U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Conjugal Association in Prison - Issues and Perspectives

NCJ Number
81139
Journal
Crime and Delinquency Volume: 28 Issue: 1 Dated: (January 1982) Pages: 52-71
Author(s)
A Goetting
Date Published
1982
Length
20 pages
Annotation
This paper describes conjugal association programs now operating in U.S. prisons and reviews the long debate in the literature over the merits of such programs.
Abstract
The Mississippi State Penitentiary has informally allowed conjugal visitation since 1900; conjugal association became a formal part of prison services in 1965. As of February 1976, 60 percent of the legally married male inmates and 70 percent of the legally married female inmates were participating in the conjugal visiting program. South Carolina has no formal policy regulating private visits in prisons; each institution develops its own procedures and regulations. In 1980, four prisons, all housing male inmates, provided special buildings or rooms for private visits between inmates and their wives. The family visiting programs in California, New York, Minnesota, Connecticut, and Washington are also described. Conjugal association programs are easily implemented where social structures are simple and social values permit provision of a sexual outlet for prisoners. Whereas the political and general organizational simplicity of Mississippi and South Carolina decades ago minimized resistance to conjugal visiting, conditions in the contemporary United States are characterized by extreme structural complexity, an emphasis on the individual as opposed to the family, and conflicting sexual values. Conjugal association must result from bureaucratic debate and decisions weighing moral, practical, and legal considerations. Such programs provide a more humane institutional environment for inmates, but there is no solid evidence that such programs reduce homosexuality, enhance social control, normalize prison lifestyle, increase postrelease success, or stabilize marriages. Evidence of security and operational problems is apparent. Further research is needed. A total of 67 footnotes are included.

Downloads

No download available

Availability