do prison have conjugal visits

• Market Your Law Firm
• Lawyer Directory

States That Allow Conjugal Visits

Prison visitation policies vary dramatically among states, but when it comes to conjugal visits, most states agree they are a thing of the past..

Prisoners who maintain close ties with spouses, partners, and family members are more likely to successfully reenter society upon release and less likely to commit crimes. A number of studies support this common-sense conclusion. In spite of this evidence, most states no longer allow conjugal visits.

What Is a "Conjugal Visit"?

Typically, a person incarcerated in jail or prison is not allowed to spend private time with a spouse or domestic partner. Historically and at present, certain states have instituted programs to allow certain prisoners to have "extended family visits." An "extended family visit" may be an opportunity for the prisoner to spend time with his or her relatives and children, but it is also used as a euphemism for conjugal visits.

A conjugal visit is private time that a prisoner may spend with a spouse or married partner. The idea behind such visitation is to allow inmates to have intimate contact, that is, sex, with their partners. Depending on the state's extended family visitation program, a conjugal or extended family visit may last a few hours or overnight.

Do Any States Allow Conjugal Visits?

In 1993, 17 states had conjugal visitation programs. By the 2000s, that number was down to six, with only California, Connecticut, Mississippi, New Mexico, New York, and Washington allowing such visits. And by 2015, Mississippi and New Mexico eliminated their programs.

For the most part, states no longer refer to "conjugal" visits. The primary focus has shifted more to family time. California refers to contact visits. Connecticut and Washington have extended family visits. New York calls its program a family reunion program.

Conjugal Visitation Is a Privilege, Not a Right

Conjugal visits are considered a privilege for prisoners who have exhibited good behavior during their term of incarceration. The U.S. Supreme Court and several federal courts have held that prisoners do not have a constitutional right to conjugal visits.

Prisoners and their spouses have filed lawsuits in several federal and state courts, arguing that denial of conjugal visits violates:

• the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment
• prisoner and spousal rights to marital privacy
• the right to procreate, and
• the First Amendment right to religious freedom.

Courts in these cases have rejected all of these arguments, finding no constitutional right to a conjugal visit.

Conjugal and Extended Visitation Privileges Are Highly Regulated

To be granted a conjugal visit or extended family visit, generally, both the inmate and visitors must submit applications. Common rules include:

• requiring that the prisoner seeking such visits have a clean prison record of good behavior and no violence
• prohibiting visitation for prisoners incarcerated for child abuse or domestic violence, and
• restricting visits to prisoners in low-security prisons only.

States also regulate who is a family member. Often the visitor must have a family or blood relation, have a history of visiting the inmate in prison (or a valid reason for not doing so), and undergo a background check.

Generally, all prison visitors (whether arriving for a conjugal or another type of visit) must submit to a physical search for weapons and other contraband. Visitors may bring very few and highly regulated items into the prison. No drugs or alcohol are ever allowed, nor are cell phones or other electronic devices. There may be other restrictions, including rules about food or gifts that may be allowed or prohibited. Visitors may also be turned away if they are not wearing appropriate clothing.

Check With a Lawyer

The laws and policies pertaining to prison visitation change regularly. If you have questions about conjugal or extended visitation privileges in your state, contact the prison authority (often called the department of corrections or rehabilitation) or consult with a lawyer experienced in the laws in your area.

Based on Your Previous Answers, We Have a Few Last Questions

These additional details allow our attorneys to gain a deeper understanding of the specifics of your case

How It Works

• Briefly tell us about your case
• Provide your contact information
• Choose attorneys to contact you

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Nolo ® Self-help services may not be permitted in all states. The information provided on this site is not legal advice, does not constitute a lawyer referral service, and no attorney-client or confidential relationship is or will be formed by use of the site. The attorney listings on this site are paid attorney advertising. In some states, the information on this website may be considered a lawyer referral service. Please reference the Terms of Use and the Supplemental Terms for specific information related to your state. Your use of this website constitutes acceptance of the Terms of Use , Supplemental Terms , Privacy Policy , Cookie Policy , and Consumer Health Data Notice .

Vista DUI Lawyer and Criminal Attorney Peter M. Liss

• Vista DUI Attorney
• DMV Hearings
• DUI Defenses
• Domestic Violence
• Sex Crime Defense
• Child Molestation
• Child Pornography
• Hit and Run Accident
• No-License Driving
• Reckless Driving
• Juvenile Crime
• The Three Strikes Law
• Weapons Charges
• Theft Defense
• Fraud Charges
• Drug Offenses
• San Diego Office
• The Criminal Process
• Criminal Defense FAQ
• Hiring a Criminal Lawyer

Everything You Should Know About Conjugal Visits in California

May 9, 2024 Written by Jill Harness and Edited by Peter Liss

Conjugal visits are regularly referenced in movies and TV shows ,  but  they  almost seem unreal.  After all, why should people serving time for crimes be allowed to have sex when they’re supposed to be punished? But that’s one of the big misconceptions about what the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation calls “Family Visits.” The official name isn’t just a creative euphemism code for “sex visits” -the real reason the state allows these types of inmate visitation is to provide those behind bars with a way to stay close to their families. “Studies show this kind of visitation program has profound benefits not only to inmates but also to the general public in the form of reduced crime rates and lowered taxes,” explains attorney Peter Liss.

What are Conjugal Visits?

A conjugal visit is where an inmate  has the opportunity to  see their family with some slight level of privacy and intimacy. One of the big misconceptions about these visits is that they are purely designed to allow prisoners to have sex. While that may be how the program started and may be  part  of the experience for married couples, the true purpose of the visits is to allow prisoners the chance to spend time with their families. Notably, in New York, where inmates can visit with extended family members, only 48% of these meetings were with a spouse.

Even when the visit is with a spouse, most inmates say that while the chance to have sex with their partners was  nice , the family visit was more about being intimate with the person they love for anywhere from 30 to 40 hours. Considering that standard prison visits require all conversations to be monitored by guards, and partners are only permitted to kiss at the start and end of the visit, the chance to have private discussions for 24 hours and spend the night in bed together is a welcome change.

The History of Conjugal Visits

Conjugal visits were initially introduced in Mississippi state in the early 1900s. At the time, inmates were essentially just  used as slaves , even physically beaten if they broke the rules or failed to work hard enough.  To provide positive encouragement for those who worked hard and followed the rules , the prison brought prostitutes for the best inmates every Sunday. Eventually, the prison also started allowing prisoners’ wives and girlfriends to visit.

The idea eventually caught on, and over the years, many other states adopted the  idea  of letting wives spend time with their inmate husbands, with over 1/3 of states in the United States eventually enacting some  type of   conjugal  visit program.  Unfortunately, with the push to “get tough on crime” that took place in the 90s, many states got rid of these types of programs, which were seen as “being soft on crime” by giving prisoners “sex visits” when they should be being punished. Nowadays, the only four states that offer conjugal visits are California, Connecticut, New York, and Washington.

Do You Have to be Married for a Conjugal Visit?

“You do not have to be married to qualify for a conjugal visit,” explains Liss, “however, each state offering these programs has a different list of qualifying immediate family members.” Here is how each location defines “immediate family member:”

• In California,  you do not have to be married for a conjugal visit.  You can spend time with any immediate family member, including  include  spouses, registered domestic partners, siblings, children, or parents.
• In New York, visitors can be children, spouses, parents, grandparents, or foster parents/legal guardians. Notably, New York does not seem to include domestic partners and married couples must be legally wed for at least six months to qualify for a conjugal visit.
• In Connecticut, the “extended family visit” must include  a full  family, meaning the inmate’s child must be present and be accompanied by their other parent, legal guardian, or one of the inmate’s parents.
• In Washington, the term “immediate family” is more expanded than  other  states, as it includes children, stepchildren, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, spouses, registered domestic partners, siblings, parents, stepparents, grandparents, great-grandparents, uncles, and aunts of the incarcerated person.

How do Family Visits Work in California?

Inmates who qualify for family visits can spend up to 40 hours in an apartment located on prison grounds with their immediate family members. These apartments are equipped with toiletries, sheets, and condoms.

Prisoners are allowed no more than four visits per year. “Unfortunately, because of the program’s popularity and the limited number of prison apartment spaces,” explains Liss, “I believe prisoners are more likely to be able to participate only twice a year.”

Visiting family members will not be strip-searched, though the prisoner will. While the visit is mostly unsupervised, the area will be searched as often as every four hours.

Visitors must follow many rules , including what they wear. For example, no one can wear blue jeans, and women cannot wear short dresses,  short  skirts, strapless tops, or form-fitting clothing.

Can Lifers Get Conjugal Visits in California?

Not all prisoners are eligible for the program. Anyone on death row, who is serving a life sentence, or who was convicted of a sex offense is ineligible. Additionally, inmates must have a record of good behavior, and anyone on disciplinary restrictions cannot participate. Those eligible must apply through their correctional counselor.

What are the Benefits to Family Visits?

There are many benefits, but the biggest is a  dramatic reduction in recidivism rates . One study in New Mexico (which recently discontinued conjugal visits) showed that prisoners who participated in extended family visits had 70% less chance of ending up in prison than those who did not participate.

Family visits are, therefore, more effective than education in keeping former felons out of prison. “I believe the effectiveness of these programs is logical, considering they help maintain relationships between inmates and their loved ones,” says Liss. “These relationships are critical in helping convicts readjust to life outside prison after release .”

Though many people consider these programs to be a waste of taxpayer money, it’s been shown that every $1 spent on  education in prisons saves taxpayers $5 annually due to the reduced cost of housing prisoners. “Since visits with family members cost less than education programs and are even more effective at reducing crime rates, maintaining these programs is a no-brainer in my opinion,” Liss says.

Reducing recidivism rates is not the only benefit of conjugal visits. By encouraging prisoners to be good to earn time with their loved ones, prisons can reduce violence and dangers to other inmates and guards -which could further reduce the tax rates associated with incarceration. More savings can also be realized because the more prisoners are model citizens, the more likely they are to be eligible for early release programs, where they can enjoy a complete family reunion outside of the prison.

There is also evidence that conjugal visits reduce prison rape . One study found that sexual violence in prison occurred at a rate of 226 per 100,000 prisoners in states without these programs while occurring at a rate of 57 per 100.000 prisoners in states with family visits.

Another Option for Mothers With Young Children

For most incarcerated persons, conjugal visits are the only way they can see their family outside of visiting hours. However, pregnant women and mothers with children under 6 may meet the requirements for the state’s Community Prisoner Mother Program (CPMP). This program allows mothers to live in a special facility with their child until they are released or until the child turns 6.

Alternative Sentences are Still Preferable

Of course, being allowed to continue living with your family is better than any conjugal visit. Maintaining your family life is much easier if you prove your innocence or are given an  alternative  sentence  ,  such as probation. “Your choice of criminal lawyer makes such a drastic difference in the outcome of your case,” explains Liss. “If you choose me as your attorney, I can help you fight your charges and secure the best possible outcome for your case.” If you have been accused of any crime, please call  (760) 643-4050  to schedule a free initial consultation at the Vista office of Peter M. Liss.

• DUI / Felony DUI
• Driving Offenses
• White Collar Crimes
• Violent Crimes
• Sex Offenses
• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Use

• Attorney Peter M. Liss
• (760) 643-4050
• 380 S Melrose Drive #301 Vista, CA 92081

Copyright 2003, 2024 Peter M. Liss, Esq. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

About the Legal Information on This Website

I rely on my experience as a top defense lawyer in my area to personally review all information on this site; however the information offered here should not substitute as legal advice. If you have been arrested or charged with a crime in Vista, please contact a qualified defense attorney.

• Domestic Violence Awareness
• Survivor Stories

What's The Deal With Conjugal Visits In Prison?

The phrase "conjugal visits" is being phased out; prisons now refer to the time using such terms as "extended family visits" or "family reunion program."

Photo by: American flag behind razor wire [Pexels]

American flag behind razor wire [Pexels]

When we hear the phrase " conjugal visits ," most of us picture prisoners having nonstop gratuitous sex.

But while conjugal visits can involve inmates spending intimate time with their significant other, the visits were actually started with the goal of preserving families.

Not all conjugal visits involve sex.

The phrase " conjugal visits " is being phased out; prisons now refer to the time using such terms as " extended family visits " or " family reunion program ."

The prisons who keep the programs in place state that allowing prisoners time with their family members encourages good behavior and will give them a greater chance of success when they re-enter society.

In New York, only around half of these visits involved spouses, according to The New York Times . In addition to their legal spouse, inmates can usually be visited by their children or other immediate family member or partner.

The visits usually take place in designated area, such as a trailer or a small cabin. Amenities like towels and soap — and extras like G-rated DVDs — are often provided.

Only four states still allow them.

As recently as 1995, 17 states had conjugal visit programs — but today, only four states still allow them. They are California, New York, Connecticut, and Washington.

Some believe that the decline is due to shifting public opinion and the fact that many people do not believe that prisoners should be allowed " luxuries ."

Sometimes the programs are axed after bad press: New Mexico cancelled conjugal visits in 2014 following a news report that a convicted killer had fathered four children with multiple women while behind bars. Members of the public were outraged by the idea that criminals, including convicted rapists, could be allowed to father children — without having to pay child support — while behind bars.

But many experts say that there is another, more practical, reason for ending conjugal visits: Budget cuts.

The system began with an extremely racist premise.

The very first prison to allow conjugal visits was Parchman Farm, which is now known as Mississippi State Penitentary. Parchman Farm began as a labor prison camp for Black men in Mississippi.

Prison authorities reportedly believed that if Black men were allowed to have sexual intercourse, they would be more productive. So every weekend, women would be driven in by the bus load to fraternize with the prisoners.

Over the years, the program was modified to incorporate families, and cabins were built. Mississippi is one of the states that eventually ended conjugal visits, however.

Different states have different rules.

Some concepts are universal: In general, inmates must earn the right to conjugal visits through good behavior.

Conjugal visits are usually only allowed in medium security or lower prisons, and are now allowed for prisoners convicted of sexual assaults. But each state has its own rules: Only New York and California, for example, allow same-sex conjugal visits. And in Connecticut, according to Thrillist , a spouse or partner is required to visit with the inmate's child.

Since Red Is Incarcerated, She Doesn’t Know If She’ll Be Able To Mend Her Relationship With Her Mother

Jill Hadn’t Realized She’d Invited A Monster Into Her Home Until Her Quiet Town Began To Be Stalked By A Killer

Honeymooning Newlyweds Sail The World Together — But Did They Encounter A Serial Killer Hiding On A Remote Island?

Read more: Dopplr , Thrillist

Jeffrey Dahmer's Murderer Explains Why He Killed The 'Milwaukee Cannibal'

'Golden State Killer' Joseph James DeAngelo Pleads Guilty To 13 Murders

6 Things To Know About Aileen Wuornos

New Docuseries Offers An Explosive Look At The Downfall Of Armie Hammer

Why Are So Many Serial Killers Born In November? Bundy, Manson & More

5 Facts You May Not Know About Infamous Serial Killer Ted Bundy

Infamous Canadian Couple Known As 'The Ken & Barbie Killers' Videotaped Their Crimes

The Alissa Turney Case: What If You Thought Your Dad Killed Your Stepsister?

Prolific Serial Killer Nurse Charles Cullen May Have Killed As Many As 400 Patients

Key Players in the Jeffrey Dahmer Case: Where Are They Now?

Trending on crimefeed.

• Cops: 11-Year-Old Boy Home Alone Thwarted Invading Burglar With Machete
• It's Terrible That We Need Videos Like This
• Heroic Teen Fights Off Carjacker, Saves Her 3 Younger Siblings In The Backseat
• How Boxer Christy Martin Had To Fight To Save Her Own Life
• Kidnap Suspect Bound 4-Year-Old, Locked Her In A Box & Was Looking For More Kids: Cops
• Shocking Video Shows 13-Year-Old Girl Fighting Off Her Alleged Kidnapper
• Cops: Cleveland Girl, 11, Hero After Saving 6-Year-Old Brother From Attempted Abduction
• New York Student Severely Burned In Acid Attack Believes She Was Targeted
• Father Fatally Shoots Masked Gunman Who Opened Fire At McDonald's
• Spring Breakers Tackle Robber & Take His Gun In Florida Gas Station: Video
• 'House of Horrors' Child-Torture Turpins Sentenced To Life; Survivors Speak Out In Court
• Alleged Attacker Chose Wrong Woman To Victimize: A Boxing Champion

Conjugal Visits

Why they’re disappearing, which states still use them, and what really happens during those overnight 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.

A Stay at the “Boneyard”

In every state that offers extended visits, good prison behavior is a prerequisite, and inmates convicted of sex crimes or domestic violence, or who have life sentences, are typically excluded.

The visits range from one hour to three days, and happen as often as once per month. They take place in trailers, small apartments, or “family cottages” built just for this purpose, and are sometimes referred to as “ boneyards .” At the MacDougall-Walker Correctional Institution in Connecticut, units are set up to imitate homes. Each apartment has two bedrooms, a dining room, and a living room with a TV, DVD player, playing cards, a Jenga game, and dominoes. In Washington, any DVD a family watches must be G-rated. Kitchens are typically fully functional, and visitors can bring in fresh ingredients or cooked food from the outside.

In California, inmates and their visitors must line up for inspection every four hours throughout the weekend visit, even in the middle of the night. Many prisons provide condoms for free. In New Mexico, before the extended visitation program was canceled, the prisoner’s spouse could be informed if the inmate had tested positive for a sexually transmitted infection. After the visit, both inmates and visitors are searched, and inmates typically have their urine tested to check for drugs or alcohol, which are strictly prohibited.

What Everyone Gets Wrong

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.

The Insider’s Perspective

Serena L. was an inmate at the Bedford Hills Correctional Facility in New York from 1999 to 2002. During that time, she qualified for just one overnight trailer visit. Her 15-year-old sister, who lived on Long Island, persuaded a friend to drive her to the prison. “I remember her coming through the gate, carrying two big bags of food, and she said, ‘I got your favorite: Oreos!’ ” Serena says. “It was like a little slumber party for us. When I was first incarcerated, we had tried to write to each other and talk to each other by phone, but there was lots we weren’t really emotionally able to come to terms with until we had that private space, without a CO watching, to do it.”

The (Checkered) History

Conjugal visits began around 1918 at Parchman Farm, a labor camp in Mississippi. At first, the visits were for black prisoners only, and the visitors were local prostitutes, who arrived on Sundays and were paid to service both married and single inmates. According to historian David Oshinsky, Jim Crow-era prison officials believed African-American men had stronger sex drives than whites, and would not work as hard in the cotton fields if they were not sexually sated. The program expanded in the 1940s to include white, male inmates and their wives, and in the 1970s to include female inmates.

Has your partner been in prison? Help others understand what the experience is like by filling out our questionnaire.

Our reporting has real impact on the criminal justice system

Our journalism establishes facts, exposes failures and examines solutions for a criminal justice system in crisis. If you believe in what we do, become a member today.

Stay up to date on our reporting and analysis.

Sex, Love, & Marriage Behind Bars

What are conjugal visits really like? Incarcerated journalist John J. Lennon takes Esquire inside one of the last bastions of prisoner intimacy in America: trailers of New York.

I first heard about the trailers, prison vernacular for conjugal visits, on Rikers Island. It was 2002, I was twenty-four, and I was awaiting trial on murder charges. The guy the next bunk over in the communal dorm knew I was facing a lot of time, even if I didn’t know that. I was delusional in the beginning. We all are.

The bunkmate had just finished a dime—a ten-year sentence—for assault and was now in on a parole violation for breaking curfew, caught on a tip called in by his wife. Still, he loved her, and he loved telling me about going on conjugals with her up in Auburn, a maximum-security prison. It wasn’t just about the sex, he said. It was forty-eight hours of freedom, or close to it. Most of New York’s maximum-security prisons had them. They weren’t trailers, not anymore, but modular homes. He described the units: two, sometimes three bedrooms—the prison supplied pillows, bed linens, towels, and washcloths—a living room, a bathroom, and a full kitchen stocked with pots and pans, a coffee maker, a blender, and utensils. A wire bolted to the counter next to the sink was connected to the handle of the kitchen knife. His wife would bring clothes, cosmetics, and groceries: milk, eggs, pork chops, shelled shrimp. Glass containers weren’t allowed; neither was alcohol, not even as a makeup ingredient. Outside there was a picnic table, a barbecue pit, and a children’s play area.

It was, the fella in the next bunk told me, an opportunity for good times, good eating, and good sex. An incentive to stay out of trouble in the hope of experiencing a touch of love.

There was a hitch: Your partner had to be your legal spouse. Close family members were also eligible, of course, and this was really the objective of these visits: to build and maintain better family ties. But that was beside my bunkmate’s point. If I was convicted, he said, he recommended I put an ad on one of those prisoner dating websites (Prison Pen Pals, Write a Prisoner), find a woman, fall in love, make it official, then head for the trailers.

In 2004, I was sentenced to twenty-eight years to life. The minimum was longer than I’d been alive. Early on, I didn’t think much about the implications for my love life. At twenty-four, I’d had plenty of sex but never a real relationship, or even healthy intimacy. Besides, there were more pressing concerns: appealing my conviction, learning how to survive in this place.

I first saw the trailers at Clinton Correctional, a maximum-security prison a few miles south of the Canadian border, in Dannemora. By then I’d learned that New York’s Department of Corrections and Community Supervision didn’t actually call them conjugal visits. Only Mississippi did. While the word conjugal simply means “related to marriage,” these visits began to carry lewd implications, and other states opted to rebrand: In California, it was known as “family visiting.” In Connecticut and Washington, they were referred to as “extended family visits.” In New York, it was, and still is, called the Family Reunion Program, or FRP.

In 2005, I had my first FRP visit—with my mother and my aunt. My aunt cooked bacon and eggs in the morning, grilled porterhouse steaks and tossed salads for dinner. We sank into the soft couches, ate, and watched Law & Order reruns, oddly Mom’s favorite show. We talked until interrupted by the muffled screams of a couple through the wall of the attached unit. We laughed awkwardly, avoiding eye contact, and I felt kind of jealous. Three times a day, a phone in the unit rang. I picked up, spat my last name and identification number into the receiver, then stepped outside and waved to the watchtower guard. That count was one of the only reminders of prison.

When I returned to my block, guys asked how the conjugal had gone. Great, I said. When I mentioned it was with my mother and my aunt, they sort of nodded, like, Oh, that’s cool, too. I loved visiting with my family. But I did start to think about what it would be like to be with a woman again.

.css-f6drgc:before{margin:-0.99rem auto 0 -1.33rem;left:50%;width:2.1875rem;border:0.3125rem solid #FF3A30;height:2.1875rem;content:'';display:block;position:absolute;border-radius:100%;} .css-1aglugu{font-family:Lausanne,Lausanne-fallback,Lausanne-roboto,Lausanne-local,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:1.625rem;line-height:1.2;margin:0rem;}@media(max-width: 48rem){.css-1aglugu{font-size:1.75rem;line-height:1.2;}}@media(min-width: 64rem){.css-1aglugu{font-size:2.375rem;line-height:1.2;}}.css-1aglugu b,.css-1aglugu strong{font-family:inherit;font-weight:bold;}.css-1aglugu em,.css-1aglugu i{font-style:italic;font-family:inherit;}.css-1aglugu:before{content:'＂';display:block;padding:0.3125rem 0.875rem 0 0;font-size:3.5rem;line-height:0.8;font-style:italic;font-family:Lausanne,Lausanne-fallback,Lausanne-styleitalic-roboto,Lausanne-styleitalic-local,Arial,sans-serif;} Trailer visits were never perfect. Sometimes they were hard. But in many ways, they felt like rehearsals for life on the outside.

I got by with my hand and my memories, with the occasional assist from Buttman or High Society. Many of us who’ve been locked up all these years try idiosyncratic methods to pleasure ourselves. Some use a Fifi—a rolled towel with a plastic bag stuffed in the crevice; inside the bag is a rubber glove lubed with Vaseline that can be warmed in a hot pot of water, if one prefers. The crevice can be tightened or loosened by a strap wrapped around the rolled towel, creating different sensations. Fucking Fifis was an intimate ritual for one of my neighbors. At night he hung a curtain across his cell bars, prepped his Fifi, rolled the whole thing up in his mattress—he said it was more like a big-booty girl that way—laid out a few porno mags, and started thrusting.

But I wasn’t looking to hump a Fifi for the next twenty-five years.

Married men in the joint who went on conjugals seemed to have the most meaningful lives: They worked out, they went on visits, they sported crispy new sneakers and polo shirts with the horse, as if to say to the rest of us, I got a lady who loves me, and I got more status than you. At least, that’s how I took it. Every few months, they disappeared—most men kept their conjugal dates to themselves to avoid attracting envy—but we all knew where they’d gone. They came back to the cellblock with hickey-covered necks, looking pleasantly tired. I decided that was how I wanted to serve my sentence.

Mississippi State Penitentiary, of all places, was the first facility in the U. S. to offer conjugal visits, in the early 1900s. Also known as Parchman Farm, the segregated prison functioned as a revenue-generating plantation that produced cotton, cattle, pork, and more; its prisoners performed all the hard labor. To incentivize their work, administrators began arranging for prostitutes to visit on Sundays, and prisoners slept with them wherever they could—tool sheds, storage areas, the barracks. At first, only Black prisoners were allowed to participate, and for deeply racist notions “about Black men’s allegedly voracious sexual natures and appetites,” says Heather Ann Thompson, author of the Pulitzer-prize-winning history of the Attica uprising, Blood in the Water, “that Black prisoners could be forced to work even harder not just under threat of the lash but also, due to their savage nature, the promise of sex.”

Starting around 1940, all of Parchman’s prisoners were able to participate, regardless of race. By the late fifties, prostitutes were banned, replaced by prisoners’ spouses, common-law wives, and female friends. In 1972, the program opened to the facility’s female prisoners. Still, the system was marked by prejudice. “The most important question concerning a program of conjugal visiting,” wrote Columbus Hopper in his 1969 study of Parchman, Sex in Prison, “is whether it helps to reduce the problem of homosexuality in prison.” Hopper was the leading conjugals researcher of his time, and the “problem of homosexuality” seems to have been one of the main forces behind his advocacy. Truth is, in my twenty-one years of incarceration, I’ve never been sexually assaulted or witnessed that kind of assault.

New York’s first FRP began in 1976, with five 12-foot-by-70-foot trailers in a former cow pasture at Wallkill Correctional. Attica got its trailers in 1977, six years after the prisoner uprising for more humane treatment that, when law enforcement took back the prison, left thirty-nine dead. In the first eighteen months of Attica’s FRP, 1,179 prisoners participated.

By 1993, seventeen states allowed some version of extended family visits. That year in New York, 12,401 family members attended FRPs across the state. “The effectiveness of the program is beyond dispute,” the prison commissioner wrote in an op-ed around that time.

Data supports the former commissioner’s claims. According to a recent literature review, prisons that allow conjugal visits have better disciplinary records than those that do not. What’s more, studies have determined that released prisoners with an established relationship have a much better chance of not returning to prison. (In 1980, New York’s corrections department published findings suggesting that participation in the program decreased recidivism rates by as much as 67 percent.)

Yet since the start of such programs, fierce resistance has followed. By the early nineties, the era of mass incarceration was fully under way, and across the country, prison programs that incentivized good behavior—furloughs, work release, college, conjugals—were on the chopping block. Why, the thinking went, should we coddle criminals with taxpayer money? (It’s worth noting that FRP upkeep is paid for in part by prisoner fundraisers.) And don’t conjugals present one more way to introduce contraband?

As early as 1969, when Hopper published his findings on Parchman, conjugal visits were available in Chile, Ecuador, Japan, Mexico, Costa Rica, and the Philippines. Today, that list includes Qatar, Argentina, Brazil, Belgium, Sweden, Spain, France, Russia, and Saudi Arabia.

The United States has shifted in the opposite direction. In the eyes of the law, conjugal visits are a privilege, not a right. The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld prison administrators’ latitude to limit prisoners’ rights, including visitation, writing in 2003 that “freedom of association is among the rights least compatible with incarceration.” In 2014, Mississippi did away with its program. “There are costs associated with the staff’s time,” the state’s prison commissioner said at the time. “Then, even though we provide contraception, we have no idea how many women are getting pregnant only for the child to be raised by one parent”—as if such family planning were his call to make.

Today, only four states allow conjugal visits—New York, California, Washington, and Connecticut—though when Covid came, Connecticut’s program was suspended, and it has yet to return. Federal prisons don’t offer the privilege. New York’s program has been a success: FRP is offered at twelve of its fifteen maximum-security prisons and eleven of its twenty-six medium-security prisons. Since 2011, same-sex couples have been able to participate. Yet each year over the past decade or so, Republican state senators have introduced a bill to eliminate FRP. Conservatives preach the importance of a solid family structure. Why would they want to sabotage prisoners who are trying to build and maintain theirs?

By 2009, I was in Attica; my appeals had been denied. I was thirty-two and lonely. I’d spend hours each day watching the tiny TV in my cell. The Bachelor was my favorite show—a glimpse of intimacy, however stage-managed, and a break from my bleak reality. I felt like I was squandering an opportunity by not putting myself out there. I told Mom what the guy on Rikers Island had suggested, and she put an ad on the prison dating website Friends Beyond the Wall.

Danielly was a year younger than me and lived with her teenage son in a housing project on the Lower East Side. “I’m Dominican, and brown. Do you like that?” she wrote. Yes, yes, I loved it! In an early letter, I brought up the trailers, told her to imagine an uninterrupted weekend together in a sort of cabin, no cell phones, no distractions—just us. She didn’t need to be sold. Her mom had married a guy who’d done time, she told me, and she remembered visiting those little homes in the prison as a young girl.

Danielly started visiting me at Attica. She was my type—curvy, full of attitude and affection. We had the kind of chemistry that made my stomach flutter. But I soon learned that my type was much harder to handle on the inside than it had been when I was on the outside. The guy she’d described as her ex-boyfriend was more like her current boyfriend. When I called her, she sometimes wouldn’t answer. I was left lovesick, and that’s no way to live in prison. So I let her go.

In January 2011, I started corresponding with Raina, a California blonde, thirty-nine, who’d never been married and had no kids, and it wasn’t a dealbreaker that I’d killed a man. She had a great sense of humor, and while she’d known darkness in her own life, she’d needle anyone who took theirs too seriously. I was hooked. She was emotionally intelligent, we spoke the language of recovery, and our relationship felt safe. She moved across the country for me. One day in 2012, in Attica’s visiting room, I proposed to her, and she said yes. Six months later, we joined a few other couples in a small room with a Goofy mural painted on the wall and Attica’s town clerk seated at a table, and we got married.

By 2014—after a series of applications, denials, appeals, and interviews, including one in which Raina was told I didn’t carry any sexually transmitted diseases—we had our first FRP date.

Two days beforehand, I had to piss in a cup under a guard’s gaze for my drug screen. Then again the day of, and again after I came off the trailer. Most of the work was on Raina: shopping, traveling, then getting processed, food pushed through an X-ray machine, gloved fingers sifting through her panties and K-Y jelly.

The corrections officer escorted a handful of us through the Attica lobby, a part of the prison I had never seen before. Gates opened and closed, and we walked to the FRP compound. A fence enclosed the five red-sided homes, situated so that the rest of the prison couldn’t see in. Though the watchtower guard kept a close eye.

Sitting on the couch, looking around, I felt . . . joy. In the system, you’re always waiting, and never for anything good: trial, sentencing, transfers, getting cuffed and shackled, always in a cell or a bullpen or on a bus eating bologna sandwiches. Now I didn’t know what to do with myself, and I loved it. I got up from the couch, turned on the stereo, then walked outside on the grass, sat on the children’s swing, went back inside. I grabbed the remote, turned on the flat-screen television, flipped through the stations. To do whatever I wanted, and to be waiting for my wife so we could do whatever we wanted—I felt giddy. Through the window I watched my neighbor in his kitchen as he boiled the silverware—forks, (butter) knives, a spatula, a ladle, all metal and engraved with tracking numbers—in one pot of water, and added a few drops of scented oil to another, to perfume the place. Finally, I heard one of the guys yell, “They’re here!”

A corrections van with blue-tinted windows pulled up, and the family members got out. A little boy ran to his father and jumped in his arms. And there was Raina. The CO let me help her with her luggage, which was in a container marked with our unit number.

As soon as the door of our unit closed, we threw the groceries—including cuts of filet mignon and A.1. sauce—on the table and started awkwardly kissing. As we began to undress, there was a knock on the door. Raina put on a shirt and I cracked the door. It was the CO, who just needed our container. It was like that, the conjugals; they were such a departure from regular prison life. Even the staff interactions were all good.

Raina and I got back to it. It was my first time in eleven years, so I figured I’d finish fast. But it was the opposite. We went at it for a while—soft, hard, slow, fast, this way, that way—and nothing seemed to bring either of us closer to climax. It was like I’d never touched a woman before. It felt weird that nobody else was watching us. I eventually pulled out and brought myself to ejaculation.

On some level, we hadn’t expected the first time to be amazing. Though it’s hard to make bad sex better, we had to try. We loved each other. We went on six more FRP visits, but the situation didn’t improve. Our issues were less about friction and more about fantasy, or the lack thereof.

Danielly had sent me letters over the years since we’d first met, none of which I’d replied to. But in 2015, as my relationship with Raina was coming to an end, I finally wrote back, explaining my marital woes. Danielly replied that I never should have gotten married in the first place, that she was my soulmate. She said she was still on and off with her boyfriend, but he didn’t matter. If I got divorced and married her instead, she’d come to Attica and fulfill all my fantasies.

I divorced Raina and proposed to Danielly.

In October, we got married by the same Attica town clerk who’d officiated the last time. The Goofy mural was gone. We posed for our wedding picture in front of a seascape of sea lions and colorful fish. Danielly looks sad in the photo, barely smiling. She’d wanted this day to be so much more special than it was.

Afterward, I bribed a CO with a few packs of Newports to let the cellblock’s tattoo artist come into my cell, and with a needle made from an uncoiled lighter spring powered by a repurposed beard-trimmer motor, he inked danielly on the inside of my upper arm in looping script. Once she ditched the boyfriend for good, she had my name inked on her forearm. We craved each other. Our kisses, deep and long and wet, always felt like good sex.

I wanted to transfer to Sing Sing, forty miles north of New York City—among other reasons, it would take Danielly an hour by train, as opposed to the eleven-hour bus trip she took both ways to visit me at Attica. But Attica was a disciplinary prison, rife with violence; the number of prisoners on good behavior was low, the FRP waitlist short. You could book a spot every forty or fifty days. At Sing Sing, the wait was closer to ninety days. I weighed the pros and cons. Con: waiting twice as long to be together. Pro: saving Danielly the hassle of a big trip to the middle of nowhere, which would probably mean I’d see her more often.

I submitted my paperwork, got approved, and transferred in November 2016.

In February, we had our first FRP date. The compound was pretty much the same as the one at Attica, but at Sing Sing we got a Polaroid camera and twelve blank photos. Some couples went into the units and did not come out for the allotted forty-eight hours. Others were more social. Me and my friend Andy Gargiulo—convicted in 2006 of killing his reputed mobster brother-in-law; we’d had the same lawyer—would sometimes coordinate our FRP visits. He was a lot older than me, around eighty, but we got along. So did our better halves. His wife brought the best Italian food in Brooklyn—cannolis, fresh mozzarella, and tender veal—and when the weather was nice, the four of us would sit outside and barbecue.

Danielly was provocative, and that turned me on. We argued; we canceled visits on each other. We often had angry, shit-talking sex. Sometimes we played nice, but she’d never let it get to my head. “Boy,” she’d say, “you have so much to learn about women.” We couldn’t have sex for the entire forty-eight hours, but it sometimes felt like we were trying.

Intimacy came in other forms. She introduced me to ASMR; I brewed Bustelo for her and microwaved the half-and-half so it wouldn’t cool off the coffee too much. “Coffee,” by Miguel, became our song. We watched The Notebook, and she recited her favorite lines. We watched Warrior, and when Tom Hardy’s character hugs his drunk father, played by Nick Nolte, Danielly comforted me as I cried.

I know now that our relationship wasn’t healthy. My moments of joy were outweighed by my jealousy and anxiety. I’d get annoyed if she didn’t read my latest article. “You’re all into yourself and your career,” she’d say. “Women don’t like that, bro!” Or “I fell in love with the guy at Attica, before he became the writer.” That one hurt. But it’s not like I’d ask about her job as a nurse at a Bronx clinic. She’d want to talk about our future, and I’d urge her to stay in the present. She’d storm off into the bedroom, slam the door, and curse me out in rapid-fire Spanish. Well, I’d think, this is life.

By March 2020, our relationship was rocky. But for the first twenty-four hours of our first FRP in more than a year, we were getting along. As we prepped lunch, a knock came at the door. It was the security captain. Because of Covid, our visit was over, along with our last shot at rekindling.

By the time FRP visits were restored, a year and a half later, I’d been transferred to Sullivan Correctional, in the southern Catskills. Danielly came up twice. But too much time had passed, and other relationships had formed: hers with somebody else, mine with my career. Becoming a journalist in the joint brought its own stress, and my anxiety worsened; things like pissing in a cup with a guard peeking seemed impossible. Recently, we divorced.

Would I have been better off not having experienced intimacy for the past twenty-one years? Would Raina and Danielly have been better off never having met me? I’ve since realized that in both relationships, I focused more on the affection I was getting than the affection I was giving. All this time spent living in my head, confined to a six-foot-by-nine-foot cell, has rendered me less expressive and more emotionally stuck. My thoughts would bounce around my brain but never make it out of my mouth, which left Raina, then Danielly, feeling neglected. The time I used to spend writing love letters I now spend writing articles. Sometimes I feel like I took the two of them for granted. There’s an immense effort, this leap toward love in which the only physical manifestation comes in the form of conjugal visits. And it’s exerted not by the prisoners but by our partners. They wait, they shop, they lug, they travel, they get gossiped about by friends and family and insulted by COs.

Trailer visits were never perfect. Sometimes they were hard, especially at the end—me returning to prison, my woman going home alone. But in many ways, they felt like rehearsals for life on the outside. I believe that because of my experiences with conjugals, when I do get out, I’ll be more sensitive to the feelings of those closest to me. “It remains utterly and inescapably true that to be a human being is to need to be connected to, to bond with, and to be nurtured by other human beings,” Heather Ann Thompson told me. “Serving one’s sentence does not change that.”

So I’m single now. Middle-aged, too. Sometimes I imagine the kind of woman I’ll attract when I’m on the outside, and I wonder if I’ll resent her because she didn’t fall for me when I was on the inside. Which is absurd, and I know I need to work that shit out. But it also feels like a nod to the women who’ve loved me, a thank-you to all the partners who’ve sacrificed so much to share their love with those of us who are locked up.

I think about a moment Danielly and I shared with Andy and his wife, who was wearing Prada glasses and a perfume called La Vie Est Belle. The sun was bright; we sat at the picnic table, eating the best of both kitchens. Andy was talking about a TV show he watched in his cell—maybe it was America’s Got Talent —and Danielly told him how she also loved that show. While recalling the final performance of a child singer who’d recently won, Andy choked up. Right there at the wooden table, surrounded by the thirty-foot concrete wall and the guard with the AR-15 perched in the tower. Danielly teared up, too. “He gets emotional on these visits,” Andy’s wife said in a tough Brooklyn accent, smiling. More than the sex, it’s moments like these—simple, safe, and endearing—that have provided me with what prison has stripped away: a taste of intimacy.

@media(max-width: 73.75rem){.css-1ktbcds:before{margin-right:0.4375rem;color:#FF3A30;content:'_';display:inline-block;}}@media(min-width: 64rem){.css-1ktbcds:before{margin-right:0.5625rem;color:#FF3A30;content:'_';display:inline-block;}} Esquire Select Exclusives

The Cousin I Never Knew

When My Father Talked About Larry Bird

Who Gets to Be a Father Figure?

The Lost Art of Buying a Round for the Bar

I Am a Wellness Asshole Now

I Took Mushrooms at a Concert. It Helped My ADHD.

Inside the Savage Sport of Slap Fighting

The Day I Finally Threw My First Punch

The Joker Actors, Ranked from Worst to Best

You May Live to 100. Here's How to Pay For It.

Inside My Days as a Content Bot

Controversy and Conjugal Visits

Conjugal visits were first allowed as incentives for the forced labor of incarcerated Black men, the practice expanding from there. Is human touch a right?

“The words ‘conjugal visit’ seem to have a dirty ring to them for a lot of people,” a man named John Stefanisko wrote for The Bridge, a quarterly at the Connecticut Correctional Institution at Somers, in December 1963 . This observation marked the beginning of a long campaign—far longer, perhaps, than the men at Somers could have anticipated—for conjugal visits in the state of Connecticut, a policy that would grant many incarcerated men the privilege of having sex with their wives. Conjugal visits, the editors of The Bridge wrote, are “a controversial issue, now quite in the spotlight,” thanks to their implementation at Parchman Farm in Mississippi in 1965. But the urgency of the mens’ plea, as chronicled in The Bridge and the Somers Weekly Scene , gives voice to the depth of their deprivation. “Perhaps we’re whistling in the wind,” they wrote, “but if the truth hits home to only a few, we’ll be satisfied.”

The men at Somers wrote of conjugal visits as something new, but in fact, Parchman had adopted some version of the practice as early as 1918. Parchman, then a lucrative penal plantation , sought to incentivize Black prisoners, who picked and hoed cotton under the surveillance of armed white guards, by allowing them to bring women into their camp. The visits were unofficial, and stories from the decades that followed are varied, ranging from trysts between married couples to tales of sex workers, bussed in on weekends. The men built structures for these visits out of scrap lumber painted red, and the term “ red houses ” remained in use long after the original structures were gone. The policy was mostly limited to Black prisoners because white administrators believed that Black men had stronger sexual urges then white men, and could be made more pliable when those urges were satisfied.

This history set a precedent for conjugal visits as a policy of social control, shaped by prevailing ideas about race, sexual orientation, and gender. Prisoners embraced conjugal visits, and sometimes, the political reasonings behind them, but the writings of the men at Somers suggest a greater longing. Their desire for intimacy, privacy and, most basic of all, touch, reveals the profound lack of human contact in prison, including but also greater than sex itself.

Scholar Elizabeth Harvey paraphrases Aristotle, who described the flesh as the “medium of the tangible,” establishing one’s “sentient border with the world.” Touch is unique among the senses in that it is “dispersed throughout the body” and allows us to experience many sensations at once. Through touch we understand that we are alive. To touch an object is to know that we are separate from that object, but in touching another person, we are able to “form and express bonds” with one another. In this context, Harvey cites the French philosopher Maurice Merleau-Ponty, who described all touch as an exchange. “To touch is also always to be touched,” she writes.

When Parchman officially sanctioned conjugal visits in 1965 after the policy was unofficially in place for years, administrators saw it as an incentive for obedience, but also a solution to what was sometimes called the “ Sex Problem ,” a euphemism for prison rape . Criminologists of the era viewed rape in prison as a symptom of the larger “ problem of homosexuality ,” arguing that the physical deprivations of prison turned men into sexual deviants—i.e., men who wanted to have sex with other men. In this context, conjugal visits were meant to remind men of their natural roles, not merely as practitioners of “ normal sexuality ,” but as husbands. (Framing prison rape as a problem of ‘homosexuals’ was commonplace until Wilbert Rideau’s Angolite exposé Prison: The Sexual Jungle revealed the predation for what it was in 1979.)

Officials at Parchman, the sociologist Columbus B. Hopper wrote in 1962 , “consistently praise the conjugal visit as a highly important factor in reducing homosexuality, boosting inmate morale, and… comprising an important factor in preserving marriages.” Thus making the visits, by definition, conjugal, a word so widely associated with sex and prison that one can forget it simply refers to marriage. Men—and at the time, conjugal visits were only available to men—had to be legally married to be eligible for the program.

But for the men at Somers, the best argument for conjugal visitation was obvious—with one telling detail. The privacy afforded by the red houses at Parchman, Richard Brisson wrote “preserve some dignity to the affair,” creating “a feeling of being a part of a regular community rather than … participating in something that could be made to appear unclean.” For lovers secluded in bedrooms, “[t]here is no one about to mock them or to embarrass them,” he wrote. This observation suggests the ubiquity of surveillance in prison, as well as its character.

Carceral institutions are intended to operate at a bureaucratic remove; prisoners are referred to by number and were counted as “ bodies .” Guards must act as ambivalent custodians of these bodies, even when the nature of their job can be quite intimate. Prisoners are routinely strip-searched and frisked; they must ask permission to exercise any movement, to perform any bodily function. This is as true today as it was in Somers, where men frequently complained that they were treated like children. “You are constantly supervised, just as if you were a one-year-old child,” Ray Bosworth wrote in 1970 .

But guards are not parents, and the tension between dutiful ambivalence and intimate supervision often manifests as disgust. On a recent visit to Bedford Hills Correctional Facility, a maximum-security women’s prison in upstate New York, prisoners complained of being ridiculed during strip searches, and hearing guards discussing their bodies in the corridors.

This attitude extends to rules regulating touch between prisoners and visitors. Writing about San Quentin State Prison in California in the early 2000s, the ethnographer Megan L. Comfort described a common hierarchy of visits , each with its own allowable “degree of bodily contact.” Death Row cage visits allowed for hugs in greeting and parting, while a contact visit allowed for a hug and a kiss. The nature of the kiss, however, was subject to the discretion of individual guards. “We are allowed to kiss members of our families, hello and goodbye, but the amount of affection we may show is limited by the guard,” James Abney wrote for the Somers Weekly Scene in 1971.  “If he feels, for instance that a man is kissing his wife too much or too passionately, then he may be reprimanded for it or the visit may be ended on the spot.”

When Somers held its first “ Operation Dialogue ,” a “mediated discussion” among prisoners and staff in May 1971, conjugal visits were a primary concern. By then, California (under Governor Ronald Reagan) had embraced the policy—why hadn’t Connecticut? Administrators argued that furloughs, the practice of allowing prisoners to go home for up to several days, were a preferable alternative. This certainly would seem to be the case. In August 1971, the Scene quoted Connecticut Correction Commissioner John R. Manson, who criticized the skeezy, “tar-paper shacks” at Parchman, concluding that furloughs were “ a less artificial way for inmates to maintain ties with their families .” But to be eligible for furloughs, men were required to be within three or four months of completing their sentence. In the wake of George H.W. Bush’s infamous “ Willie Horton ” campaign ad in 1988, a racially-charged ad meant to stoke fear and anti-Black prejudice in which a violent attack was blamed on Liberal soft-on-crime policies (specifically scapegoating Michael Dukakis for a crime committed on a prison furlough that predated his tenure as governor), prison furloughs were mostly abolished. They remain rare today, still looming in the shadow of the Horton ad.

Conjugal visits are considered a rehabilitative program because, as Abney wrote, it is in “society’s best interest to make sure that [a prisoner’s] family remains intact for him to return to.” Unspoken is the disregard for people serving long sentences, or life, making conjugal visits unavailable to those who might need them the most.

The campaign for conjugal visits continued throughout the 1970s. Then, in 1980, in a sudden and “major policy reversal ,” the state of Connecticut announced that it would instate a “conjugal and family visit” program at several prisons, including Somers. Subsequent issues of the Scene outline the myriad rules for application, noting that applicants could be denied for a variety of reasons at the discretion of prison administrators.

The earliest conjugal visits at Somers lasted overnight but were less than 24 hours in total. Men could have multiple visitors, as long as they were members of his immediate family. This change signaled a new emphasis on domesticity over sex. Visits took place in trailers equipped with kitchens, where families cooked their own meals. Describing a similar set-up at San Quentin more than two decades later, Comfort wrote that the trailers were meant to encourage “people to simulate an ordinary living situation rather than fixate on a hurried physical congress.”

By the early 1990s, conjugal visitation, in some form, was official policy in 17 states. But a massive ideological shift in the way society viewed incarcerated people was already underway. In a seminal 1974 study called “What Works?”, sociologist Robert Martinson concluded that rehabilitation programs in prison “ had no appreciable effect on recidivism .” Thinkers on the left saw this as an argument for decarceration—perhaps these programs were ineffective because of the nature of prison itself. Thinkers on the right, and society more broadly, took a different view. As (ironically) the Washington Post observed, the findings were presented in “lengthy stories appearing in major newspapers, news magazines and journals, often under the headline, ‘ Nothing Works! ’”

Martinson’s work gave an air of scientific legitimacy to the growing “tough-on-crime” movement, but the former Freedom Rider, who once spent 40 days at Parchman, spawned punitive policies he couldn’t have predicted. In 1979, Martinson officially recanted his position. He died by suicide the following year.

In Mistretta v. United States (1989), the court ruled that a person’s demonstrated capacity for rehabilitation should not be a factor in federal sentencing guidelines because, they wrote, studies had proved that rehabilitation was “an unattainable goal for most cases.” It effectively enshrined “nothing works” into law.

Weekly Newsletter

Get your fix of JSTOR Daily’s best stories in your inbox each Thursday.

Privacy Policy   Contact Us You may unsubscribe at any time by clicking on the provided link on any marketing message.

“Nothing works” gave rise to harsher sentencing, and more punitive policies in prisons themselves. In 1996, the state of California drastically reduced its conjugal visitation program . At San Quentin, this meant conjugal visits would no longer be available for people serving life sentences. To have benefitted from the program, and then have it taken away, was a particular blow to prisoners and partners alike. One woman told Comfort that she was in “mourning,” saying: “To me, I felt that it was like a death. ”

We don’t know how the men at Somers might have felt about this new era, or the heyday of conjugal visits that came before it. There are no issues of the Weekly Scene available after 1981 in the American Prison Newspapers collection, which is just after the visits began. But their writing, particularly their poetry, offers some insight into the deprivation that spurred their request. In 1968, James N. Teel writes, “Tell me please, do you ever cry, / have you ever tried to live while your insides die? ” While Frank Guiso , in 1970, said his existence was only an “illusion.” “I love and I don’t, / I hate and I don’t / I sing and I don’t / I live and I don’t,” he writes. But for others, disillusionment and loneliness take a specific shape.

“I wish you could always be close to me,” Luis A. Perez wrote in a poem called “ The Wait ” 1974:

I will hold your strong hand in my hand, As I stare in your eyes across the table. Trying to think of the best things to say, I then notice how I will not be able. I will long for your tender embraces, For your long and most desirable kiss. As I sleep cold for warmth of your body, You my love, are the one I will miss…

Today, only four states—California, Connecticut, Washington and New York—allow conjugal visits. (Mississippi, where Parchman is located, ended conjugal visitation in 2014 .) Some argue that Connecticut’s Extended Family Visit (EFV) program, as it is now called, doesn’t actually count , because it requires a prisoner’s child to be there along with another adult . There is also some suggestion that Connecticut’s program, while still officially on the books, has not been operational for some time.

The COVID-19 pandemic gave further cause to limit contact between prisoners and visitors, engendering changes that don’t appear to be going away anytime soon.

Somers was reorganized as a medium-security facility and renamed the Osborn Correctional Institution in 1994. A recent notice on the facility’s visitation website reads: “​​Masks must be worn at all times. A brief embrace will be permitted at the end of the visit .”

Support JSTOR Daily! Join our new membership program on Patreon today.

JSTOR is a digital library for scholars, researchers, and students. JSTOR Daily readers can access the original research behind our articles for free on JSTOR.

Get Our Newsletter

More stories.

• The Coldest Cream

• The Georgia Peach: A Labor History

• Racial Hierarchies: Japanese American Immigrants in California

• Matilda Tone, Historian of Irish Republicanism

Recent Posts

• Swimming Rediscovered, True Crime, and Zealandia

Support JSTOR Daily

Sign up for our weekly newsletter.

• Online Forum

Conjugal Rights for Prisoners: To Be Or Not To Be?

• Posted by ULR
• Categories Online Forum
• Date January 21, 2018
• Comments 1 comment

AUTHOR: BUSARI HALIMAT TEMITAYO

Human rights are the basic and inalienable guarantees that describe certain standards of human behaviour, and are regularly protected as legal rights in municipal and international laws. A correctional facility such as a prison serves to confine and rehabilitate prisoners, and it is often said that human rights do not stop at prison gates. However, the conditions of confinement in many prisons today have been the object of concern all over the world. One of such is conjugal rights for prisoners, which remains a controversial issue with two distinct points of argument. This paper discusses the objectives of imprisonment, explains the concept of conjugal rights, considers the arguments for and against it and posits that imprisonment should not amount to its suspension.

INTRODUCTION

Prisons in Africa are often considered the worst in the world, while other prison systems are worse in terms of violence, overcrowding and a host of other problems. This is not to argue that prisons in Africa are human rights friendly as many are in deficient condition and their practices are at odds with human rights standards.

The objectives of imprisonment can be summarised into four: retribution; deterrence; incapacitation; and rehabilitation. Retribution is punishment for crimes committed against the society by depriving criminals of their freedom, as a way of making them pay for their crimes. Incapacitation refers to the removal of criminals from the society to facilitate the protection of the public. Deterrence entails the prevention of the commission of future crimes. It is hoped that prisons provide warnings to people thinking about committing crimes and that the possibility of being imprisoned will discourage people from breaking the law while also serving as an instrument for the reformation and rehabilitation of prisoners. Also, it is submitted that what is needed is proper manual to bring behavioural changes in the prisoners to ensure that the chances of them going back into crimes upon release are slim to none.

CONJUGAL RIGHTS

Conjugal rights are the sexual rights or privileges implied by, involved in and regarded as exercisable in law, by each partner in a marriage. They refer to the mutual rights and privileges between two individuals arising from the state of being married. These rights include mutual rights of companionship, support, sexual relations, affection and the like. The act of a husband or wife staying separately from the other without any lawful cause is referred to as subtraction of conjugal rights.

CONJUGAL RIGHTS FOR PRISONERS

Conjugal rights are usually exercised through visitation for prisoners. A conjugal visit is a scheduled period in which an inmate of a prison (or jail) is permitted to spend several hours or days in private with a visitor, usually his or her legal spouse during which both parties may engage in sexual intercourse. This visitation could be from the spouse or partner of the inmate to the inmate within the walls of the prison, or through other means such as the provision of a structure by the prison where supplies such as soap, condoms, lubricants, bed linens and towels may be provided, or in certain cases where prisoners are allowed to leave the prison premises, to the outside world under supervision.

Some scholars posit that for an offender who is sentenced to imprisonment, his or her punishment is just imprisonment. Thus, the punishment should not deprive such an individual of his or her rights. According to this school of thought, the prisoner should only be punished by imprisonment which he or she has been convicted for in a fair judicial process in a just and independent court. This point of view serves as the bedrock for legal systems which provide for and permit conjugal visits for prisoners.

The generally recognised basis for permitting such visits in modern times is to preserve family bonds and increase the chances of success for a prisoner’s eventual return to normal life after release from prison. Additionally, they serve as an incentive to motivate inmates to comply with the various day-to-day rules and regulations of the prison, and to avoid any infringement which may result in disqualification from having conjugal visits. Those in favour of conjugal visits argue that it will help in the rehabilitation of inmates, prevent sexual harassment and depression in jail. They further argue that it gives psychological relief to some prisoners and gets them to know that they are still responsible and that deprivation of conjugal rights amounts to double punishment. Furthermore, some of the supporters of this position assert that conjugal rights are God-given and not government-given and that it would be unfair to the partners of convicts to deny them conjugal rights as though they were also convicted.

Out of the 196 countries in the world, only a few permits conjugal visits for their prisoners. Some of these countries include: Australia; Canada; Denmark; Germany; Israel; Mexico; India; Jamaica; Pakistan; Saudi Arabia; Spain; United Kingdom; and the United States of America (USA). However, it is important to note that of all fifty states in the USA, only four (Connecticut, New York, California and Washington) currently allow conjugal visits, which are otherwise known as extended family visits.5 Also, these rights do not exist in the USA federal prison system. In addition, conjugal visits are considered a privilege for prisoners who have exhibited good behaviour during their term of incarceration.

In the USA, the Supreme Court and several courts have held that prisoners do not have a constitutional right to conjugal visits. In Pakistan, the Sindh home department grants conjugal rights to convicted inmates under which they would be allowed to meet their spouses for one day or night in 3 months. A notification was issued following a Supreme Court order on 6 April 2010 to implement same in all the provinces and is part of the government’s jail reforms. Jamaica recently adopted this position following the announcement made by the National Security Minister, Robert Montague, where he stated that he believes that allowing inmates to have sexual relations with their partners will be beneficial. This development in Jamaica however, has been highly criticised.

On the other hand, the argument against conjugal rights for prisoners is centered on the position that punishment should not come with perks. This school of thought, while recognising that prisoners are human beings entitled to basic human rights, posits that punishments cease to have meaning when they come with perks. Sending someone who has been convicted of a crime to prison is the government’s way of giving the convict the opportunity to take time off their usual lifestyle, reflect upon their actions and hopefully, be molded and reformed to be law abiding citizens. Here, it is regarded that depriving prisoners of pleasures such as sex is to serve as a way of understanding that there are repercussions other than loss of rights to liberty and movement when crimes are committed.

In some states where prisoners are not allowed conjugal rights, there have been reported actions both in and outside of courts where the recognition and acknowledgement of these rights are being fought for. Premium Times Nigeria reported over two years ago that Charles Okah sued the Nigerian government, wanting inter alia, the allowance of conjugal visits in prison. The applicant sought a declaration that the refusal of the respondents to allow for conjugal visits to the prison breached the fundamental rights of both convicted and awaiting trial inmates. Also, the Parliament’s committee on Human Rights in Uganda tasked the Commissioner General of Prisons, Dr. Johnson Byabashaija to explain why prisoners, especially those serving long sentences were not allowed to enjoy conjugal rights. Byabashaija responded, saying that Uganda’s laws have no provision for conjugal rights because they are one of the several limited rights with those in the conflict with the law. He also added that though the law is silent on the matter, allowing conjugal visits would stretch the already small budget allocated to prisons in Uganda. These actions show the eagerness and readiness of a significant portion of the citizenry of these countries to accept conjugal rights for prisoners in these states.

Under Islamic law, the prison system is a little different, as there are rare cases for imprisonment. In addition, imprisonment here is not the foundation of punishment, rather, it is supplementary and mainly for simple offences. Prisoners here are often incarcerated at the discretion of the judge and usually for offences that have no specific punishment, or in cases where such a prisoner is deemed to be very harmful to the society. Generally, such prisoners enjoy all rights, (including conjugal rights), except the right to freedom of movement. However, for serious crimes, if in the course of discipline, the state decides that depriving the prisoner of certain things will aid the rectification of such a prisoner; conjugal rights may be denied if they happen to be a part of those things.

In the study of criminology, one realises that the inability to find a balance between the objectives of imprisonment, especially punishment and rehabilitation accounts for the main reason for the failure of the prison system. The rate of recidivism all over the world affirms this. According to a report by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) in the USA, about 68 percent of 405,000 prisoners released in 30 states in 2005 were arrested for a new crime within three years of their release from prison, and 77 percent were arrested within five years. In 2010, the Ministry of Justice figures in the United Kingdom (UK) disclosed that 14 prisons in England and Wales, most of which hold short-term inmates, have re conviction rates of more than 70 percent. The statistics underline the long-term ineffectiveness of the criminal justice system at diverting persistent offenders from a life of crime. Consequently over time, it has been observed that the emphasis placed on punishment being an end result of imprisonment is a little excessive. The argument against granting conjugal rights to prisoners seems to fail to consider that extreme punishment tends to harden people in need of correction.

As important as the punishment factor is, it is relevant to keep in mind that while nothing can be done to change a crime or crimes that a prisoner might have committed, it is possible to effect change(s) to the character of such a prisoner. This may directly or indirectly prevent that prisoner from relapsing into the criminal world upon release. This can be achieved through the implementation of a technique that encompasses the four objectives of imprisonment aforementioned.

One of the biggest advantages to having a prison that allows conjugal rights through conjugal visits is that prisoners tend to follow the rules and be obedient, for fear of losing those rights. Family relationships have a huge impact on the prisoner’s motivation to be rehabilitated. This means that granting conjugal rights to prisoners will not only be a source of help and support to the prisoners during incarceration, but will also increase the chances of the prison system being more effective in securing the rehabilitation and reformation of prisoners.

On the long run, keeping the aforementioned points in mind, ceteris paribus , the advantages of granting conjugal rights outweigh the disadvantages. It is submitted that prisoners should be granted conjugal rights upon careful and proper regulation. If this is done, it is highly likely that the rate of recidivism will reduce. Furthermore, states are encouraged to grant conjugal rights where it is observed that such rights will assist a prisoner in his or her reformation process.

Halimat Temitayo Busari is a law student in her penultimate year. her interests in areas of law include but are not limited to: human rights; intellectual property and tax. She can be reached via mail at [email protected]

Tag: Africa , Conjugal Rights , Conjugal Rights for prisoners , Human Rights , Human Rights in Africa , Human Rights in Nigeria , Rights of Prisoners

Previous post

Cryptocurrency: The Role Of Law In The Digital Economy

Legal consequences of not having a national identification number in nigeria, you may also like, an examination of the international law approach towards state responsibilities in addressing climate change and its overall effectiveness.

    ABSTRACT This paper seeks to examine the position of international law towards state responsibilities in addressing climate change and its effectiveness over the years. In order to do this, the paper first examines the concepts of climate change …

TOWARDS MARITIME SECURITY IN THE GULF OF GUINEA: NIGERIA IN PERSPECTIVE

Abstract The Gulf of Guinea (GoG) has gained notoriety as “The New Danger Zone”. Maritime insecurity is a major regional problem compromising the development of this strategic economic area and threatening maritime trade in the short term and stability of …

THE PERSECUTION OF JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES IN ERITREA – THE NEED FOR A NEW APPROACH IN ADDRESSING GROSS VIOLATIONS OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAWS & PRINCIPLES

Leave A Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

• WordPress.org
• Documentation
• Support Forums

• Practitioner
• Organization
• EBP Monthly
• EBP Quarterly
• Event Updates
• Continued Education
• Conferences
• Frontline Pathway
• Leadership Pathway
• MI Skills Day
• Supervisors
• Faculty Guidelines
• Joyfields Institute
• Request Demo
• Masterclasses
• Schedule-A-Mentor
• Login/Sign In

Extending the Ties that Bind: Considering the Implementation of Extended Family Visits in Prisons

Thomas dutcher university of new haven.

The following brief presents valuable information for states considering implementing extended familial visitations to their current visitation policies within prisons. Specifically this report would be of interest to individuals within a given states’ Department of Corrections. The brief first outlines what is known about extended stay family visitations (also known as conjugal visitations) in relation to recidivism prevention, prison violence reduction, and maintenance of social ties. Thereafter, policies of states with current programs are reviewed. The brief recommends that states adopt a visitation policy, which allows for a broad definition of who qualifies as a visitor capable of applying for an extended visitation, and recommends considering the use of a monitoring and evaluation framework paired with the implementation of a program due to the limited current state of evidence-based literature on the topic.

Statement of Issue  

Roughly 45% of the United States population has had an incarcerated primary family member, and every state has some form of in-person visitation policy, but the vast majority of incarcerated persons will not receive visits from family (Cochran & Mears, 2013; Enns et al., 2019; Mitchell et al., 2016). The extant quantitative literature on the effects of familial visitation on the incarcerated person finds that visitations increase overall mood, increase reports of familial ties, decrease rule violation behavior, reduce the likelihood of recidivism. Yet it is important to note that within these studies, it is rare for more than 40% of those incarcerated individuals to report receiving any visits, let alone visits from family members (De Claire & Dixon, 2017; Duwe & Clark, 2013; Mears et al., 2012; Mitchell et al., 2016).

While visitation and maintaining familial ties are seen as theoretically relevant for reducing recidivism by reducing strain, strengthening familial ties, and combatting labeling associated with prisonization, there are significant barriers to visitation (Cochran & Mears, 2013). These barriers include distance to be traveled (often hundreds of miles), cost of travel, poor conditions in the general visiting area, length of visit, inconsistency in hours of allowable visit, length of time spent waiting at the facility, and the overarching cost of the experience (Christian, 2005; Cochran & Mears, 2013; Mowen & Visher, 2016).

With this in mind, this policy brief seeks to explore one way for addressing low in-person familial visitation rates. In the section that follows, a background on extended familial or “conjugal” visits will be provided. As of 2021, only four states have official extended familial visitation programs: Connecticut (Connecticut Department of Correction Directive 10.6), California (see Boudin et al., 2013), New York (DOC Dir 4500), and Washington (DOC 590.100). Extended familial visits, while not a panacea to low prison visitation, address many of the barriers to visitation shown in the existing literature.

Prison visitation has received a great deal of attention from researchers in the past 20 years. This research tends to show that visitation has a positive impact on the lives of those incarcerated, as well as the individuals visiting (Duwe & Clark, 2013; Mears et al., 2012; Mitchell et al., 2016; Tasca et al., 2016). Rather than detailing the key findings of the literature, the focus of this brief is placed on two separate meta-analyses of prison visitation research, along with a few routinely cited studies. This overarching literature will be used to introduce the limited research that has been conducted on extended familial (conjugal) visitations. While most of this research focuses on the effects of visitation on recidivism, it should be noted that an entirely separate body of research focuses on the effects of visitation for families on the outside (see: Adams, 2018; Christian, 2005; Mowen & Visher, 2016;; Siennick et al., 2013; Turanovic et al., 2012)

One meta-analysis conducted by De Claire & Dixon (2017) examined 10 studies that specifically looked at the effects of familial and romantic partner visitation related to the overall mood and disposition of the incarcerated person, instances of violations in prison, and recidivism. The authors found support for their hypothesis that visits from family improve mood, decrease in-prison violations, and decrease recidivism risk (De Claire & Dixon, 2017). However, differences exist related to the gender of the incarcerated individual. For example, visitation only reduced recidivism at a statistically significant level for men, not women (Claire & Dixon, 2017). The researchers noted that there needs to be further studies that examine the nuances of types of visitation, including extended familial visitation, and their effect on recidivism and in prison violations.

Mitchell et al. (2016), in another meta-analysis of the effects of prison visitation specific to recidivism outcomes, examined studies of 16 prison visitation programs that used either an experimental or quasi-experimental design. This meta-analysis found that prison visitation reduces recidivism by 26%, but that gender (larger effect for men than women), type of visit, and length of incarceration mediate the effect (Mitchell et al., 2016). Despite this mediation, the effect of visitation remained moderately significant. Unique to this meta-analysis was the inclusion of extended familial (conjugal) visits as a visitation type.  While it should be noted that far fewer studies in the meta-analysis were used to test the effect of these visits, the results of this study show that extended familial visits had the strongest effect on recidivism of any type of visitation, reducing recidivism by 36% (Mitchell et al., 2016).

Research specifically examining the effects of extended family (conjugal) visitation is hard to locate in the extant literature. The evaluative studies which do exist have focused almost exclusively on the extended visit program in the state of Mississippi, which ended in 2014 (McElreath et al., 2016). Research examining extended visitations generally includes discussions of now defunct programs (such as the aforementioned Mississippi program), in large part because the extant literature does not extend beyond 2014 (see Boudin et al., 2013; Carlson & Cevera, 1991; D’Alessio et al., 2013; Einat & Rabinovitz, 2013; Hensley et al., 2000, 2002). This prior research largely paints a positive picture of this form of visitation.

Hensley et al. (2000), surveying currently incarcerated persons in two facilities in Mississippi (126 men and 130 women), sought to examine if those that received extended familial (conjugal) visits had different views on the program than those who were eligible but did not participate. It is important to note that this study oversampled those receiving extended family visits, as 53% of their sample received this form of visit, whereas only 7% of the prison population received extended family visits (Hensley et al., 2000). Using logistic regression, this study found that there were no statistically significant differences in the opinions of extended visitations between those who did and did not receive them (Hensley et al., 2000). Both those who did and did not receive extended visits were in favor of the practice (Hensley et al., 2000).

Hensely et al. (2002) sought to examine the effects of extended family visits on the threat of, as well as actual acts of violent assault and sexual violence. In this study, extended family (conjugal) visits were coded as a dichotomous yes/no variable.  Using multiple regression, the researchers found that while extended family (conjugal) visits decreased threats and actual acts of violence/sexual violence for incarcerated women in the sample, this difference was not statistically significant. Additionally, this study found that extended family (conjugal) visits had no overall effect on violence scales employed (measuring threats and acts) (Hensley et al., 2002).

However, these null findings are in contrast to the majority of the extant literature, which finds positive effects of extended familial (conjugal) visitation (D’Alessio et al., 2013; De Claire & Dixon, 2017; Einat & Rabinovitz, 2013; Mears et al., 2012; Mitchell et al., 2016). D’Alessio et al. (2013), for example, in examining the rates of a reported inmate to inmate sexual assaults in all 50 states over three years, found that conjugal visitation was a statistically significant factor that reduced instances of sexual assault within men’s facilities. In other words, states with specific policies that allowed for extended familial (conjugal) visitation had lower reported rates of sexual abuse in their prisons. However, it must be mentioned again that since the time of this study, both Mississippi and New Mexico have ended their visitation programs.

Qualitative research has delved deeper into the perceptions of extended visits through the perspective of incarcerated persons. In studying perceptions of visitation experiences for incarcerated men, Pierce (2015) found that extended family visits were incredibly important to the 32 men in their sample for maintaining social bonds with their loved ones. Extended visits were mentioned as being preferred for their relative privacy and reportedly produced more meaningful visitation experiences for these men. Pierce (2015) found that continuing extended family visitations, improving the conditions of the trailers, and increasing the number of trailers to facilitate more frequent extended visits per eligible party were among the primary recommendations made by men for facilitating stronger familial ties. Additionally, Einat & Rabinovitz, (2013) examined the importance of “conjugal” visits for eight incarcerated women in Israel. Similarly, these women reflected on the importance of one-on-one visits to maintain deep connections with their romantic partners, which went beyond simply engaging in sex (Einat & Rabinovitz, 2013). The privacy and intimacy of non-traditional visits led individuals in both studies to assert extended visits were more beneficial to their familial relationships than a standard visit (Einat & Rabinovitz, 2013; Pierce, 2015).

Pre-existing policies

While all states have various regulations regarding the length of visitation, type of visit allowed (contact or no contact), and who may visit, all 50 states have a formal policy regulating prison visitation (Boudin et al., 2013). While most states have special policies allowing for extended visits, these extensions are seldom for longer than a few hours during the day. They also vary across states in terms of length of the extension and what type of visitor can request an extended visit (Boudin et al., 2013). Existing policies on these variations in day-time-hour-based extended visits also vary by state and are not possible to recount in detail. Of particular interest is the overnight extended stay visit (often referred to as a familial visit or conjugal visit). As of 2014, when New Mexico and Mississippi canceled their programs, 46 states have no formal policy that allows incarcerated individuals to engage in a private overnight stay with any familial visitor (Boudin et al., 2013) . The policies of Connecticut, New York, and Washington will be outlined below, with a focus on the unique or differing dimensions of each policy.

Extended Options: Connecticut

In the state of Connecticut, incarcerated persons are eligible for a 24-hour extended family visit from their child (under 18) and their spouse, the child's guardian, or the parent of the incarcerated person (Connecticut Department of Correction Directive 10.6). Unique to this policy is the mandate that the incarcerated person must be visited by two persons, one of whom must be their child. Incarcerated persons are eligible for a visit every 90-days. A set of eligibility guidelines exists for both the visitors and the incarcerated person. These eligibility guidelines for the incarcerated person mandate that they must not be on a restrictive status, must not have high-class disciplinary offenses, must have been incarcerated for at least 90 days, and must be in good health (Connecticut Department of Correction Directive 10.6) . Extended family visits occur on Saturdays and Wednesdays, beginning at 8:30 in the morning and ending at 8:30 the next day (Connecticut Department of Correction Directive 10.6). These visits cost ten dollars and are conducted in private trailers that are “similar to a two-bedroom apartment” (Connecticut Department of Correction Directive 10.6, p. 7) . Each facility in the state is capable of setting its own specific eligibility guidelines for both visitors and incarcerated individuals, in addition to the general rules set forth by the Connecticut Department of Corrections

Unlike the Connecticut state policy, which requires a child present in order for the extended stay visit to occur, the policies in New York, Washington, and California do not have this provision. Similar among all three policies are the extensive documents required by the visitor, to establish their identity and connection to the incarcerated person they are seeking to visit, as well as a lengthy application process that includes providing medical, legal, and background records . In all three states, a committee makes the final decision to approve or reject applications for these extended visits.

Extended Options: Washington

The “Extended Stay Family Policy” of Washington used the terminology “Extended Family Visits” rather than the now stigmatized term of conjugal visit (DOC 590.100) . Individuals able to apply for these types of visits include immediate family, parents, step-parents, grandparents, siblings, aunts or uncles, and legally married or state-certified domestic partners (DOC 590.100) . Similar to Connecticut, these visits are private and occur in mobile home units that must have at least one bedroom, a kitchen, a bathroom and a living room. Under the Washington state policy, the incarcerated person must be serving at least five years, have been incarcerated for at least one year, cannot be in a maximum security facility, and cannot be a sex offender. The visitor cannot be their victim in the case of domestic violence, and the inmate must have a clean infraction record (DOC 590.100) . For visitors, the individual cannot be on parole, probation, or awaiting trial, cannot have testified against the individual, must be on their visitor list, and must have visited in person or through video visitations at least 6 times in the last year (DOC 590.100) . This last qualification is especially unique to this policy. The visits themselves can last from 20-48 hours and cost $15 per night, a charge payable by either the visitor or the incarcerated person. An incarcerated person is eligible for one extended visit per month.

Extended Options: New York

The New York Family Reunification Program operates similarly to the aforementioned Washington State policy. There are strict eligibility requirements, which include but are not limited to: the incarcerated person must be a minimum of 6 months into their sentence, must be clear of “excessive” disciplinary infractions and have no “major or severe” infractions, must be eligible for regular visits, cannot be a sex offender, and must be involved in at least one program related to their risk-needs assessment (DOC Dir 4500) . Visitor eligibility also requires that the individual be a frequent visitor; however, unlike the six visits required in Washington, three visits within the last year are required in New York.

For a visitor to be eligible, they must be able to show they are a legally married or common-law spouse, a child over the age of 18, a child under the age of 18 accompanied by a parent or the spouse of the incarcerated person, a minor child without an adult but with written permission approved under special review, a parent or step-parent of the incarcerated person, or a grandparent (DOC Dir 4500). The review process in the state of New York takes roughly five weeks by a full cycle review of the state DOC; after initial approval, subsequent applications can be handled by the specific facility. Twenty-two out of the fifty-two correctional facilities in the state offer this program (DOC Dir 4500). Similar to Washington State, extended visits can be canceled at any time, and individuals can lose their eligibility within the program, subject to the discretion of the facility.

Policy Options

Based on prior literature, the following policy options exist for states interested in implementing a form of an extended family (conjugal) visitation program. These policy options will focus on the general type of visit. Guidelines on eligibility are largely similar across the existing policy options, and as such, a given state should determine eligibility in line with their current visitation procedures. Noting that there is state by state variation in visitation procedures (Boudin et al., 2013), it is not feasible in this brief to cover all aspects of an extended family visitation policy. Instead, the options provided are based on the shared characteristics of existing policies. In other words, in the options that follow (particularly options one and two), the state will be left to determine what specific qualifying and disqualifying protocols should be in place for incarcerated persons to be eligible for the program.

The three policy options provided focus solely on the eligibility who can visit. These options are as follows:

Option 1 – Child-Caregiver-Incarcerated Parent Extended Visit

This option suggests adopting and implementing a family visitation program inspired by the state of Connecticut, requiring a child to be present during such visitations. The naming of this option as Child-Caregiver-Incarcerated Parent Extended Visit highlights the strict requirement of this approach. Only incarcerated parents of minor children may participate in this program, and only if the caregiver of that child is also willing to participate in that visit. It is recommended in this option to follow the overarching policy guidelines of the state of Connecticut related to the contents of visitation trailers and the length of these visits. As stated previously, the state may determine additional qualifying or disqualifying metrics.  

Advantages:

• Allows for the facilitation of social ties between children and their incarcerated parent, which has been shown to reduce the criminogenic impact of growing up with an incarcerated parent.
• Allows for the strengthening and maintaining of social bonds and ties between the child, incarcerated parent, and caregiver.
• By focusing the policy and public narrative around the child being present, it may be possible to prevent negative public backlash related to the label of “conjugal” visits.

Disadvantages:

• The scope of this program is limited to incarcerated individuals who have a child and a relationship with that child’s caregiver that would facilitate a three-way visitation.
• Initial administrative, operations, and constructions costs related to setting up the infrastructure to facilitate these visits.
• Times for such visits would be limited due to school schedules and would likely cause a backlog of visitations.
• It may be hard for the child and parent to require the pre-requisite number of prior regular visits in order to be eligible for extended visits.

Option 2 – General Extended Family Visit

Adopt and implement a family visitation program inspired by states that do not have the child plus caregiver requirement. Or in other words, those states whose policies use a broader definition of who can visit. For the purposes of clarity and simplicity, this can be called the General Extended Family Visit. Within such a policy, parents, siblings, children, legal or common-law spouses, grandparents, and additional family members would be able to apply for the general extended family visit, if they had made a minimum of three regular visits (in person or video) in the prior year. It is recommended that states base their specific policy to be in line with their already existing visitation policies, while incorporating the key structures of The New York Family Reunification Program. As stated previously, the state may determine additional qualifying or disqualifying metrics.  

• A wider variety of individuals who are key social support structures in the lives of incarcerated persons would have access to the visitation program.
• Extended family visitation has been shown to decrease recidivism after re-entry, decrease instances of violence in prison between incarcerated persons, and produce stronger reports of familial ties on release.
• Longer, higher-quality interpersonal visits may facilitate a higher frequency of visits by helping to combat certain barriers to visitation.
• Allows for policy evaluation research to examine the effects of different types of visitors on things such as stress and strain experienced by incarcerated persons, recidivism, inter-inmate violence, and visitation satisfaction. This is critical to understanding what types of visits are beneficial and which ones do more harm than good.
• Different types of visitors are shown to produce different levels of social and emotional support based on factors like the gender of the incarcerated person (Adams, 2018; Mowen & Visher, 2016; Turanovic & Tasca, 2019).

Disadvantages

• Achieving pre-requite prior visitations may be difficult for individuals seeking to participate in the program.
• It may appear as a “soft on criminals” approach that led to the cancelation of extended family (conjugal) visitation programs in states such as Mississippi and New Mexico.

Option 3 – Maintain course

A third option is to maintain current visitation policies and not provide extended family visitations. This “as is” approach centers around the idea that the given Department of Corrections is doing enough to facilitate familial ties by providing its regular, standard visitation practices. This applies to states with no set-up for extended visits and those having only informal extended visit procedures (Boudin et al., 2013).

• No additional cost incurred (only applies to states that do not still have facilities from previous programs).
• No changes in policy, staffing, or procedures needed.
• No risk of public backlash of being “soft on criminals.”
• Does not address the needs of incarcerated persons or their families relative to visitation.
• Does not allow for continued research on how various types of visitation may have greater impacts on recidivism.
• Ignores that there is research that shows that extended family visits reduce recidivism more than standard visits.
• Does not address the burdens experienced by families of incarcerated persons.

Recommendations

With careful consideration of existing familial visitation policies and standard visitation policies, as well as the recognition that existing policies in either domain are not standardized but rather tailored to the individual state by their department of corrections (Boudin et al., 2013), it is the recommendation of this paper that, in light of research showing the positive effects of extended family visits on recidivism and family ties, states currently without such policies should adopt a General Extended Family Visit policy (option two in the previous section). As mentioned above, the primary advantages of this approach include its broader scope of allowable visitors (recognizing heterogeneity in visitation effects), its capacity for reducing barriers to visitation, and the expected impacts on recidivism and quality of life.

Reducing barriers to incarceration is critical to sustaining the positive effects of visitation experienced by incarcerated persons, as research has shown that disruptions such as canceled visitation or infrequent visitation diminish the statistical significance of visitation in reducing misconduct while incarcerated (Siennick et al., 2013). While a full review of the significant barriers faced in attempting to visit an incarcerated family member is beyond the scope of this report, these difficulties largely center around time and distance spent traveling, cost of traveling, already fraying relationships, and negative outlooks on the visitation environment itself (Christian, 2005; Mitchell et al., 2016; Mowen & Visher, 2016). By providing private trailers with amenities far beyond that of a regular visitation space , an overnight visit, and privacy to promote a sense of near normalcy alongside intimacy, General Extended Family Visits directly address several of these barriers.

A key component leading to the recommendation for states without extended familial visits to adopt a program in its likeness is that it does not require the presence of a child for such visits to occur and allows for the broadest range of potential visitors, with extended family being able to apply for special consideration . This is important, because both qualitative and quantitative research reveals the effects of visitations are about more than just the simple act of visiting. There is no standard “best visitor,” and factors such as the gender of the incarcerated person, the quality of the previous relationship, and parenthood status all present unique dimensions to determining who makes an individual level best visitor (Mitchell et al., 2016; Mowen & Visher, 2016; Tasca et al., 2016; Turanovic & Tasca, 2019). Thus, by having a more open approach to individuals who can apply for extended visitation, states avoid a “one-size fits all” approach to policymaking.    

While prior quantitative research is limited, this research has found support for the ability of extended family visitation to have a greater effect on reducing recidivism and inter-inmate violence than standard visitations (Boudin et al., 2013; D’Alessio et al., 2013; De Claire & Dixon, 2017; Mitchell et al., 2016). In addition to reducing recidivism (a major goal of the correctional system and criminal justice system as a whole), extended visitations help to lessen the burden of the collateral consequences of incarceration, especially the strains and stressors related to the deterioration of familial networks, experienced by both those that are incarcerated and their families on the outside (Mowen & Visher, 2016; Tasca et al., 2016; Turanovic et al., 2012). In continuing with trends supporting restorative justice and social justice approaches to the criminal justice system, alleviating strains experienced by families of the incarcerated presents another strong reason for adopting this form of General Extended Family Policy. The importance of extended family visits for the mental and social wellbeing of incarcerated persons and their own views on their familial ties has been shown in research examining both incarcerated men and women (Einat & Rabinovitz, 2013; Pierce, 2015).

It is important to note, as we strive for evidence-based practices and policies, that more research is needed on the specific effects of extended family visits. The extant research has become outdated, existing in a time and space of a vastly different socio-political and prison policy climate (i.e., the get-tough era). The meta-analyses presented above focus primarily on visitation as a whole. While extended visitation was included in their analyses, replication and further study are needed to determine the degree to which extended visits may provide more of a benefit than regular visitation programs. Thus, states implementing the above recommendation should do so with the explicit purpose of constructing a monitoring and evaluation framework in order to conduct further research on the effects of extended family visitation on recidivism, prison misconduct, and familial ties.

Annotated Bibliography

Adams, B. L. (2018). Paternal incarceration and the family: Fifteen years in review. Sociology Compass , 12 (3), e12567. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12567

This review of previous literature is important for understanding the effects of incarceration on families. The researchers provide a comprehensive review of the current state of literature related to paternal incarceration and provide insights into the importance of visitation for familial ties. Those without a background on the impacts of incarceration on families can gain a snapshot of modern research on the topic from this paper.

Boudin, C., Stutz, T., & Littman, A. (2013). Prison visitation policies: A fifty-state survey. Yale Law and Policy Review , 32(1) , 149-189.

This is the only known comprehensive review of visitation policies in every state. This paper highlights the variation in policies by state and notes the differences between formal stated policies and informal practices. The article features a review of various extended stay programs. However, it should be noted that several states listed as providing extended stay programs, no longer provide such services (New Mexico and Mississippi).

Carlson, B. E., & Cevera, N. (1991). Inmates and their Families: Conjugal Visits, Family Contact, and Family Functioning. Criminal Justice and Behavior , 18 (3), 318–331. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854891018003005

This study examined differences in the perceptions of family functioning and familial bonds between incarcerated men and their wives participating in the "Family Reunification Program", an extended visit policy in New York State. The results of this study, based on surveys by 63 incarcerated persons and 39 wives, found positive effects for the extended visitation program. Both incarcerated men and their partners reported higher levels of closeness than those not participating in the Family Reunification program.

Christian, J. (2005). Riding the Bus: Barriers to Prison Visitation and Family Management Strategies. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice , 21 (1), 31–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986204271618

This qualitative research study examines the lived experience of individuals riding a 24 hour bus to visit their incarcerated loved ones. The study finds significant barriers to incarceration related not only to time and distance but also treatment by correctional staff and the visitation environment. This study provides qualitative depth to help understand the relatively low rate of individuals receiving visits while incarcerated in the United States.

Cochran, J. C., & Mears, D. P. (2013). Social isolation and inmate behavior: A conceptual framework for theorizing prison visitation and guiding and assessing research. Journal of Criminal Justice , 41 (4), 252–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2013.05.001

This article provides a comprehensive review on scholarship related to both positive and negative effects of prison visitation. The article provides an expert analysis on the current state of the literature as well as the heterogeneous impacts of various types of prison visitation.

Connecticut Department of Corrections. (2020). Inmate Visits (10.6; p. 14). Connecticut Department of Corrections.

This document provides the Connecticut Department of Corrections policies related to visitations at carceral facilities in the state. It presents the overall policies of the state, including but not limited to the states’ extended visit policy. It is of critical importance to understanding existing policies in place

D’Alessio, S. J., Flexon, J., & Stolzenberg, L. (2013). The Effect of Conjugal Visitation on Sexual Violence in Prison. American Journal of Criminal Justice , 38 (1), 13–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-012-9155-5

This article examines the impact of conjugal visits on sexual violence in prisons by examining longitudinal data from all fifty states. In this study the dependent variable is the yearly number of reported sexual offenses between incarcerated persons and the independent variable of interest is a dummy variable based on if a state has a conjugal visitation program. This study found that states with conjugal visitation programs have significantly lower levels of sexual offenses when controlling for other factors. This article makes up a key portion of the limited extant literature on conjugal visitation.

De Claire, K., & Dixon, L. (2017). The Effects of Prison Visits from Family Members on Prisoners’ Well-Being, Prison Rule Breaking, and Recidivism: A Review of Research since 1991. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse , 18 (2), 185–199. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838015603209

This article provides a meta-analysis of prison visitation research, focused specifically on the effects of that research for incarcerated persons. The study finds that visitation generally has a positive impact on inmate wellbeing, reduces recidivism, and reduces inter-inmate violence. Additionally, this research finds heterogeneity in the effects of visitation based on the type of visit and the gender of the inmate being visited. This study is important for those seeking a background on the effects of prison visitation for incarcerated persons.

Duwe, G., & Clark, V. (2013). Blessed Be the Social Tie That Binds: The Effects of Prison Visitation on Offender Recidivism. Criminal Justice Policy Review , 24 (3), 271–296. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403411429724

This article examines the impact of visitation, visitation frequency, and type of visitor on recidivism risk. The study found that examining visitation frequency shows there are nuanced effects beyond visitation yes/no of visitation on recidivism. Additionally, certain visitors were found to decrease recidivism risk while others, such as former spouses, increased risk of recidivism post-release. It is a well-researched and methodologically sound article providing a nuanced take on the effects of visitation.

Einat, T., & Rabinovitz, S. (2013). A Warm Touch in a Cold Cell: Inmates’ Views on Conjugal Visits in a Maximum-Security Women’s Prison in Israel. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology , 57 (12), 1522–1545. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X12461475

This article examines the perceptions of conjugal visitations within a women's prison in Isreal. This qualitative study reveals key themes related to the visitation experience that highlights its importance for maintaining familial ties and social bonds for participating women. It is an important study for those examining the significance of providing extended visits beyond measurable metrics such as recidivism.

Enns, P. K., Yi, Y., Comfort, M., Goldman, A. W., Lee, H., Muller, C., Wakefield, S., Wang, E. A., & Wildeman, C. (2019). What Percentage of Americans Have Ever Had a Family Member Incarcerated? Evidence from the Family History of Incarceration Survey (FamHIS). Socius , 5 , 2378023119829332. https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023119829332

This article uses a new tool the Family History of Incarcerated Survey, to answer their research question of how many individuals living in America have ever had an incarcerated family member. The authors found that nearly half of all Americans have experienced the incarceration of an immediate member of their family. This research is important for beginning to understand the significance of having a variety of visitation programs within a given department of corrections.

Hensley, C., Koscheski, M., & Tewksbury, R. (2002). Does Participation in Conjugal Visitations Reduce Prison Violence in Mississippi? An Exploratory Study. Criminal Justice Review , 27 (1), 52–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/073401680202700104

This study examines the impact of conjugal visitation on inter-inmate violence in prisons within the state of Mississippi. The researchers surveyed 256 men and women within two prisons in the state. The researchers found no statistically significant difference in threats or acts of violence between those participating in the program and those that were not. This study is important to recognize because it does not find positive effects of conjugal visitation.

Hensley, C., Rutland, S., & Gray-Ray, P. (2000). Inmate attitudes toward the conjugal visitation program in Mississippi prisons: An exploratory study. American Journal of Criminal Justice , 25 (1), 137–145.

This study examines perceptions of conjugal visitation within two Mississippi prisons. In this study incarcerated persons, both participants and non-participants were surveyed. The key finding of this study is that both groups rated the program as being a both important and necessary form of visitation regardless of their own eligibility for the program.

McElreath, D. H., Doss, D. A., Jensen, C. J., Wigginton, M. P., Mallory, S., Lyons, T., Williamson, L., & Jones, D. W. (2016). The End of the Mississippi Experiment with Conjugal Visitation. The Prison Journal , 96 (5), 752–764. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885516662644

This article discusses the factors that led to the cancelation of the Mississippi conjugal visitation program. The authors cover previous literature on conjugal visitation as well as research specific to the state of Mississippi. It is an important piece to read to understand common objections to extended familial visitation programs.

Mears, D. P., Cochran, J. C., Siennick, S. E., & Bales, W. D. (201). Prison Visitation and Recidivism. Justice Quarterly , 29 (6), 888–918.

This article uses propensity score matching in a rigorous analysis of the effects of prison visitation on recidivism. The authors find that different types of visits as well as the frequency of visits are important moderating variables on the effect of visitation measured as yes/no on recidivism. Overall the researchers find that visitation has a positive effect on recidivism. This study is an important piece of the quantitative literature on the effects of visitation on recidivism due to its rigorous design.

Mitchell, M. M., Spooner, K., Jia, D., & Zhang, Y. (2016). The effect of prison visitation on reentry success: A meta-analysis. Journal of Criminal Justice , 47 , 74–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2016.07.006

This meta-analysis examines the effects of prison visitation on recidivism. The authors of this meta-analysis examined studies that looked at nuanced factors that may effects the any relationship between visitation and recidivism including; who is visiting, what type of visit is being conducted, and the gender and race of the individual being visited. The results of this study point to extended visits having a greater impact on recidivism than standard visits. This article is important for those looking to gain immediate insights into trends in the research on visitation.

Mowen, T. J., & Visher, C. A. (2016). Changing the Ties that Bind. Criminology & Public Policy , 15 (2), 503–528. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12207

This study specifically examines factors that lead to changes in familial ties when a member of that family is incarcerated. Central among their findings to this policy brief is the reported importance of visitation in sustaining familial ties. This study is important for understanding the dynamics within families with an incarcerated immediate member.

New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision. (2016). Family Reunion Program (DIR #4500; p. 14). New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision.

This document provides the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision policies related to the extended stay visitation program at carceral facilities in the state. It presents the overall policies of the state regarding this program known specifically as the Family Reunification Program. It is of critical importance to understanding existing policies in place

Pierce, M. B. (2015). Male Inmate Perceptions of the Visitation Experience: Suggestions on How Prisons Can Promote Inmate–Family Relationships. The Prison Journal , 95 (3), 370–396. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885515587471

This study, through a qualitative design, examines heterogeneity in visitation by asking incarcerated men about their visitation experiences. The authors specifically included those that had experienced extended stay familial visits and the importance of these visits are accounted for in detail. This article presents important findings via recommendations these men have for improving visitation experiences.

Siennick, S. E., Mears, D.P & Bales, W.D., (2013) Here and Gone: Anticipation and Separation Effects of Prison Visits on Inmate Infractions. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 50 (3), 417–444. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427812449470

This study examines the impact of irregular visitation schedules and canceled visitations on the behavior of incarcerated persons. The results of this study show that gaps in visitation may increase inmate infractions and violence. The authors find that maintaining and facilitating regular visits reduces infractions and violence. This study is important for examining the impacts of visitation backups and canceled visitations.

Tasca, M., Mulvey, P., & Rodriguez, N. (2016). Families coming together in prison: An examination of visitation encounters. Punishment & Society , 18 (4), 459–478. https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474516642856

This qualitative study takes a unique approach to studying prison visitation by examining what is said during these visits in order to assess factors related to perceptions of a "successful" visit. The authors present several key themes related to the types of conversations most frequently had based on the relationship between the visitor and visiting party. It is important for understanding the social dynamics of visitations.

Turanovic, J. J., Rodriguez, N., & Pratt, T. C. (2012). The collateral consequences of incarceration revisited: A qualitative analysis of the effects of caregivers of children of incarcerated parents. Criminology , 50 (4), 913–959. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2012.00283.x

This study presents a large (100 caregiver) qualitative analysis on the experiences of family members of the incarcerated. The results of this study highlight the collateral consequences of incarceration experienced by families, including barriers to incarceration. The study highlights first-hand accounts on how visitation can be a strong asset in lessening the collateral consequences of incarceration. This study is important for those seeking more information on the social benefits of visitation beyond that of recidivism prevention.

Turanovic, J. J., & Tasca, M. (2019). Inmates’ Experiences with Prison Visitation. Justice Quarterly , 36 (2), 287–322. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2017.1385826

This extensive study of experiences of prison visitation examined emotional responses to visits by the incarcerated. The results of this study, derived from 228 incarcerated persons, show that a whole range of both positive and negative emotions associated with visitation are commonly experienced. The authors recommend family-focused interventions, such as extended familial visits may help maximize the positive effects of visitations while combatting negative effects.

Washington Department of Corrections. (2020). Extended Family Visiting (DOC 590.100; p. 17). Washington Department of Corrections.

This document provides the Washington State Department of Corrections policies related to extended family visitations at carceral facilities in the state. It presents the overall policies of the program and is of critical importance to understanding existing policies in place.

Photo by Annie Spratt on Unsplash

Blog Categories

• News & Announcements
• Continued Evidence-Based Education

Recent Articles

Evidence-Based Professionals' Monthly - July 2024

Evidence-Based Professionals' Monthly - June 2024

Evidence-Based Professionals' Monthly - May 2024

Understanding the Criminal Pathways of Victimized Youth

The Price of Punishment: Exclusionary Discipline in Connecticut PreK-12 Schools

Breaking the Cycle of Absenteeism: Strategies for Prevention

Evidence-Based Professionals' Monthly - March 2024

Evidence-Based Professionals' Monthly - April 2024

Quarterly for Evidence-Based Professionals - Volume 8, Number 3

Get Your  Free Article to...

"Becoming An Evidence-Based Organization (EBO)

Five Key Components To Consider" by David L. Myers, PhD.

Would You Like To Set Your Leadership Apart from The Typical?

"Becoming An Evidence-Based Practitioner (EBP)

How To Set Yourself Apart" By Mark M. Lowis, MINT

Would You Like To Set Your Yourself Apart from The Typical Practitioner?

Masterclass Options

We offer a Masterclass & Certification for LEADERS and PRACTITIONERS. Which are you interested in exploring?

Come experience the new attn.com

entertainment that informs

Reasons Prisoners Should Be Having More Sex

By: alex mierjeski.

Once a common facet of prison life, conjugal visits—intimate time for prisoners to spend with significant others or family—are now a luxury afforded to few inmates serving time in the U.S.

Just four states—California, Connecticut, New York, and Washington—provide conjugal benefits. But research indicates that visits are a potential boon to prison environments and an incentive for inmates to be on good behavior in order to be eligible. Moreover, states could potentially save money in long-term incarceration costs.

Yet their existence is dwindling. According to the Marshall Project, 17 states allowed visits 20 years ago, but that number has shrunk over the years as lawmakers and voters have shied away from funding programs they say are expensive, too good for offenders, and damaging to health and wellness.

Research supporting conjugal visits indicates that allowing inmates to spend time with partners and loved ones strengthens family bonds, reduces violence, and   creates safer prison environments for inmates. 

One 2012 study found that in states where conjugal visits are not allowed, prisons had more than four times as many incidents of sexual violence between inmates as facilities in states where they were allowed. That study also pointed to the familial benefits conjugal visits could bring, "improv[ing] the functioning of a marriage by maintaining an inmate's role as husband or wife, improve the inmate's behavior while incarcerated, counter the effects of prisonization, and improve post-release success by enhancing the inmate's ability to maintain ties with his or her family." Researchers also noted the possibility of reducing sexually transmitted diseases by reducing inmate-to-inmate contact.

Another 2012 national study by Yale law students  found that conjugal visits could not only decrease sexual violence between prisoners, but also act as "a powerful incentive" for good behavior for inmates who want to spend time with loved ones. "Family members and children who visit and are thus able to build and sustain more meaningful relationships with their incarcerated parent or family member may benefit tremendously," researchers noted. "Indeed, more generally, the positive impact of visitation on visiting family and on inmates has been well documented," they wrote.

Conjugal visits could reduce the rate of reoffending prisoners, saving states money in the long-term, according to some experts. Conjugal visits are "really a program to prevent recidivism," Jorja Leap, a social welfare professor at UCLA's Luskin School of Public Affairs told Time in 2014 . "The idea being that if family ties continue to exist, there's more of a structure available to them once they have served their term in prison. As preposterous as it sounds, it's almost viewed as a crime prevention program."  

Still more states have moved to curtail the practice in recent years.

Last year, Mississippi, the first state in the U.S. to allow conjugal visits in the early 1900s, ended its program because of financial, moral, and safety concerns.

"There are costs associated with the staff's time, having to escort inmates to and from the visitation facility, supervising personal hygiene and keeping up with the infrastructure of the facility," Mississippi Department of Corrections Commissioner Christopher Epps said in a statement at the time. "Then, even though we provide contraception, we have no idea how many women are getting pregnant only for the child to be raised by one parent."

"The benefits of the programs don't outweigh the cost in overall budget," Epps said.

Months after Mississippi's decision, officials in New Mexico announced their program would end conjugal visits, saving the state an estimated $120,000 per year. Corrections officials there cited research showing no decrease to the state's recidivism rates, Reuters reported .

No federal prisons allow conjugal visits.

The Marshall Project notes that conjugal visits are importantly not just about sex, but are often between families. In fact, only a small percentage of conjugal visits in Washington, for example, are between just two spouses. The details of a visit differ depending on the state, but can be 24 to 72 hours of unsupervised time with family, with board games, and fully functional kitchens.

For families of inmates, conjugal visits provide what the New York Times called a lifeline to spouses . "It's not romantic, but it doesn't matter," one Arkansas woman who traveled eight hours to visit her husband told The Times last year. "I just want people to realize it's about the alone time with your husband. I understand they are in there for a reason. Obviously they did something wrong. But they are human, too. So are we."

Do you think states should reconsider allowing conjugal visits?

How Do Conjugal Visits Work?

Maintaining close ties with loved ones while doing time can increase the chances of a successful reentry program. Although several studies back this conclusion, it’s widely logical.

While the conjugal visits concept sounds commendable, there’s an increasing call to scrap the scheme, particularly across US states. This campaign has frustrated many states out of the program, leaving only a handful. Back in 1993, 17 US states recognized conjugal visits. Today, in 2020, only four do.

The conjugal visit was first practiced in Mississippi. The state, then, brought in prostitutes for inmates. The program continued until 2014. The scrap provoked massive protests from different right groups and prisoners’ families. The protesters sought a continuance of the program, which they said had so far helped sustain family bonds and inmate’s general attitude to life-after-jail.

New Mexico, the last to scrap the concept, did so after a convicted murderer impregnated four different women in prison. If these visits look as cool as many theories postulate, why the anti-conjugal-visit campaigns in countries like the US?

This article provides an in-depth guide on how conjugal visits work, states that allow conjugal visits, its historical background, arguments for and against the scheme, and what a conjugal visit entails in reality.

What Is a Conjugal Visit?

A conjugal visit is a popular practice that allows inmates to spend time alone with their loved one(s), particularly a significant other, while incarcerated. By implication, and candidly, conjugal visits afford prisoners an opportunity to, among other things, engage their significant other sexually.

However, in actual content, such visits go beyond just sex. Most eligible prisoners do not even consider intimacy during such visits. In many cases, it’s all about ‘hosting’ family members and sustaining family bonds while they serve time. In fact, in some jurisdictions, New York, for example, spouses are not involved in more than half of such visits. But how did it all start?

History of Conjugal Visits

Conjugal visits origin dates back to the early 20 th century, in the then Parchman Farm – presently, Mississippi State Penitentiary. Back then, ‘qualified’ male prisoners were allowed to enjoy intimacy with prostitutes, primarily as a reward for hard work.

While underperforming prisoners were beaten, the well-behaved were rewarded in different forms, including a sex worker’s company. On their off-days, Sunday, a vehicle-load of women were brought into the facility and offered to the best behaved. The policy was soon reviewed, substituting prostitutes for inmates’ wives or girlfriends, as they wished.

The handwork-for-sex concept recorded tremendous success, and over time, about a quarter of the entire US states had introduced the practice. In no time, many other countries copied the initiative for their prisons.

Although the United States is gradually phasing out conjugal visits, the practice still holds in many countries. In Canada, for instance, “extended family visits” – a newly branded phrase for conjugal visits – permits prisoners up to 72 hours alone with their loved ones, once in few months. Close family ties and, in a few cases, friends are allowed to time alone with a prisoner. Items, like foods, used during the visit are provided by the visitors or the host – the inmate.

Over to Asia, Saudi Arabia is, arguably, one of the most generous countries when it comes to conjugal visits. Over there, inmates are allowed intimacy once monthly. Convicts with multiple wives get access to all their wives – one wife, monthly. Even more, the government foots traveling experiences for the visitors.

Conjugal visits do not exist in Great Britain. However, in some instances, prisoners incarcerated for a long period may qualify to embark on a ‘family leave’ for a short duration. This is applicable mainly for inmates whose records suggest a low risk of committing crimes outside the facility.

This practice is designed to reconnect the inmates to the real world outside the prison walls before their release . Inmates leverage on this privilege not just to reconnect with friends and family, but to also search for jobs , accommodation, and more, setting the pace for their reintegration.

Back to US history, the family visit initiative soon began to decline from around the ’80s. Now, conjugal visits only exist in California, New York, Connecticut, and Washington.

Is the Increasing Cancellation Justifiable?

The conjugal visit initiative cancellation, despite promising results, was reportedly tied around public opinion. Around the ’90s, increasing pressure mounted against the practice.

One of the arguments was that convicts are sent to jail as a punishment, not for pleasure. They fail to understand that certain convictions – such as convictions for violent crimes – do not qualify for conjugal visit programs.

The anti-conjugal visit campaigners claim the practice encouraged an increase in babies fathered by inmates. There are, however, no data to substantiate such claims. Besides, inmates are usually given free contraceptives during the family visits.

Another widely touted justification, which seems the strongest, is the high running cost. Until New Mexico recently scraped the conjugal visit scheme, they had spent an average of approximately $120,000 annually. While this may sound like a lot, what then can we say of the approximately $35,540 spent annually on each inmate in federal facilities?

If the total cost of running the state’s conjugal visit program was but equivalent to the cost of keeping three inmates behind bars, then, perhaps, the scrap had some political undertones, not entirely running cost, as purported.

Besides, an old study on the population of New York’s inmates postulates that prisoners who kept ties with loved ones were about 70 percent less likely – compared to their counterparts who had no such privilege – to become repeat offenders within three years after release.

Conjugal Visit State-by-State Rules

The activities surrounding conjugal visits are widely similar across jurisdictions. That said, the different states have individual requirements for family visitation:

California: If you’re visiting a loved one in a correctional facility in California, among other rules , be ready for a once-in-four-hours search.

Connecticut : To qualify, prisoners must not be below level 4 in close custody. Close custody levels – usually on a 1-to-5 scale – measures the extent to which correctional officers monitor inmates’ day-to-day activities.

Also, inmates should not be on restriction, must not be a gang member, and must have no records of disciplinary offenses in Classes A or B in the past year. Besides, spouse-only visits are prohibited; an eligible member of the family must be involved.

New York : Unlike Connecticut and Washington, New York’s conjugal visit rules –  as with California’s – allow same-sex partners, however, not without marriage proof.

Washington : Washington is comparatively strict about her conjugal visit requirements . It enlists several crimes as basis for disqualifying inmates from enjoying such privileges. Besides, inmates must proof active involvement in a reintegration/rehabilitation scheme and must have served a minimum time, among others, to qualify. 

However, the rule allows joint visits, where two relatives are in the same facility. Visit duration varies widely – between six hours to three days. The prison supervisor calls the shots on a case-to-case basis.

As with inmates, their visitors also have their share of eligibility requirements to satisfy for an extended family visit. For instance, visitors with pending criminal records may not qualify.

As complicated as the requirements seem, it can even get a bit more complex. For instance, there is usually a great deal of paperwork, background checks, and close supervision. Understandably, these are but to guide against anything implicating. Touchingly, the prisoners’ quests are simple. They only want to reconnect with those who give them happiness, love, and, importantly, hope for a good life outside the bars.

Conjugal Visits: A Typical Experience

Perhaps you’ve watched pretty similar practices in movies. But it’s entirely a different ball game in the real world. Besides that movies make the romantic visits seem like a trend presently, those in-prison sex scenes are not exactly what it is in reality.

How, then, does it work there? As mentioned, jurisdictions that still allow “extended family visits” may not grant the same to the following:

• Persons with questionable “prison behavior”
• Sex crime-related convicts
• Domestic violence convicts
• Convicts with a life sentence

Depending on the state, the visit duration lasts from one hour to up to 72 hours. Such visits can happen as frequently as once monthly, once a couple of months, or once in a year. The ‘meetings’ happen in small apartments, trailers, and related facilities designed specifically for the program.

In Connecticut, for example, the MacDougall-Walker correctional facility features structures designed to mimic typical home designs. For instance, the apartments each feature a living room with games, television, and DVD player. Over at Washington, only G-rated videos, that’s one considered suitable for general viewers, are allowed for family view in the conjugal facilities.

The kitchens are usually in good shape, and they permit both fresh and pre-cooked items. During an extended family visit in California, prisoners and their visitors are inspected at four-hour intervals, both night and day, till the visit ends.

Before the program was scrapped in New Mexico, correctional institutions filed-in inmates, and their visitors went through a thorough search. Following a stripped search, inmates were compelled to take a urine drug/alcohol test.

Better Understanding Conjugal Visits

Conjugal visits are designed to keep family ties.

New York’s term for the scheme – Family Reunion Program (FRP) – seems to explain its purpose better. For emphasis, the “R” means reunion, not reproduction, as the movies make it seem.

While sexual activities may be partly allowed, it’s primarily meant to bring a semblance of a typical family setting to inmates. Besides reunion, such schemes are designed to act as incentives to encourage inmates to be on their best behavior and comply with prison regulations.

Don’t Expect So Much Comf ort

As mentioned, an extended family visit happens in specially constructed cabins, trailers, or apartments. Too often, these spaces are half-occupied with supplies like soap, linens, condoms, etc. Such accommodations usually feature two bedrooms and a living room with basic games. While these provisions try to mimic a typical home, you shouldn’t expect so much comfort, and of course, remember your cell room is just across your entrance door.

Inmates Are Strip-Searched

Typically, prisoners are stripped in and out and often tested for drugs . In New York, for example, inmates who come out dirty on alcohol and drug tests get banned from the conjugal visit scheme for a year. While visitors are not stripped, they go through a metal detector.

Inmates Do Not Have All-time Privacy

The prison personnel carries out routine checks, during which everyone in the room comes out for count and search. Again, the officer may obstruct the visit when they need to administer medications as necessary.

Conjugal Visits FAQ

Are conjugal visits allowed in the federal prison system?

No, currently, extended family visits are recognized in only four states across the United States –  Washington, New York, Connecticut, and California.

What are the eligibility criteria?

First, conjugal visits are only allowed in a medium or lesser-security correctional facility. While each state has unique rules, commonly, inmates apply for such visits. Prisoners with recent records of reoccurring infractions like swearing and fighting may be ineligible.

To qualify, inmates must undergo and pass screenings, as deemed appropriate by the prison authority. Again, for instance, California rules say only legally married prisoners’ requests are granted.

Are gay partners allowed for conjugal visits?

Yes, but it varies across states. California and New York allow same-sex partners on conjugal visits. However, couples must have proof of legal marriage.

Are conjugal visits only done in the US?

No, although the practice began in the US, Mississippi precisely, other countries have adopted similar practices. Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Venezuela, Colombia, and Canada, for example, are more lenient about extended family visits.

Brazil and Venezuela’s prison facilities, for example, allow weekly ‘rendezvous.’ In Columbia, such ‘visits’ are a routine, where as many as 3,500 women troop in weekly for intimacy with their spouses. However, Northern Ireland and Britain are entirely against any form of conjugal programs. Although Germany allows extended family visits, the protocols became unbearably tight after an inmate killed his supposed spouse during one of such visits in 2010.

Benefits of Conjugal Visits

Once a normal aspect of the prison system, conjugal visits and the moments that prisoners have with their families are now an indulgence to only a few prisoners in the system. Many prison officials cite huge costs and no indications of reduced recidivism rates among reasons for its prohibition.

Documentations , on the other hand, say conjugal visits dramatically curb recidivism and sexual assaults in prisons. As mentioned earlier, only four states allow conjugal visits. However, research shows that these social calls could prove beneficial to correctional services.

A review by social scientists at the Florida International University in 2012 concludes that conjugal visits have several advantages. One of such reveals that prisons that allowed conjugal visits had lower rape cases and sexual assaults than those where conjugal visits were proscribed. They deduced that sex crime in the prison system is a means of sexual gratification and not a crime of power. To reduce these offenses, they advocated for conjugal visitation across state systems.

Secondly, they determined that these visits serve as a means of continuity for couples with a spouse is in prison. Conjugal visits can strengthen family ties and improve marriage functionality since it helps to maintain the intimacy between husband and wife.

Also, it helps to induce positive attitudes in the inmates, aid the rehabilitation process, and enable the prisoner to function appropriately when reintroduced back to society. Similarly, they add that since it encourages the one-person-one partner practice, it’ll help decrease the spread of HIV. These FIU researchers recommend that more states should allow conjugal visits.

Another study by Yale students in 2012 corroborated the findings of the FIU researchers, and the research suggests that conjugal visits decrease sexual violence in prisons and induces ethical conduct in inmates who desire to spend time with their families.

Expectedly, those allowed to enjoy extended family visits are a lot happier. Besides, they tend to maintain the best behaviors within the facility so that they don’t ruin their chances of the next meeting.

Also, according to experts, visitations can drop the rate of repeat prisoners, thus making the prison system cost-effective for state administrators. An academic with the UCLA explained that if prisoners continue to keep in touch with their families, they live daily with the knowledge that life exists outside the prison walls, and they can look forward to it. Therefore, these family ties keep them in line with society’s laws. It can be viewed as a law-breaking deterrence initiative.

For emphasis, conjugal visits, better termed extended family visits, are more than for sex, as it seems. It’s about maintaining family ties, primarily. The fact is, away from the movies, spouse-alone visits are surprisingly low, if at all allowed by most states’ regulations. Extended family visits create healthy relationships between prisoners and the world outside the bars. It builds a healthy start-point for an effective reentry process, helping inmates feel hope for a good life outside jail .

Harassment and Cyberbullying as Crimes

What is a bench trial jury trial vs. bench trial, related articles.

History of the Freedom of Information Act

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

Tort Law Definition & Examples

Bail vs Bond: What’s the Difference?

Law For All

Pros and Cons of Conjugal Visits in Prison

Conjugal visits in prison, also known as extended family visits or marital visits, have long been a subject of debate within the criminal justice system. These visits allow inmates to spend private time with their significant others, aiming to maintain familial bonds and improve the overall well-being of incarcerated individuals.

We examine the benefits and drawbacks of conjugal visits in jail in this in-depth study, highlighting how they affect relationships, inmate rehabilitation, and societal perceptions.

Conjugal visits have stirred discussions and opinions across various sectors of society. Let’s explore the benefits and drawbacks of implementing conjugal visits in correctional facilities:

Pros of Conjugal Visits in Prison

1. strengthening family bonds.

One of the most significant advantages of conjugal visits is the opportunity they provide to strengthen family bonds. Incarceration can place tremendous strain on relationships, and maintaining emotional connections is crucial for both the prisoner and their partner.

Conjugal visits offer a chance to communicate, share emotions, and support each other, reducing the risk of family breakdowns.

2. Promoting Rehabilitation

Conjugal visits have been linked to better behavior among inmates. Knowing that they can enjoy these visits incentivizes good conduct, which, in turn, promotes rehabilitation efforts.

A sense of hope and purpose is fostered through the possibility of reconnecting with loved ones, motivating prisoners to improve their behavior and work towards reintegration into society.

3. Reducing Recidivism

Studies have shown that conjugal visits can contribute to reduced rates of recidivism. When prisoners maintain strong connections with their families, they are more likely to have a support system upon release.

This support plays a crucial role in preventing former inmates from reoffending, as they have a stable environment to return to and a reason to stay on the right path.

4. Psychological Benefits

Conjugal visits can have positive psychological effects on both the inmate and their partner. For the prisoner, the visits provide a sense of normalcy and hope, reducing feelings of isolation and depression.

For their partner, the visits offer reassurance and comfort, knowing that their loved one is coping better with the challenges of incarceration.

Read: What to Expect When an Inmate Comes Home?

Cons of Conjugal Visits in Prison

1. security concerns.

One of the primary concerns with conjugal visits is the potential compromise of prison security. Allowing private visits could provide opportunities for smuggling contraband or engaging in illicit activities within the facility.

Maintaining strict control over the prison environment is crucial to ensure the safety of both inmates and staff.

2. Inequality and Eligibility Issues

Not all prisoners are eligible for conjugal visits, which raises concerns about fairness and equality. Eligibility criteria vary between institutions and can be subjective, leading to potential feelings of resentment and discrimination among the prisoner population.

Addressing these disparities is essential to maintain a fair and just prison system.

3. Financial and Administrative Burden

Implementing conjugal visit programs requires additional resources and administrative efforts. Prisons need to allocate staff, space, and time to manage and oversee these visits properly.

The financial burden may raise questions about whether these resources could be better utilized to enhance other aspects of the correctional system.

4. Impact on Other Inmates

Allowing conjugal visits for certain prisoners may create envy and tension among those who are not eligible. This could lead to disruptions within the prison community and potentially escalate into conflicts.

Balancing the emotional needs of some inmates with the potential consequences for others is a challenging task.

Which States Allow Conjugal Visits?

Conjugal visits are not uniformly available across all states in the United States. The policy regarding these visits varies depending on the jurisdiction and the specific prison system. As of the latest available information, here is an overview of the states that allow conjugal visits and the conditions under which they are permitted:

• California: California is one of the most well-known states that allow conjugal visits. The program was first introduced in the 1920s and is still in operation today. To be eligible, the inmate must have a record of good behavior, and the visits are limited to married couples or registered domestic partners.
• Connecticut: In Connecticut, conjugal visits are permitted under certain circumstances. Eligibility is restricted to inmates who are within two years of release and have exhibited good behavior during their incarceration.
• New York: New York also has a conjugal visit program, which allows overnight visits for eligible inmates. However, to qualify, the inmate must be in a minimum-security facility, and they must have an approved visitor on record.
• Washington: Washington State allows conjugal visits for married couples, but only if the incarcerated individual is not serving time for a violent crime.

It is important to note that the policies regarding conjugal visits can change over time, and different prisons within the same state may have varying rules and regulations. Additionally, some states may have temporarily suspended or modified their programs due to budget constraints or other administrative reasons.

Related: When is it considered a parole violation?

Exploring Common Questions about Conjugal Visits

Are conjugal visits allowed in all prisons.

Conjugal visits are not uniformly allowed across all prisons. The policy varies from one correctional facility to another.

How long do conjugal visits usually last?

The duration of conjugal visits can vary depending on the prison and its specific policies. In most cases, these visits can range from a few hours to an entire weekend. The length of the visit is often determined by the prison administration and may be subject to change based on factors such as the inmate’s behavior and space availability.

How do conjugal visits affect children of inmates?

Conjugal visits can play a role in maintaining parent-child relationships. However, the impact depends on the age of the child and the overall family dynamics.

Are conjugal visits offered in federal prisons?

Conjugal visits are generally not available in federal prisons. The Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) does not have a formal conjugal visit program. However, federal inmates may have other opportunities for family visits, such as extended visiting hours or special visitation programs.

Are conjugal visits a human right for inmates?

Conjugal visits are not universally considered a human right for inmates. Their availability is determined by the policies of each correctional system.

What measures are taken to ensure safety during conjugal visits?

Correctional facilities implement strict protocols to ensure the safety of both inmates and staff during conjugal visits. These measures include thorough searches and surveillance.

The debate over conjugal visits in prison is multifaceted, with valid arguments on both sides. While these visits offer the chance to strengthen family bonds, promote rehabilitation, and reduce recidivism, concerns about security, eligibility issues, financial burdens, and potential tensions among inmates must also be acknowledged.

To improve the effectiveness and fairness of conjugal visit programs, policymakers, correctional authorities, and stakeholders should engage in comprehensive discussions and consider evidence-based practices. Addressing these concerns and finding a balance between supporting inmates’ emotional well-being and maintaining prison security is essential for the success of such programs.

• ← What to Expect When an Inmate Comes Home?
• When is it Legal to Shoot Someone: Protecting Life and Liberty →

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

As Conjugal Visits Fade, a Lifeline to Inmates’ Spouses Is Lost

By Kim Severson

• Jan. 12, 2014

PARCHMAN, Miss. — To spend time alone with the man she married four months ago, Ebony Fisher, 25, drives nearly three hours through the flat cotton fields of the Mississippi Delta until she pulls into a gravel lot next to the state’s rural penitentiary.

She joins her husband, who in 2008 began serving a 60-year sentence for rape, aggravated assault and arson, in a small room with a metal bunk and a bathroom. For an hour, they get to act like a married couple.

“That little 60 minutes isn’t a lot of time, but I appreciate it because we can just talk and hold each other and be with each other,” said Ms. Fisher, who is studying to be a surgical assistant.

But conjugal visits, a concept that started here at the Mississippi State Penitentiary as a prisoner-control practice in the days of Jim Crow, will soon be over. Christopher B. Epps, the prison commissioner, plans to end the program Feb. 1, citing budgetary reasons and “the number of babies being born possibly as a result.” In Mississippi, where more than 22,000 prisoners are incarcerated — the second-highest rate in the nation — 155 inmates participated last year.

Since they began here in the early 1900s, when the penitentiary was just called Parchman Farm, conjugal visits have been an unlikely barometer of racial mores and changing times both in Mississippi and in states like California and New York, where married same-sex couples can participate.

In the 1970s, new prisons often included special housing for what had come to be called extended family visits. But by 1993, only 17 states allowed conjugal visits. Mississippi is one of just five that have active programs.

In California and New York, they are called family visits and are designed to help keep families together in an environment that approximates home. Some research shows that they can help prisoners better integrate back into the mainstream after their release.

Visits in those states, and in Washington and New Mexico, can last 24 hours to three days. They are spent in small apartments or trailers, often with children and grandparents, largely left alone by prison guards. Visitors bring their own food and sometimes have a barbecue.

In New York, about 8,000 family visits were arranged last year, a figure that corrections officials say has declined. Of those, 48 percent were with spouses. The rest were with family members such as children or parents.

Studies cited by Yale law students in a 2012 review of family visitation programs showed that the programs could work as powerful incentives for good behavior, help reduce sexual activity among prisoners and help strengthen families.

Though what qualifies prisoners for the visits varies from state to state, all must have records of good behavior and be legally married. In most, prisoners in maximum security or on death row are denied the visits. Federal prisons do not allow them.

Mississippi ended its more extensive family visitations last year but left in place the hourlong visits, which since their inception a century ago have been designed more as a way to control inmates than nurture relationships.

“Conjugal visits have been a privilege,” said Tara Booth, a spokeswoman for the Mississippi Corrections Department. “So in that sense, it has, as other internal opportunities, helped to maintain order.”

The notion of allowing prisoners to have sex was born here shortly after Parchman Farm opened in 1903 as a series of work camps on 1,600 acres of rich Delta farmland. Inmates, most of whom were black, were used as free farm labor in an arrangement not that far removed from slavery.

Set in the middle of the birthplace of the blues, Parchman Farm has been the subject of many songs written by classic bluesmen like Bukka White and others who did time here.

The warden at the time believed sex could be used to compel black men to work harder in the fields, according to a history on the practice produced in the 1970s by Tyler Fletcher, who founded the department of criminal justice at the University of Southern Mississippi in 1973. So black prisoners were allowed time on Sunday with spouses or, more often, prostitutes.

By the 1940s, makeshift lean-tos and shacks built by inmates for the visits gave way to formal facilities, and white inmates were more likely participants than black ones.

Announced in December, the decision to stop the hourlong conjugal visits came as a surprise to the handful of prison spouses who rely on them. Several have taken to Facebook and other online forums and written to lawmakers to try to save what they say is an essential part of their relationships. A Mississippi prisoners’ advocacy group and a Memphis-based civil rights organization have planned a rally for Friday in Jackson, the state capital, to protest the policy change.

But State Representative Richard Bennett, Republican of Long Beach, wants the practice stopped, and he said no amount of protest would change his mind.

He said he learned about conjugal visits a few years ago when an elementary school principal told him a student of hers had shown up with a photograph of a new sibling. The student’s mother was incarcerated. The baby had been conceived during a conjugal visit.

In 2012, Mr. Bennett introduced a bill to end the visits. It did not get much attention, so he will try again when the Legislature meets this month. He said he was aware of Mr. Epps’s plans, but wanted a permanent ban. Officials have not offered any figures on the number of babies born or the program’s cost.

“I don’t think it’s fair to the children conceived and to the taxpayers,” he said. “You are in prison for a reason. You are in there to pay your debt, and conjugal visits should not be part of the deal.”

But Tina Perry, 49, a production manager at a small newspaper in eastern Mississippi, said the spouses of prisoners should not be forced to suffer any more than they already do. And the state, she said, should not take away something that is inexpensive and infrequent but essential.

She has been visiting her husband in prison every couple of months for eight years. He is serving time for molesting his former wife’s daughter, and has 19 more years to go. Ms. Perry said he was innocent. She called the surroundings, a small room with a thin mattress, “nasty” but said it was an hour she treasured nonetheless.

“It’s your husband,” she said. “You take what you can get.”

Ms. Fisher, whose husband is facing 60 years, said she was heartbroken because no more conjugal visits meant no children.

“Let me have that option,” she said. “I feel like they are taking away my choice.”

But officials who want the practice to be stopped say the state should not be helping to produce children who will be raised by single parents and possibly need state support.

There are concerns, too, about cost and H.I.V. transmission.

Women interviewed about the visits said they would be willing to pay to defray costs. And they made it clear that the visits were not about the sex. They are about privacy in a world where every letter is opened, every call monitored. Regular visits are crowded with other prisoners and their families.

“You never just get husband and wife time,” said Amy Parsons, an office worker in Arkansas who drives eight hours to see her husband, who was convicted of aggravated assault. His release date is 2022.

“It’s not romantic, but it doesn’t matter,” she said. “I just want people to realize it’s about the alone time with your husband. I understand they are in there for a reason. Obviously they did something wrong. But they are human, too. So are we.”

Benefits and risks of conjugal visits in prison: A systematic literature review

Affiliations.

• 1 Division of Psychological Medicine and Clinical Neurosciences, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
• 2 School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
• PMID: 34597428
• DOI: 10.1002/cbm.2215

Background: Imprisonment impacts on lives beyond the prisoner's. In particular, family and intimate relationships are affected. Only some countries permit private conjugal visits in prison between a prisoner and community living partner.

Aims: Our aim was to find evidence from published international literature on the safety, benefits or harms of such visits.

Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted using broad search terms, including words like 'private' and 'family', to maximise search sensitivity but strict criteria for inclusion - of visits unobserved by prison staff and away from other prisoners. All included papers were quality assessed. Two of us independently extracted data from included papers, according to a prepared checklist. Meta-analysis was considered.

Results: Seventeen papers were identified from 12 independent studies, all but three of them from North America. The only study of health benefits found a positive association with maintaining sexual relationships. The three before-and-after study of partnership qualities suggested benefit, but conjugal visiting was within a wider family-support programme. Studies with in-prison behaviour as a possible outcome suggest small, if any, association, although one US-wide study found significantly fewer in-prison sexual assaults in states allowing conjugal visiting than those not. Other studies were of prisoner, staff or partner attitudes. There is little evidence of adverse effects, although two qualitative studies raise concerns about the visiting partner's sense of institutionalisation or coercion.

Conclusions: The balance of evidence about conjugal visiting is positive, but there is little of it. As stable family relationships have, elsewhere, been associated with desistance from crime, the contribution of conjugal visiting to these should be better researched.

Keywords: conjugal visit; consensual sex in prisons; imprisonment; prisoners; private visiting.

© 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Publication types

• Systematic Review
• Interpersonal Relations
• Risk Assessment
• Sexual Partners

Official websites use .gov

A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS

A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Federal Bureau of Prisons

General visiting information.

Make sure your visit will be a success by carefully following these four steps.

Discover or confirm the whereabouts of the inmate you would like to visit.

Before you can visit you must be placed on the inmate's approved visiting list.

Review all visiting rules, regulations, and procedures before your visit.

Find out when you can visit and get directions to the facility.

Locate the inmate

Sometimes an inmate may be moved to a different facility so that they can benefit from unique programs offered at that location. They might also be moved to receive treatment for a medical condition or for security concerns. Therefore, the first step in planning your visit should be to determine where the inmate is currently housed.

Please verify you are a human by entering the words you see in the textbox below.

To visit, you must be pre-approved.

You can only visit an inmate if they have placed you on their visiting list and you have been cleared by the BOP.

• An inmate is given a Visitor Information Form when he/she arrives at a new facility.
• Inmate completes their portion of the form and mails a copy to each potential visitor.
• Potential visitor completes all remaining form fields.
• Potential visitor sends the completed form back to the inmate's address (listed on the form).
• We may request more background information and possibly contact other law enforcement agencies or the NCIC
• The inmate is told when a person is not approved to visit and it is the inmate's responsibility to notify that person.

Who can an inmate add to their visiting list?

• Step-parent(s)
• Foster parent(s)
• Grandparents
• No more than 10 friends/associates
• Foreign officials
• Members of religious groups including clergy
• Members of civic groups
• Employers (former or prospective)
• Parole advisors

In certain circumstances such as when an inmate first enters prison or is transferred to a new prison, a visiting list might not exist yet. In this case, immediate family members who can be verified by the information contained in the inmate's Pre-Sentence Report, may be allowed to visit. However, if there is little or no information available about a person, visiting may be denied. You should always call the prison ahead of time to ensure your visit will be permitted.

Be Prepared

You should be familiar with all visiting rules, regulations, and procedures before your visit.

The following clothing items are generally not permitted but please consult the visiting policy for the specific facility as to what attire and items are permitted in the visiting room:

• revealing shorts
• halter tops
• bathing suits
• see-through garments of any type
• low-cut blouses or dresses
• backless tops
• hats or caps
• sleeveless garments
• skirts two inches or more above the knee
• dresses or skirts with a high-cut split in the back, front, or side
• clothing that looks like inmate clothing (khaki or green military-type clothing)

Plan your trip

• the prison location
• the prison type
• inmate visiting needs
• availability of visiting space

The inmate you plan to visit should tell you what the visiting schedule is for that prison; however, if you have any questions please contact that particular facility .

General Visiting Hours

Camp general visiting hours, fsl general visiting hours.

Map Options

Conjugal Visit Laws by State 2024

California refers to these visits as contact visits. Conjugal visits have had a notorious past recently in the United States , as they were often not allowed to see their family unless it was for brief contact or to speak with them on the phone. Conjugal visits began as a way for an incarcerated partner to spend private time with their domestic partner, spouse, or life partner. Historically, these were granted as a result of mental health as well as some rights that have since been argued in court. For example, cases have gone to the Supreme Court which have been filed as visits being considered privileges instead of rights.

The right to procreate, religious freedom, marital privacy and to abstain from cruel and unusual punishment has been brought up and observed by the court. Of course, married spouses can't procreate if one is incarcerated, and this has been a topic of hot debate in the legal community for years. Although the rules have since been relaxed to allow more private time with one's family, especially to incentivize good behavior and rehabilitation, it is still a controversy within social parameters.

In 1993, only 17 states had conjugal visit programs, which went down to 6 in 2000. By 2015, almost all states had eliminated the need for these programs in favor of more progressive values. California was one of the first to create a program based around contact visits, which allows the inmate time with their family instead of "private time" with their spouses as a means of forced love or procreation.

Washington and Connecticut

Connecticut and Washington have similar programs within their prison systems, referring to conjugal visits as extended family visits. Of course, the focus has been to take the stigma away from conjugal visits as a means of procreation, a short time, and a privilege as a result of good behavior. Extended family visits are much more wholesome and inclusive, giving relatively ample time to connect with one's family, regardless if they have a partner or not. Inmates can see their children, parents, cousins, or anyone who is deemed to have been, and still is, close to the prisoner.

Of course, there are proponents of this system that say this aids rehabilitation in favor of being good role models for their children or younger siblings. Others feel if someone has committed a heinous crime, their rights should be fully stripped away to severely punish their behavior.

On a cheerier note, New York has named its program the "family reunion program", which is an apt name for the state that holds the largest city in America by volume, New York City. NYC's finest have always had their handful of many different issues, including organized crime. The authorities are seeking a larger change in the incarceration system and want to adopt a stance that focuses more on the rehabilitation of the inmate that shows signs of regret, instead of severe punishment for punishment's sake.

Download Table Data

Enter your email below, and you'll receive this table's data in your inbox momentarily.

• JSTOR Daily
• KLAQ El Paso - KLAQFM

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

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

NCJRS Virtual Library

Conjugal visitation in american prisons today, additional details, no download available, availability, related topics.

So What are the Actual Rules with Conjugal Visits and How Did They Get Their Start?

To begin with, in Britain, conjugal visits aren’t a thing, though in some cases when prisoners who have been locked up for a long period are getting close to their release date, if they are considered particularly low risk for committing crimes or going off on their merry way, they may be allowed to have family leave time for brief periods. This is time meant to help re-acclimate them to the world outside of prison and get their affairs in order, including re-connecting with family and friends, looking for work, etc.- all as a way to try to help said person hit the ground running once fully released.

Moving across the pond to the United States, first, it’s important to note that prisoners in federal custody and maximum security prisons are not allowed conjugal visits. Further, in the handful of states that do allow conjugal visits, prisoners and their guests must meet a stringent set of guidelines including full background checks for any visitors. On the prisoner’s side, anyone who committed a violent crime, has a life sentence, is a sex offender, and other such serious crimes are also not eligible. Further, in Connecticut, if an inmate is a member of a gang or even thought to be so, they are also banned from conjugal visits. On top of that, pretty much everywhere, any inmate who does anything wrong whatsoever while in prison also finds themselves either temporarily or permanently banned from such visits.

This brings us to how the whole conjugal visit thing got its start in the United States; the earliest official-ish policy with regards to allowing, in this case male, prisoners to enjoy the company of the fairer sex started in the Mississippi State Penitentiary (Parchman Farm) in the early 20th century. This was instituted as a way to get its black prisoner populace, who were used pretty literally as slave labor, to work harder while working the 20,000 acres of land at this institution. In fact, the superintendent of the prison at the time was actually a farmer himself, which is why he was hired to oversee things. As historian David M. Oshinsky, author of Worse Than Slavery: Parchman Farm and the Ordeal of Jim Crow Justice , notes, “[The Administrator’s] annual report to the legislature is not of salvaged lives. It is a profit and loss statement, with the accent on the profit.”

Prisoners who didn’t work hard could be beaten and other such “stick”-type incentives leveraged. On the other hand, prisoners who worked hard, were willing to help keep their fellow prisoners in line, etc. etc. were given various rewards. In fact, in the extreme, a prisoner who managed to kill another prisoner attempting to escape could even be rewarded with a full pardon for that and whatever crime they’d previously committed to get locked up in the first place.

Most pertinent to the topic at hand, for those prisoners who were particularly well behaved and worked the hardest, one reward they could be given was the company of a prostitute on their Sunday off-day. To help facilitate this, every Sunday a literal truck load of women would be brought in to tend to the best behaved prisoners. Later, the policy was expanded to include girlfriends and wives for the men who preferred their company.

To illustrate the thinking of the prison officials in perhaps the most offensive way possible, we have this time-capsule of a quote from one contemporary prison guard from Mississippi- “You gotta understand that back in them days n***ers were pretty simple creatures. Give ‘em pork, some greens, some cornbread, and some poontang every now and then and they would work for you.”

Moving very swiftly on from there, the effectiveness of promised sex for a male prisoner, regardless of race, if they toed the line caught on and, as the century progressed, around 1/3 of the states in the U.S. eventually adopted the practice, as well as many other countries through the 20th century also instituting similar programs.

As for that effectiveness, former warden of Great Meadow Correctional Facility in New York State, Arthur Leonardo, explains, “We don’t have much to give to people in prison. If you don’t have anything to take away from someone, you don’t have anything to take away to urge them to do the right thing.”

Illustrating the effectiveness on the prisoner’s side, one Ray Coles, whose temper resulted in an assault that saw him given a nine year prison sentence, states of the incentive the conjugal visits give him to never step out of line, “Every action or choice I make is made with my wife in mind.”

As for what actually goes on during a conjugal visit, the Hollywood idea and reality, as ever, are somewhat different. While in film and TV shows, a conjugal visit is a time to get hot and sweaty with your partner, the reality is that, while sex may or may not be involved, much of the time is spent just doing normal things with not just a partner, but kids and other family members. In fact, in New York, it’s reported that around 40% of conjugal visits don’t include a spouse or the like, rather often just children and other loved ones. For this reason, these visits are usually officially called things like “Extended Family Visits” or, in New York, the “Family Reunion Program”.

As one California inmate summed up of his extended family visit with his partner, “I got to spend 2 1/2 days one-on-one with my partner, my best friend, my confidant, my life partner. It wasn’t about the sex.”

For further context here, in the United States for most prisoners, at best during normal visitation they might be allowed a brief 2 second hug with their partner and a peck on the cheek, if the latter is allowed at all. On top of that, everything you say or do is being watched, and the time together is relatively brief.

As you can imagine from this, for many prisoners, regardless of their crime, whatever prison sentence was doled out often comes with a generally unmentioned punishment of the finishing of a relationship with their partner. Combined with limited access to phones and the extreme expense of prison and jail phone calls, this also often sees a near complete disconnect from their kids, friends, etc. while in prison.

Thus, for prisoners, while sex may or may not be involved, the reality of the extended family visit is just that- depending on the exact rules for a given prison, 6-72 hours where you can spend time with your partner, kids, and sometimes other family members or friends in a somewhat normal setting, doing normal things.

As for frequency, while in movies it’s a regular thing, and little lead up time, in reality in the United States, this may be granted at best once per month all the way up to once per year, or not at all.

Towards the end of facilitating family bonding, many prisons that allow this provide a couple bedrooms to accommodate a couple and their kids, as well as things like board games, a TV, and potentially food, though costs of things like food are footed by the inmate or their loved ones. For reference, the wife of the aforementioned Ray Coles, Vanessa, states she pays around $100 per extended family visit for things like food, which is then provided by the prison.

As for regions outside the United States, places like Canada allow for extended family visits up to 72 hours in length once every couple months, including allowing anyone with a close familial bond to take part, even friends if the authorities deem the bond strong enough. As in the United States, food and other such items are paid for by the inmate or their family or friends.

Interestingly one of the most generous of the nations when it comes to family visits is Saudi Arabia, which allows a once a month visit; but if you have multiple wives, you get once per month per wife! On top of that, beyond allowing such frequent visits, the government actually pays for the travel of those coming to see you.

Back over in the United States, at its peak in the late 20th century, extended family visits were allowed in about 1/3 of states, but began dropping precipitously starting around the 1980s and 1990s to just four states today- California, Washington, New York, and Connecticut.

This was around the same time a number of such programs designed to keep people from being repeat jailbirds were given the axe across the nation, unsurprisingly directly corresponding to the prison population in the United States absolutely exploding, in the four decades since rising an astounding 500%! For reference, before the 1980s, the growth was relatively slow and steady, more or less tied to population growth. More on this in the Bonus Fact in a bit.

As for the impetus for cutting the extended family visit programs, this is generally tied to increased public sentiment starting around the 1980s and 1990s that prisoners are there to be punished, not to be coddled, and that the program costs too much. For example, in New Mexico, who relatively recently killed the extended family visit program, it was costing taxpayers about $120,000 per year.

Now, this might sound like a lot, and if you go read the news reports, this was certainly used as the driving political rhetoric to get the program nixed by the politicians involved. However, it’s noteworthy that New Mexico reports an average cost per inmate annually is a whopping $35,540, which is pretty close to the national average of about $31,000…. Meaning the entire extended family visit program was costing about what it costs to house just over 3 of their approximately 16,000 inmates per year.

Of course this is still costing taxpayers something… except when you consider, for example, a 1982 study done on New York’s prison populace which found that prisoners who were allowed extended family visits were almost 70% less likely than other prisoners to end up back in prison within three years. This makes it potentially the single most effective recidivism program known, even soundly stomping on the second king of recidivism programs- education, which we’ll talk a bit more about in the Bonus Facts.

As to why family visits seem so effective at reducing recidivism, as the aforementioned warden Arthur Leonardo, notes, those who are able to maintain family bonds while in prison, when they get out, have “someone who loves you and will help you, and in the case of children, people who depend on you…”

Going back to the reality of an extended family visit, it’s usually required that partners and the inmates be tested for STDs and come out clean before being allowed to have their little rendezvous. Further, the prisoners themselves are strip searched both before the extended family visit and after. Should they test positive for drug or alcohol use after, they are then banned from future visits indefinitely, and those who brought in the contraband may also be banned from taking part again.

On top of that, those that are visiting the prisoners must be cleared as well, though strip searches, at least in the United States, are not allowed on the visitors, so contraband may occasionally be smuggled in in certain orifices or the like. To try to get around this in, for instance California, inmates and their families are searched regularly during the extended family visits, usually at a rate of about once every four hours.

This brings us to what you can bring for an extended family visit. Well, not much- mostly just things like clean linens, certain toiletries, strictly regulated clothing, and the like. No cell phones, no electronic devices, and really not much of anything else. Even things like family pictures are pretty strictly regulated in number, type, and size. Going back to clothing, one Myesha Paul, wife of California inmate Marcello Paul who is in prison for robbery, states, “They don’t want you to have anything that’s form fitting… although we come with hips and all that, so it’s kinda hard to find what don’t fit around, you know? I just buy some men’s sweat pants and make it work.”

If you go look at the California regulations on this, they also have strict regulations when it comes to colors of clothing, for example no blue denim or forest green pants, no tan shirts, no camouflage, nothing strapless, no skirts or dresses or non-capri shorts- the list goes on and on.

Myesha also helpfully describes what a real extended family visit is like, stating, “We sat outside and played dominoes on Saturday. After that we went in and watched TV, watched movies.” And while she states her and her husband do have sex during the visit, as is almost universally noted by every other inmate and their partner we looked it, it’s more about the closeness and little things like getting to hold your partner’s hand or just hold them in general, as well as waking up next to them. She states, “It feels good… because I don’t get that at home. Ya know. At home I’m sleeping by myself, unless my grandbaby or one of my kids wanna sleep with me. But they’re grown. But they still do sleep with me sometimes. But other than that, you know, I’m waking myself up in the morning, or the alarm clock is waking me up, or my grandson comes and wakes me up. It’s good to have my husband waking me up. It’s the nicest thing about being married. Isn’t it? Waking up?”

She also states of her husband, “He watches me through the night… I know he does ’cause sometimes I wake up and he’s looking at me. And I do the same to him. Sometimes he’s sleeping and he wakes up and I’m watching him.”

Similarly summed up by the aforementioned Vanessa Coles, the value of extended family visits is about keeping her family together- “It keeps our bond going, keeps our marriage strong and keeps him on track.” As for the couple’s young kids, “The little one needs it because that’s all he knows. The older one needs it to remember what he knows.” And as for those arguing against allowing such visits, she states, “[The prisoners] are being punished. I get it. [But] destroying your marriage and family should not be a part of your sentence.”

If you liked this article, you might also enjoy our new popular podcast, The BrainFood Show ( iTunes , Spotify , Google Play Music , Feed ), as well as:

• What Happens to Your Stuff When You Get Sent to Prison for Life?
• When Did Having a Prisoner’s Last Meal Be Anything They Want Start?
• From a Life of Crime to One of the Most Prolific Actors of All Time- Danny Trejo’s Prison Break
• Are You Really Entitled to a Phone Call When Arrested?
• What Happens if You Commit a Crime in Space?

Bonus Facts:

Going back to what caused the massive spike in U.S. incarcerations starting in the 1980s that has more or less continued unabated since, one thing often pointed to is that this was around the time the war on drugs was ramped up, generally considering to account for about 25%-50% of the increase in inmate population. This still leaves the rest, which is the majority. And unless you just think U.S. citizens are far more likely to commit crimes than, for example, our European brethren, obviously there is something weird going on. As to what, a variety of factors are pointed to including the cutting of many programs designed to keep people from being repeat offenders, marked increase in sentence length, especially compared to the rest of the world for similar crimes, and perhaps the catch-all which has driven a lot of this to the extreme- the privatization of prisons that occurred at this time, making many prisons for-profit institutions.

In the decades since, these entities have heavily lobbied for things that seem pretty directly tied to doing everything possible to make prison sentences longer and keep people coming back for more- most pertinent to the topic at hand, cutting costs wherever possible for themselves, including any and all recidivism programs. After all, they get paid per inmate, so aren’t too concerned with what the total cost is to the state, other than the greater that cost, the more they make.

Naturally, the longer sentences and increased likelihood of repeat offenders, at a rate of about 45% within 3 years and 76% within five, has seen prison populations skyrocket in the United States since the 1980s. The net result of all of this being that, at present, the land of the free currently houses almost one quarter of all inmates imprisoned in the entire world! The cost of housing these inmates comes to about $50-$70 billion annually. This does not include the police and judicial costs that get the prisoners put there in the first place- all summing up to massive sums of money being spent and many more crimes being committed while proven recidivism programs that see massive reductions in repeat offenders going largely unused. And noteworthy here is that about 95% of prisoners do get out at some point.

And speaking of recidivism programs like extended family visits, a study done by the United States Department of Justice noted that prisoners given access to educational programs were, for vocational certificates 14.6% less likely to find their way back in prison within 3 years vs. the general prison populace. For those achieving a GED while in prison, they were 25% less likely to end up back in the slammer. And those who attained an Associates degree were the highest of all in their study at about 70% less likely, approximately the same benefit as those given access to extended family visits.

Averaging it all out, the net effect of the educational programs was about a 43% reduction in rate of returning to prison within 3 years. From this, crunching the numbers, the study showed that this meant for every $1 spent by the states towards educating prisoners, it saved $5 annually thanks to the reduction of prison population, let alone other cost savings in court and police expenditures and, of course, a reduction in crime rate. Given each year about 700,000 inmates are released in the United States, that amounts to a massive reduction in crime, while a rather large increase in a better educated and more skilled populace.

Finally, one more bonus fact- while violent criminals are almost always seen as the most dangerous and most likely to re-offend by the general public, the data does not back that up at all- not even close. According to the United States Department of Justice, the highest rate of re-offenders within 3 years after being released were those stealing motor vehicles at 78.8%! Next up are those in prison for selling stolen property at 77.4%. The list goes on and on, but essentially, those who steal are generally about 70%+ likely to re-offend within 3 years and are the highest at-risk re-offenders. In stark contrast, violent crime convicts are massively less likely to re-offend. For example, rapists and murderers are only 2.5% and 1.2% likely to re-offend respectively. Of course, the latter is much more news worthy and traumatic, leading to the skewed public perception.

• Conjugal Visit
• Prisoner Murders Girlfriend
• The Dark Origins of Conjugal Visits
• No Laughing Matter
• Mississippi Ending Conjugal Visits
• How Conjugal Visits Work
• States That Allow Conjugal Visits
• Conjugal Visits Correlate to Fewer Sexual Assaults
• Conjugal Visits Rules and History
• Extended Family Prison Visit
• One Conjugal Visit
• Conjugal Visits
• California Inmate Visitation
• San Quentin Visitation
• Prison Visits
• The Conjugal Visit
• Canada Visiting an Inmate
• Pennsylvania Visiting Rules
• National Crime and Justice
• Conjugal Visits Not Practical
• Australia Conjugal Visits
• South Dakota Corrections
• United States Incarceration Rate
• New Mexico Incarceration Statistics
• New Research on Prison Education
• State of Phone Justice
• Cost of Incarceration

I can’t comment on everything in the bonus facts, but I think the low (1.2%) re-offending rate for murder can be put down to two things: (1) they receive very long sentences (if not actually executed!), and so leave prison in their old age, and (2) they were more likely to have committed a crime of passion, rather than be career criminals. For that matter, I read that, at Devil’s Island, the murderers looked down on the thieves. Murder might be a worse crime, but it was usually the only one they committed, while the thieves were habitual criminals. (That might be a reason behind the high re-offending rate for stealing cars and receiving stolen goods.)

You might want to look that up because it is actually not correct. Depending on the severity of the crime murder can carry as little as a 5 year sentence, and remember it is not uncommon to serve as little as one quarter of the issues sentence. Also, execution is remarkably rare with many US states banning it or in moratorium. For a detailed state by state list of murder recommended sentences see this wiki:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_punishments_for_murder_in_the_United_States

• Login or Sign up
• Research Finds that Conjugal Visits Correlate with Fewer Sexual Assaults

A study conducted by researchers at Florida International University (FIU) found that state prison systems that permit conjugal visits report fewer rapes and sexual assaults than those where such visits are prohibited – a finding that the researchers said tends to dispute the theory that sex offenses are crimes of power rather than a means of sexual gratification.

“Our findings propel the idea that sexual violence can be attenuated given appropriate policy initiatives,” stated the authors of the 2012 study, Stewart D’Alessio, Jamie Flexon and Lisa Stolzenberg. In spite of the report’s findings, two states recently announced that they are discontinuing their conjugal visitation programs.

The FIU study was conducted over a three-year period, from 2004-2006, in the five states that provided conjugal visits at that time: California, Mississippi, New Mexico, New York and Washington. [See: PLN , May 2013, p.1].

“Inmate-on-inmate sexual offending is much less pronounced in states that allow conjugal visitation,” the study concluded.

While sexual violence occurred in state prison systems that prohibit conjugal visits at an average rate of 226 incidents per 100,000 prisoners, it occurred almost four times less frequently in the five states that permitted such visits – 57 per 100,000 prisoners.

The FIU researchers said the effect of conjugal visitation in reducing sexual assaults among prisoners should encourage more states to consider allowing such visits, which the study noted have other positive effects. For example, conjugal visits, also known as family visits, help “improve the functioning of a marriage by maintaining an inmate’s role as husband or wife, improve the inmate’s behavior while incarcerated, counter the effects of prisonization, and improve post-release success by enhancing the inmate’s ability to maintain ties with his or her family.”

“Additionally,” the study continued, “because conjugal visitation is reported to reduce homosexual activity and because AIDS is often spread by homosexual activity, conjugal visitation may help to attenuate the spread of AIDS in prison.”

The researchers acknowledged their study had certain limitations, particularly that rape and sexual assault among prisoners are underreported and, as a result, there could have been more incidents of sexual victimization in states that allow conjugal visits than reflected in their data.

Nevertheless, the authors of the study maintained that their findings have “other policy implications.” Treatment programs, they argued, “should be geared to view sexual offending as a sex crime instead of solely as a crime of power.” Such programs, the study said, could reduce recidivism among sex offenders.

On February 1, 2014, Mississippi joined the 45 states that prohibit conjugal visits, halting the century-old practice due to what officials called budget issues and concerns about babies being born as a possible result of the visits.

“There are costs associated with the staff’s time, having to escort inmates to and from the visitation facility, supervising personal hygiene and keeping up with the infrastructure of the facility,” Mississippi DOC Commissioner Christopher B. Epps said in a press release. “Then, even though we provide contraception, we have no idea how many women are getting pregnant only for the child to be raised by one parent.”

Of the more than 22,000 prisoners in Mississippi state prisons, just 155 were allowed conjugal visits in fiscal year 2013. Under the program, the visits were available only to prisoners classified as minimum- or medium-security who did not have a written rules violation within the previous six months.

“While both the extended family visitation and conjugal visit program involve a small percentage of inmates, the cost coupled with big-ticket items adds up,” Epps stated. “The benefits of the programs don’t outweigh the cost in the overall budget.”

Family members who participated in the visits strongly disagreed.

Tina Perry, 49, who had been visiting her incarcerated husband every few months for the past eight years, said prisoners’ spouses should not be forced to suffer any more than they already do, and the state should not deprive them of something that is an infrequent but important part of their relationship.

Some spouses argued it’s not about the sex but rather about privacy. “The little 60 minutes isn’t a lot of time, but I appreciate it because we can just talk and hold each other and be with each other,” said Ebony Fisher, 25, who would drive nearly three hours to see her husband, who is serving a 60-year sentence. But Fisher also admitted that the end of conjugal visits means no more children for the couple.

“Let me have that option,” she said. “I feel like they are taking away my choice.”

“You never just get husband and wife time” during regular prison visits, noted Amy Parsons, who drove eight hours for a one-hour conjugal visit with her husband, who is not due to be released until 2022.

“It’s not romantic, but it doesn’t matter,” she said. “I just want people to realize it’s about the alone time with your husband. I understand they are in there for a reason. Obviously they did something wrong. But they are human, too. So are we.”

Even prison officials conceded that the visits were a deterrent to unruly behavior among prisoners. “Conjugal visits have been a privilege,” noted Mississippi DOC spokeswoman Tara Booth. “So in that sense, it has, as other internal opportunities, helped to maintain order.”

On April 16, 2014, New Mexico prison officials announced the end of conjugal visits effective the following month, citing concerns about contraband and sexually transmitted diseases. They estimated annual savings of around $120,000 by discontinuing the visitation program, which had been in effect for 30 years.

“Some of these policies are old and tired,” said Corrections Secretary Gregg Marcantel. “They aren’t producing the outcomes we need to help our inmates and make our communities safer.”

Conjugal visitation was implemented in New Mexico following an infamous 1980 riot at the state penitentiary near Santa Fe that resulted in 33 deaths; the visits were intended to help reduce tension in the prison population.

“After two years of research we found the overnight stays had no impact on decreasing the rate of inmates returning to jail,” said New Mexico DOC spokeswoman Alex Tomlin, who noted that only around 150 prisoners qualified for conjugal visits. The visits will be replaced with family programs that include classes on parenting and financial planning.

When discontinuing their conjugal visitation programs, neither Mississippi nor New Mexico officials addressed the findings of the FIU study relative to the effect conjugal visits have on reducing sexual assaults among prisoners.

Sources: “The Effect of Conjugal Visitation on Sexual Violence in Prison,” American Journal of Criminal Justice (February 2012); www.usatoday.com; www.mdoc.state.ms.us; Reuters

As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.

Subscribe today

Already a subscriber? Login

More from this issue:

• DC Circuit: Federal Prisoner not Limited to Seeking Relief via Habeas Corpus , by Michael Brodheim
• Philadelphia Sued Over Rejection of Ad Criticizing U.S. Incarceration Policies , by Michael Brodheim
• California: Surety Entitled to Exoneration of Bail Bond Forfeited as a Result of Defendant’s Deportation , by Michael Brodheim
• High-Ranking Illinois Prison Official Fired due to Criminal History
• Seventh Circuit: Prisoner with Back Condition Stated Claim for Fall from Upper Bunk , by Michael Brodheim
• Liberty Interest Necessary to Trigger Arkansas Judicial Review , by Mark Wilson
• Report: Increase in Federal Prison Population, Overcrowding , by Derek Gilna
• Kansas: Prison Healthcare Officials Engaged in Continued Deliberate Indifference , by Robert Warlick
• D.A. Drops Charges Against Oklahoma Parole Board Members , by Christopher Zoukis
• Washington County Jail Remains Closed after Voters Reject Tax Hike
• Pennsylvania Warrantless, Suspicionless Search Probation Condition Held Invalid , by Mark Wilson
• Idaho Supreme Court Vacates Summary Judgment for Pepper Spray Manufacturer , by Mark Wilson
• Lawsuit Against Missouri Jail Proceeds as Two Guards Plead Guilty
• No “Reasonable Efforts” to Reunite Oregon Sex Offender with His Son , by Mark Wilson
• Reports on Elderly Prisoners Spur Call for Reforms
• States Adopt Sentencing Changes Following Supreme Court Ruling on Juvenile Lifers
• Prison Education Programs Threatened , by Matthew Clarke
• Oregon PPS Sanctions May Not Exceed 180 Days; Prior Contrary Ruling Overturned , by Mark Wilson
• California Prison Regulation Governing Gang Validation Upheld by Ninth Circuit , by Michael Brodheim
• Wisconsin DOC Equips Guards with Pepper Spray, Tasers
• Cancellation of BOP Elderly Offender Pilot Program Moots Appeal , by Michael Brodheim
• Oregon Judge Scolded for Courtroom Rant , by Mark Wilson
• Pay Tel Receives Waiver of Prison Phone Rate Caps
• Connecticut Town Raises Stink Over Sewage Discharged by State Prison
• California: Trial Court Cannot Abdicate its Responsibility to Examine Peace Officer Personnel Records , by Michael Brodheim
• Massachusetts: Order Relieving Sex Offender of Registration Not Vacated Upon Probation Violation , by David Reutter
• Warden Granted Qualified Immunity for Two-year Visitation Suspension , by David Reutter
• Former Colorado DOC Official Pleads Guilty to Felony Menacing Charges
• Witness Protection Program Termination Unreviewable; 188 Days in SHU Triggers Due Process Protections , by Mark Wilson
• Second Circuit: Federal Prisoner States Conditions of Confinement Claim , by David Reutter
• Seventh Circuit Clarifies Standard for Recruiting Counsel in Pro Se Cases , by David Reutter
• North Dakota Courtroom Shackling Requires Independent Assessment by Judge , by Mark Wilson
• California Improves Compensation Process for Wrongfully Convicted Prisoners
• Florida Prison System Ordered to Provide Kosher Meals
• Book Review: Banking and Financial Management Course (1st Ed.), by Prisoner Assistant , by Gary Hunter
• California: Sexually Violent Predators May be Conditionally Released from Custody Even if Homeless , by Michael Brodheim
• Ninth Circuit: County May be Liable for Wrongful Conviction Even if District Attorney Enjoys Absolute Immunity
• Seventh Circuit Reverses Dismissal of Prisoner’s 99-Page Complaint , by Mark Wilson
• Massachusetts DOC, Hospital Officials Disciplined in Prisoner’s Death , by Derek Gilna
• From the Editor , by Paul Wright
• News in Brief
• A Home of Their Own , by Lisa Riordan Seville

More from these topics:

• Texas Detainee Raped in Jail Sues Macy’s for False Facial-ID Match That Led to Arrest , June 1, 2024. Prisoner-Prisoner Assault , False Arrest , Electronic Surveillance .
• Trans Detainee Sues Over Housing With Men on Rikers Island , June 1, 2024. Prisoner-Prisoner Assault , Transgender , Discrimination (Transgender) .
• Alabama Denied Summary Judgment in Prisoner’s Suit Over Knifepoint Rape , May 1, 2024. Prisoner-Prisoner Assault .
• Shocking Video Footage Reveals Rampant Violence and Neglect in Los Angeles County Jails , April 26, 2024. Staff-Prisoner Assault , Prisoner-Prisoner Assault , Failure to Protect (General) , Jail Specific .
• Oklahoma Jail Withholds Death Records, Fails to Report Five Since 2018 , April 1, 2024. Prisoner-Prisoner Assault , Jail Misconduct , Jail Specific , Wrongful Death , Excessive Force (Wrongful Death) , Public Records Act .
• Alabama DOC Proves Truly “Heartless” , Jan. 1, 2024. Prisoner-Prisoner Assault , Guard Misconduct , Threats by Staff , Parole Board Misconduct , Retaliation for Litigating , Retaliation for Media Contact , Retaliation for Organizing , Whistleblowing , Retaliatory Segregation , Prison/Jail Murders , Failure to Protect (General) , Staffing , Wrongful Death , Failure to Protect (Wrongful Death) , Excessive Force (Wrongful Death) , Control Units/SHU/Solitary Confinement .
• West Virginia Pretrial Detainee’s Lawsuit for Sexual Abuse Survives Dismissal Stage , Jan. 1, 2024. Prisoner-Prisoner Assault , Sex Offenders (Discrimination) , Failure to Protect (General) .
• $10,000 Verdict for Fired Guard’s Failure to Protect Louisiana Prisoner From Stabbing , Jan. 1, 2024. Prisoner-Prisoner Assault , Snitch Jacketing , Failure to Protect (General) , Attorney Fee Awards , Attorney Fees (PLRA) .
• Eighth Circuit Says Arkansas Prisoner’s Medical Incapacity May Excuse PLRA Exhaustion Failure , Jan. 1, 2024. Prisoner-Prisoner Assault , Failure to Protect (General) , Administrative Exhaustion (PLRA) , Grievances .
• New York Adding Names to Tombstones of Dead Prisoners , Dec. 1, 2023. Visiting , Extended Family Visiting , Family .

Are Conjugal Visits Really Allowed in MN?

Andrew, Bransky, & Poole, P.A.

Conjugal Visits , Criminal Defense

In movies and on television, the idea of conjugal visits in prison seems universal, but it’s actually not a reality in a good number of states, including Minnesota.

A petition made the rounds recently online to try to change this fact. A woman requested the state’s Senator, Amy Klobuchar, to help make conjugal visits a right for inmates in Minnesota.

The petition closed and the laws have not been changed, but it does highlight the importance of knowing what types of activities are allowed and not allowed when visiting an inmate in a Minnesota correctional institution.

Here’s what you need to know about Minnesota’s prison visitation policies and procedures and what can happen if they are violated.

Rules of Visitation for MN Corrections Facilities

Visitation is an important part of an inmate’s life. Not only does it serve to help them get through serving their time by seeing people they care about, but it also helps them to maintain and build their support networks outside of prison.

This is an incredibly important endeavor for ensuring a successful transition once they are released. In fact, positive interactions with family and friends during incarceration is believed to lead to lower rates of recidivism as well.

However, there are rules when you visit an inmate in Minnesota . The most important is the fact that you must apply to visit an inmate. You can obtain an application to become a visitor in one of three ways:

• Download it through the prison’s website
• Pick one up at a Department of Corrections Facility
• Have the inmate send you an application

Once you’ve submitted your application and have been approved, then the inmate will be notified and they will communicate the information to you.

How Long Do Visitations Last?

In general, if you travel less than 100 miles for the visit, then you will be allowed to register for a visit that lasts one to two hours. If you travel more than 100 miles one way, then you may be granted an extended visit – but this is up to the discretion of the prison.

The inmate must petition the prison for a longer visit at least 7 to 10 days before the visit is to take place. On weekends, due to crowding, visits may be restricted to one hour.

Are There Different Rules for Minors?

If you wish for a minor to visit the inmate, then an adult applicant must complete the application and list the minor in the space provided on it. You will need to submit a copy of the certified birth certificate of each minor along with the application.

What Items Can You Bring as a Visitor?

You must empty your pockets before visiting with an inmate. A locker will be provided. You can carry the locker key along with your identification with you, but all personal items must be secured. Every visitor is required to pass through a metal detector prior to visiting time.

No one may bring gum, candy, food, or drinks into the visitation rooms under any circumstances.

What If the Rules Are Broken?

If a visitor breaks the rules of visitation while visiting an inmate, then the incident is recorded by prison staff and the visitor will be advised they have violated the rules and sanctions of visitation.

Rule violations can lead to a visitor being barred from future visits as well. Depending on the infraction, a visitor may even face criminal charges.

To be reinstated, they would have to appeal in writing to the administrator of the prison to regain their visitation privileges.

If you have questions about visiting your loved one or about accusations of visitation violations in a Minnesota prison or if are seeking special permission for any activity (besides conjugal visits, of course) during visitation, reach out to an experienced criminal defense attorney for help.

About the Author:

Andrew T. Poole is a Minnesota native who has served in the Army for more than 18 years and is currently a JAG lawyer in the Army Reserves in addition to serving as a partner at LaCourse, Poole & Envall . He has handled thousands of criminal and family law cases over the course of his career and has a firm belief that all hardworking Minnesotans should be entitled to the best possible legal counsel. Mr. Poole boasts a 10/10 Superb rating on Avvo , is Lead Counsel rated, and has been recognized multiple times by SuperLawyers , National Trial Lawyers , and others for his work.

Search Here

Get a free consultation, recent posts.

Title IX Defense: Advocating for Fair Treatment in Minnesota Schools

Defending Against Kidnapping and Stalking Charges in Minnesota

Defending Students Accused of Crimes in Minnesota

• Bad Samaritan Law
• Conjugal Visits
• Criminal Damage to Property
• Criminal Defense
• Disorderly Conduct
• Domestic Assault
• Domestic Violence
• Drug Crimes
• Drug Possession
• Drug Trafficking
• Expungement / Criminal Record Sealing
• Juvenile Crimes
• Marijuana Laws
• Miranda Rights
• Opioid Addiction
• Order for Protection (OFP)
• Petty Theft
• Prescription Drug Crimes
• Property Crimes
• Protective Orders
• Restitution
• Revenge Porn
• Sex Offenders
• Sexual Assault
• Shoplifting / Retail Theft
• Social Security
• Statutory Rape
• Theft Crimes
• Traffic Violations
• Uncategorized
• Weapons Charges
• Archives Select Month July 2023  (1) June 2023  (3) May 2023  (3) April 2023  (1) March 2023  (3) February 2023  (2) January 2023  (2) December 2022  (2) November 2022  (2) October 2022  (1) September 2022  (3) August 2022  (2) July 2022  (3) June 2022  (1) May 2022  (1) April 2022  (2) March 2022  (2) February 2022  (1) January 2022  (3) December 2021  (2) November 2021  (2) October 2021  (3) September 2021  (4) August 2021  (4) July 2021  (1) June 2021  (2) May 2021  (1) April 2021  (3) March 2021  (1) February 2021  (1) January 2021  (2) December 2020  (1) November 2020  (3) October 2020  (3) July 2020  (1)
• Archives Select Year 2023  (15) 2022  (23) 2021  (26) 2020  (8)

Popular Tag

Arson arson charges assault criminal traffic violations domestic violence drug crime drug crimes DUI DWI expungements family dependency court homicide charges marijuana possession Minnesota personal injury orders for protection package theft prison visitation policy property crimes record sealing restitution sex crimes shoplifting social security disability statutory rape

Duluth Attorneys You Can Trust With Your Legal Needs

Andrew Poole

Focuses on Criminal Defense and SSDI

Jane C. Poole

Guiding Clients through Union Labor Law and Employee Benefit Issues.

Aaron Bransky

Your Partner For Duluth Elder Law and Estate Planning

Timothy W. Andrew

Specializing in Union Labor Law and Employee Benefits

Recognized Legal Representation

Let's Get Started.

Were ready to fight for you. We’re ready to be your ally. And we’re ready to start right now. Don’t waste time, contact our law offices today.

Why Clients Work With Us

Sharon jones.

Aaron Bransky is a top-notch person in every way. I have nothing but positive things to say about him from a personal and professional perspective!

Joe Gregorich

Mr. Poole did a great job keeping tabs on my case and is an honest attorney, a rarity nowadays. While nobody likes finding themselves in situations that require legal counsel, if you do I would absolutely recommend giving his office a call. 10/10 stars.

Kaylee Stephens

Andrew went above and beyond to help me sort out my legal issues. He fielded questions via email and took my phone calls even though it was the holiday season. Straight forward and helpful throughout the process. Highly recommend his services

I highly recommend Mr. Poole’s legal services. My experience with Mr. Poole and his office was very positive. Mr. Poole handled my case in a most professional and expert manner, resulting in the best possible outcome for my situation.

I won my case. Attorney Poole communication with me was great and I really enjoyed working with him. The prosecutor was tough and fought hard against us. But we won the case. Attorney Poole was very well prepared, and he made my future bright again. Still until today I am grateful for choosing him to represent me.

CarterBoy Fresh

Get a free consultation.

The legal team at Andrew, Bransky & Poole, P.A. consists of Timothy Andrew, Aaron Bransky, Jane C. Poole, and Andrew T. Poole.

Timothy Andrew and Jane C. Poole handle union labor law and employee benefit matters. Tim has been practicing law in Minnesota since 1992 and focuses on Northeastern Minnesota. Super Lawyers Magazine has recognized Tim. Jane has been practicing since 2010 and is a member of the Board of Directors for the Legal Aid Service of Northeastern Minnesota. Jane has been named a Rising Star by Super Lawyers Magazine for many consecutive years.

Aaron Bransky has been practicing law since 1989, and before that, he clerked for two federal judges, so he has seen the law from several perspectives. His specialties encompass many practice areas, including estate planning, elder law, medical assistance planning, probate, business, and real estate. He is your go-to at the firm if you have needs in any of these areas. Aaron has been recognized many times as a Super Lawyer by Super Lawyers Magazine.

Since 2010, Andrew T. Poole has been a practicing attorney in Duluth, Minnesota. Over that time, he has handled thousands of criminal cases, ranging from DWI charges to theft, sex crimes, drug crimes, murder, and more. He understands the importance of building a defense strategy as soon as possible, fighting to ensure your rights are protected, and ensuring no corners are cut by law enforcement. He has represented defendants in jury trials in both Minnesota and Wisconsin courts, including every courthouse along Minnesota’s North Shore. Andrew has been recognized as a Rising Star by Super Lawyers Magazine for many consecutive years.

Skip to main content

The Jamaica Star

Latest News

Ex-con bats for conjugal visits

Seven years after the government announced its bold intent to introduce conjugal visits in the nation's prisons, inmates are still waiting for any legal action, as the proposal remains unfulfilled.

Instead, some are reportedly shelling out big bucks through a back-door system called 'super visit', in order to get some action.

An ex-convict who served time at one of the country's correctional facilities revealed the covert arrangements made by inmates to see their partners.

"Mi babymother and different woman used to come look fi me. You have to arrange it, give them the name of who a come, because the woman can't just come deh pon the block say dem a visit," he explained.

Visits, the ex-con said, typically lasted around 20-25 minutes.

"So you ago pay the money fi deh inna a secret room with your wife. All if you nuh have no wife, if your fiancee have the money can pay fi super visit, she can. So you can do wah you want do in a the room, kiss up and love up quick and fast."

In 2017, then National Security Minister Robert Montague announced that the Government would introduce conjugal visits. He said that conjugal visits would not be a right of every prisoner and that inmates who benefit would be required to be in a stable relationship.

Montague was shifted from the national security ministry in 2018 and was replaced by Dr Horace Chang. The ministry has conceded that very little has been done to introduce conjugal visits over the past seven years, except from the proposal being in a green paper that was tabled in Parliament in January.

The paper calls for the exploration of "an appropriate mechanism for the introduction of conjugal visits, where there would be designated periods in which an offender client is allowed to be in private with their legal spouse /wife/husband".

"The visit allows contact, including sexual relations, between an offender client and a visitor. The key aims of conjugal visits include preserving an offender client's family ties, promoting the offender client's reintegration into society on release, curbing recidivism and lessening violence within the correctional centre," the green paper states.

Recently, Kahira Jones, one of the accused in the high-profile Vybz Kartel murder case, told the Court of Appeal that he has been deprived of the opportunity for intimacy and the chance to build a family as a result of his incarceration. The ex-con with whom this newspaper spoke argued that persons behind bars are deserving of the opportunity for intimacy.

"The government start [the discussion] it for a reason, it must be that them see the importance for it and how it will affect a man going back into society. Remember say prison a fi rehabilitate, so mi woulda like for it to happen now," he said.

"Just like overseas where they allow trailers for conjugal visits, dem should do it here. A nuh special treatment. It's just that family can keep a man grounded, especially if him have a chance of coming out," the ex-con reasoned.

View the discussion thread.

Other News Stories

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Study shows incarcerated women experience different conditions than men

Meg Anderson

Women In Jails

One in three convicted women are held in jail rather than prison, compared to about 1 in 10 of all convicted people. But compared to prisons, jails tend to have fewer resources and support systems.

Copyright © 2024 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.