eventually.

Conjugal visits? I see inequality here as few inmates are married. Then, how often? 3 times a week? If one day, the guy is tired, can his friend, the guy sleeping in the bed next to him, do it? Can the wife ask some financial compensation if the guy isn't her husband? And what about the prisoners who aren't married, the government should pay a hooker to satisfy their sexual needs, right?

If jails turn into brothels, men will commit crimes to get there.

Prolonged denial of sexual activity is cruel and unusual punishment (torture) for any sexually active adult primate. Furthermore, sexual activity makes primates less prone to violence. If nothing else for the safety of the guards orgasms should be allowed and encouraged.

If the criminals turn violent without sexual activity, then they should be castrated, or treated with drugs which can reduce the testosterone levels. These people are imprisoned for committing heinous crimes such as rapes, murders and armed robbery. They can't demand that the prison authorities should bring them sex-workers to satisfy their lust.

i don't think you can morally justify conjugal visits, a punishment is a punishment, you can argue that severity of a crime may call for different levels of leniency but conjugal visits are taking it a bit too far.

This is called torture, AKA cruel and unusual punishment. This is explicitly forbidden by the 8th amendment to the U.S. constitution, my fascism-loving friend.

IF ONLY everyone in jail was a violent criminal. Reality is that the majority (74%) of the US prison population are in there for non-violent offenses.

http://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_offenses.jsp

Sex Offenses                     - 7%
Weapons, Explosives, Arson - 16%
Homicide, Aggravated Assault - 2.9%

26% there's your violent offenders

and all the rest are non-violent, including
Drug Offenses - 48.5%

I was referring only to violent criminals, who make up 26% of the prison population. I don't think that anyone caught for smoking weed, should be jailed for 4 or 5 years. It is retarded to jail someone for drug offences. I don't have any issue with granting the right of conjugal visits for people jailed on offences such as tax evasion as well.

For every guy in jail, I always think if I would mind him living next door in regards to whether he should be locked up

NO ... NO... NO

Why should they get t have sex and have their lovers come to see them for some bed shaking.
It's not fair. A murderer killed my best friend, he has no right to procreate, have fun or even hug anyone he loves let alone make love to them
In my state we don't have conjugals but others do. They should all stop it right now. If it was up to me I would cancel their visits and phone calls too.
Lockem up and throw away that key.

I don't think they even put people in jail more than a night for weed in most places unless it's a very large amount.  If someone can't handle getting laid for a night or two they need some sort of sex addict therapy.

seems like a reasonable incentive to get prisoners to be on their best behaviour. I'm not sure how many conjugal visits prisoners ere allowed but i dont think they get them often.

There's maybe 4-5 states where that's the case. And 45 states where weed can still get you months - years depending on circumstances. Especially the southern states with the insane "3 strike" laws still on the books.

I just saw a post in another thread, where the OP was referring to an incident in which his friend was jailed for 3 years, for possessing 5 grams of weed. Drug laws vary from state to state in the US, but in most of the states, the possession weed, even in small quantities is punishable by months or even years behind the bars.

People are supposed sent to prison as punishment, not to be punished. IMO, all nonviolent prisoners should serve their sentence at home or halfway houses under house arrest.

Lol.. I laughed so hard at this..coz in certain ways u r ryt... but in certain cases this may be Unfair...
Their r murderers who may have committed the wrong in certain circumstances which may never occur again... and if wat I say is ryt.. then it means.. they won't commit it again... and punishment in laws are made for the betterment of the criminal.. but if such a person goes through some bad experiences in jail.. then his personality can't be mended... and then we have given ourselves a more  dangerous criminal.. in short we've shot ourselves in the foot

If I place myself in their place, I guess I do need sex. But judging from outside, these people are put in their to suffer. And what could be the best way to make somebody suffer by not letting them have the pleasure of best thing in the world?

The current prison system is very much rotten. They mix the non-violent offenders with the violent criminals. In the end, those who are in their 20s and teens, especially those who get punished for non-violent offences such as white collar crimes are brutalized by the violent criminals. At least they should set up separate prisons for violent criminals and the non-violent ones.

According to what I've learnt about criminal psychology.. it deems fit to allow criminals to have sex... or ryt for conjugal visits.. most of the countries are working up their laws to mend the criminal mindset.. to this effect it is necessary for the criminals to have a ryt set of mind... if they r subjected to in-jail rape.. then the whole point of mending the criminality is lost.. and it won't be of any use as such... so if sex is allowed in-jail rapes would decrease... and so... will have a good effect

Going soft on criminals is different and displaying empathy to these criminals is completely different. If the fundamental function of jails is to provide a place for a person to realize his mistakes and make him a better person, start treating them like a person!

OK. Here are the things which I'll do, to "treat them like a person":

1. Provide quality food and other amenities.
2. Provide education.
3. Provide access to TV/News.
4. Provide legal help.
5. Provide medical help.

However, these are the things, which I am not going to do:

1. Allow them to bring sex-workers inside their cells.
2. Allow them to have alcohol and drugs.
3. Allow them to continue their criminal activity (through cell-phones and other means)

This is correct, the majority of murders are acts of passion and overall there is very low recidivism for this crime. Only a small fraction of all murderers are repeat offenders, the kind we call serial killers.

Quoted for wisdom (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfEsz812Q1I).

Prisoners per 100k people:

https://i.imgur.com/MwD67Ye.png

All great points, but nobody has seriously suggested sex workers, more like trying to keep families together and treat them somewhat human.

For keeping the families together, we can allow one-to-one prison meetings or phone / postal / email communication. But for violent criminals, I am against allowing sex with their girlfriends / wives. I don't think that sex is 100% essential, if the bond between the spouses is that strong. They can resume their sex lives, once they are out of prison.

Prison is for punishment. Sex is an Enjoyment and Relax. How come when the person got imprisonment as a punishment, and he has been allowed to have sex enjoyment. The reason he has been sent to Prison to make sure the value of Enjoyment and Relax at his home life which he did not think as a gift and never been thankful for it.

100% agree with you. I think we should be discussing this differently. Violent offenders vs non violent offenders.

NonV should be able to have sex if they exhibit proper behavior and all.
V offenders should never have sex and get raped.

Yes?

What a can of whoop ass I opened in here. Im at work but tonight I'll check in and get myself up to date on this thread.

Good, it will help reduce rapes in prisons and keep everyone a lot more mellow

Watched this on Showtime, I felt nauseous after watching. This 19 year old kid gets 4 years in prison in 1979 for taking his deceased dads tools before probate releases them to him. He continuously acts up in prison and thirty four years later he is still there, having spent 27 of those years in solitary. He is clearly so broken from beatings and rapes, that he clearly could not function outside, even if they reduce his new parole date which is now at 2082.


    http://www.democracynow.org/2014/11/20/the_life_and_mind_of_mark

sex behind bars its like death penalty you do you may have heart attack and the killer maybe opposite sex mate soo its consented killing lol.

This is the problem with the American prison system. It allows teenaged non-violent offenders to be placed with hardcore rapists and murderers. Feel bad for DeFriest, as he was raped mainly because of his race (he was white, while the majority of the inmates in the  Florida State Prison were black). The desegregation of prisons has made American prisons a virtual death-zone for the white inmates. 

Watching orange is the new black had me things out this thread.
Thought I'd say hi and remind everyone that I am against sex behind bars unless its rape of a prisoner. then it is ok.

Never heard of this. Thanks for the knowledge.

I did a little research and it turns out conjugal visits are only allowed for medium to low security prisons. So if you are a serial killer etc, you wouldn't be able to have them anyways.

Seems reasonable except many non violent offenders are in high security prisons as its the length of sentence that generally decides where you go. I assume that's for risk of trying to escape, nothing to lose discipline wise, etc. For example the Silk Road guy will be in maximum.

i'm pretty much against imprisonment in most forms, so yes, i'd prefer to allow those in captivity the maximum conveniences to better their lives.

i'm not sure they would have much effect on prison rape rates. that subject goes a lot deeper than conjugal visits.

How to Avoid Rape in Prison - Men's (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zYBmsP6fes)

How to Avoid Rape in Prison - Women's (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0P-2HbmUV10)

Both courtesy of the New York State, who would like to remind you that protecting its captives from being raped by its other captives is neither the ethical nor legal responsibility of the Prison Staff, nor the State of New York, nor the judge who passed the sentence.

New York thanks you for your compliance and understanding in this sensitive matter. Try not to get raped, folks.

P.S.

Yes, these are the REAL videos produced by the state, shown to new inmates!

By giving bribe as a gift to the prison authorities any one can get conjugal visits irrespective of their crimes, and add to that few such dangerous culprits would have substantial support from any political person to whom he might have done some favor outside the prison.

What if the inmate gets HIV, as a result of the rape? Will the state give any compensation to the vitcim, or at least fund his ARV therapy? According to a recent study by CP Krebs (Inmate Factors Associated with HIV Transmission in Prison) measured the HIV seroconversion rate at 0.70% per inmate, per 20 years. So there is a 1/100 chance of a prisoner becoming HIV positive as a result of prison rape, if he spends 30 years in prison.

I still think its a bad idea. Criminals are put in jail because they are not suitable for society so their fore they should not be having sex.

Yeah, can't have them pot smokers out there mingling with the rest of society.

There is a very simple solution to this. Set up separate prison facilities for the violent and non-violent prisoners. BTW... I don't think that smoking weed should be a punishable offense. But still, if some individual is sent to jail for non-violent offenses, such as tax evasion or non-payment of child support, then he should not be housed with the rapists and murderers. This will help to reduce the prison violence as well.

uhh, dunno where are you from, but in my country, it is working exactly like this and prisoners are simply separated based what they did..

They could make em wear boxing gloves.

If anyone should be going to jail for non-violent offenses, it's corrupt politicians, corrupt judges, corrupt lawyers, and corrupt cops. Once all those fuckers are behind bars we can talk about other non-violent offenses.

Until that time, any officer using physical force to kidnap a non-violent criminal should themselves be kidnapped, brought to a dungeon, and forced to learn ethics 101 and the non-aggression principle. Not released from captivity until they get score a 100 on a written test.

Just wait until we get our Revolutionary People's Police Force to counter the Status-Quo Billionaire's Agenda police force we have now. Fun times ahead.

May be you are living in some European Union nation, such as Norway or Germany. In my country there is no such system, although the people have been demanding it for quite some time now. And I don't think that such a system exists in the United States, the country which is having the largest incarcerated population in the world.

I think that the prisoner should be allowed to have sex behind bars , because he is punished . And therefore it is all the rights of a normal life. About sex with his wife was supposed to think before he commits it .

How can you allow someone who is in jail for not doing his fatherly duties to have sex and maybe procreate again.
He already failed at one kid maybe more, that is why he is in prison but we should let him have more sex and make more babies?
I don't think so tim.

He should not be in the jail on the first place. I don't think that non-payment of child support is an offence which requires imprisonment. Todays laws and regulations are extremely biased against the males, and I won't blame someone if he refuses to pay alimony or child support to his (ex) gold digger wife.

Sounds to me like you have some issues. Paying child support is not a choice. You have a kid take care of it and if you fail to do so then you should be locked up.

In 99% of the cases, the custody of the kids will be given to the female spouse, while the men have to fight hard even for the visitation rights. Even if the kid wants to live with the father, he is not allowed to do so by the court. And the child support payment is not going towards the kid. It is going straight to the pocket of the (ex) wife, who will spend it the way she want.

Have you been through a divorce because you come off a bit sour here. You're right that in most cases the mother is given the custody but that doesn't mean that the father does not have visitation rights and tbh the fathers who get locked up for failure to pay are normally the fathers who have no interest in spending the weekends with their kids. I dont think that all mothers out there pocket their child support either. I grew up in a house with divorced parents and my father did pay child support and almost every penny of it went to me and my sisters. My mom worked 9 hour days to be able to keep all the bills up to date and everything but neither of my parents were in great financial spots when the divorce happened.
All Im saying is that you seem bitter, maybe because your parents also got divorced and your mom pocketed all the money or maybe you went through a divorce and now your ex wife is pocketing all the money.

Either way your blanket statements are inaccurate and you should reconsider your position in this discussion because a large portion of divorces which include child support are executed flawlessly and never even see a judge.

Nope. I have been married for more than 5 years now, and so far there have been no major issues.


Here is the problem. Why the custody of the kid is always given to the mother? The father should also have the same rights as the mother.


My parents have been happily married for more than 40 years now. On the other hand, by your own admission, you seem to be the one who hails from a broken family.

I do hail from a broken family as you put it and I'm darn proud of my past. I think most women get the custody because in most cases the father is the major bread earner and he need to keep his job and focus on that so he can continue to pay for his kids.
Its just easier in most cases for the mother to take the kids especially if she was already a stay at home mom.

You were brought up by your mother, and I can sense a strong bias in favor of the females as a result of that.


Do you think that the males are some sort of machines without any emotion, who should work till they die to feed gold-diggers? Also, in your country what is the work participation rate of the females?

In my country, I have seen countless examples of gold diggers winning custody of the children and then using their rights to prevent the fathers from even communicating with their children. And they don't work, as the alimony and child support payment is enough to sponsor their luxurious lifestyle.

Prison is HELL.
There should be no sex in that place.
Because if they do,
they will taste heaven.

If you have ever read a book about psychology, it expresses about the need hierarchy. The basic needs of a human are food, air and sleep. Then there are secondary needs which a human needs such as clothing, place to live, relationships with other humans. It is a basic human need. In the same way, sex is also a secondary basic human need. They can live without it, but having sex is human for them and not just enjoyment but a way to have peace of mind, which every human deserves.

It's better to let them fuck than they fuck each other in prison. Just think about it if you are in prison, too.

What country is that? Most Mothers cannot prevent fathers seeing their children without good reason and I think if people were worried about gold diggers they should get a pre-nup and then problem solved. If women had the intention of trying to rob you of money then they wouldn't agree to a pre-nup and you would then know not to marry them. Also though, if your wife had more money than you you would also be entitled to half of her money but its usually the men that earn or have more.

i believe these visits should be available only to those men who are in a stable relationship
makes the time easier for both parties.

If its Ross Ulbrict getting laid behind bars since he has life in prison that is fine with me.
The question is to let the privileges fit the crime and then treat them case by case.
That said I also read about the facebook of prison mates seeking a relationship and that did creep me out a bit but if someone went through the process of getting vetted to choose a person in prison to date well its their absurd choice much as I'll dismay at it.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/luka-magnotta-joins-dating-site-for-prisoners-1.3132104