Conjugal Visits Essay Example

outweighs the benefits. Providing sufficient space in order to accommodate these private visits raises questions about whether the state is essentially funding mini motels inside prison walls. Moreover, conjugal visitation presents an ethical dilemma by increasing the chance of pregnancy when the incarcerated partner often lacks financial and emotional support for their partner and resulting child.

The emotional bonding between incarcerated parents and their children is compromised when children are born as a result of conjugal visitation. Additionally, prisons are required to cover the expenses for medical care during pregnancy for female offenders. The disinclination of the public to accept programs that grant extra privileges to convicted felons at the expense of taxpayers is a compelling argument against implementing conjugal visitation. In states where conjugal visits are still practiced, they are often restricted to inmates with exemplary behavior. (Wilkinson)

The privilege of conjugal visits for prisoners is earned and not given. If a inmate is not seen as a security risk, their spouse can visit for hours or days, and they may have private time. Certain legislators believe that this can lead to improved behavior among inmates. The State of Mississippi has the longest history of allowing conjugal visits for prisoners, and their tradition is rooted in history rather than scientific reasoning.

For over a century, Mississippi has permitted conjugal rights for certain prisoners. In fact, the state has invested in constructing apartments specifically for prisoners to utilize during family visits. Despite the cost, these apartments offer inmates the opportunity to interact with all family members, including children, rather than solely with their spouse. To be eligible for conjugal visits in Mississippi, inmates must fulfill

three criteria. Firstly, they must be housed in minimum or medium security units.

Prisoners in maximum security units are automatically barred from receiving visits, while unmarried prisoners must provide proof of marriage to have visitation privileges. Conjugal visits are only available to well-behaved prisoners who apply after being classified. California has been one of the few states allowing conjugal visits since the 1970s, enabling prisoners to spend up to 72 hours with their spouse, partner, or immediate family members in a small apartment or trailer on prison grounds.

Certain prisoners in California, such as those sentenced to death or life without parole, as well as individuals convicted of violent crimes or sex offenses, have restricted visitation rights. However, a new policy introduced in 2007 allows both heterosexual and homosexual inmates and their partners to have conjugal visits. This modification was made possible by a law enacted by former governor Gray Davis in 2005, which also extended this privilege to registered domestic partners.

The new regulations require state agencies to grant equal rights to domestic partners and heterosexual couples. These regulations allow visits from registered domestic partners, who are not themselves incarcerated, if the domestic partnership was created before one partner's imprisonment. Nevertheless, based on extensive research and prior knowledge, I believe that such visits should be disallowed. The objective of imprisoning individuals is to separate them from the external world and serve their sentence.

I think prisoners have too many rights already, and I believe this does not aid in their rehabilitation. Allowing unsupervised conjugal visits would create additional issues, so they should be prohibited. If prisoners didn't have all these privileges and rights, many

would strive to reform themselves instead of simply serving their sentences in order to be released, only to commit another crime and fill up an already crowded prison system.