Conjugal Rights for Prisoners

marcsignal

Recently Newstalk 106 have been discussing the proposal for 'Conjugal Rights' for inmates in Irish prisons. One man interviewed said his brother is serving a life sentence for murder, and claimed that because he is a 'lifer' he should be fully/especially entitled to conjugal rights while serving his sentence

(i.e Facilities should be provided where his wife/girlfriend can regularlly visit him in a private room where they can have sex)

One reason suggested for this proposal, was that, on humanitarian grounds, prisoners should have the right to continue to have a family even though they are in jail.

I'm curious to hear anyone's opinion on the matter for or against, but please refrain from any emotional outbursts with references to 'scumbags' or 'castration' unless you think you have a good reason.

Karl Hungus

Honestly? What does this do other than making prison time easier? Being in prison shouldn't be easy, it should be punishment.

dublincitadel

Q1: What about the conjugal rights of murdered victims ? They can sadly no longer have a family

Q2: Who exactly is expected to pay for this 'recreational sex provision' for criminals, the PAYE worker I presume ?

Q3: What about the security issues this proposal raises ? Are all parties going to be strip searched ? they're going to have there clothes off anyway. The liberals would eat anyone suggesting this alive.

Q4: On top of the initial expense of setting this up, who will pay for the upbringing of children born out of such visits ? oh ? hang on, the gob****e PAYE worker again, silly me !?

I heard the programme too, and most of the text responses recieved by Newstalk from listeners, could not be read out over the airwaves (according to the presenter) There's another surprise.

In short, i agree with the mod

simu

Well, I wasn't aware that there was a right to have a family.

That guy will have plenty of time to reproduce once his "life" sentence is up!

marcsignal

dublincitadel wrote:

Q1: What about the conjugal rights of murdered victims ? They can sadly no longer have a family

True, good point which i agree with.

dublincitadel wrote:

Q2: Who exactly is expected to pay for this 'recreational sex provision' for criminals, the PAYE worker I presume ?

Well, We pay for prisons as it is, so, yes i presume so.

dublincitadel wrote:

Q3: What about the security issues this proposal raises ? Are all parties going to be strip searched ? they're going to have there clothes off anyway. The liberals would eat anyone suggesting this alive.

Don't know what the security policy is at the moment, so, don't know ?

dublincitadel wrote:

Q4: On top of the initial expense of setting this up, who will pay for the upbringing of children born out of such visits ? oh ? hang on, the gob****e PAYE worker again, silly me !?

see response Q2

dublincitadel wrote:

I heard the programme too, and most of the text responses recieved by Newstalk from listeners, could not be read out over the airwaves (according to the presenter) There's another surprise.

Thats why i started this thread...? I only asked posters to 'refrain' from emotional responses because 'shooting from the hip' usually provokes a negative response in kind and don't want the thread to degenerate into a virtual vigilantes lynch mob

dublincitadel wrote:

In short, i agree with the mod

can't disrespect you for that

marcsignal

simu wrote:

Well, I wasn't aware that there was a right to have a family.

That guy will have plenty of time to reproduce once his "life" sentence is up!

apparently, the leagle eagles have dug up, or conjured some clause under European Human Rights Law that says so, but i couldn't cite any exact legal references, sorry

seamus

Actually, I thought the Declaration of Human Rights covered this, but it doesn't.

It says that everyone should have the right to marry and found a family. Thus, if he already has a child (or indeed a pet), the family has been founded.

Although, there's a fair argument to say that permanent sexual separation from your chosen life partner falls under "cruel and unusual" punishment.

marcsignal

seamus wrote:

there's a fair argument to say that permanent sexual separation from your chosen life partner falls under "cruel and unusual" punishment.

Hmmm, now that is genuinely interesting

mountainyman

Murray v. Ireland,
The Supreme Court agreed that the right of each spouse in marriage to beget children is protected by Article 40.3.1°.

“... the Constitution [protects] marriage necessarily involves a constitutional protection of certain marital rights. [including] the right to beget children or further children of the marriage”

The Murrays sought conjugal visits these were denied as your rights in Ireland are only vindicated ‘so far as is practicable’.

Conjugal visits are now practicable and must now be provided.

MM

rsynnott

Karl Hungus wrote:

Honestly? What does this do other than making prison time easier? Being in prison shouldn't be easy, it should be punishment.

Actually, in most cases it SHOULD be rehabilitation.

But no, don't really see the point in this conjugal visits thing...

dublincitadel wrote:

Q1: What about the conjugal rights of murdered victims ? They can sadly no longer have a family

Irrelevant; we do not operate an eye for an eye system. If we did, we'd execute murderers. In any case, the vast bulk of prisoners are not murderers.

dublincitadel wrote:

Q2: Who exactly is expected to pay for this 'recreational sex provision' for criminals, the PAYE worker I presume ?

Well, all tax payers... But yes, it seems to be a waste of money.

dublincitadel wrote:

Q4: On top of the initial expense of setting this up, who will pay for the upbringing of children born out of such visits ? oh ? hang on, the gob****e PAYE worker again, silly me !?

Irrelevant argument; the mother will get childrens' allowance and such regardless of who the father is.
senter) There's another surprise.

dublincitadel wrote:

In short, i agree with the mod

Eh? The mod isn't a mod of this forum; he's a regular user here.

muletide

Conjugal visits

simu

mountainyman wrote:

Murray v. Ireland,
The Supreme Court agreed that the right of each spouse in marriage to beget children is protected by Article 40.3.1°.

“... the Constitution [protects] marriage necessarily involves a constitutional protection of certain marital rights. [including] the right to beget children or further children of the marriage”

The Murrays sought conjugal visits these were denied as your rights in Ireland are only vindicated ‘so far as is practicable’.

Conjugal visits are now practicable and must now be provided.

MM

Couldn't people use that to demand the govt pay for fertility treatment in some cases then?

seamus

simu wrote:

Couldn't people use that to demand the govt pay for fertility treatment in some cases then?

Perhaps he means 43.3.1° which states

The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.

If it was 40.3.1°, this states

The State guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate the personal rights of the citizen.

As you can see, neither states necessarily that the state should aid a person in excerising these rights, rather that it will protect them.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Karl Hungus wrote:

Honestly? What does this do other than making prison time easier? Being in prison shouldn't be easy, it should be punishment.

Can't you see this doesn't benfit anyone? - even in murder cases, avenging someone doesn't bring them back. I think prison should be seen as a deterrant rather than a punishment (has grounding anyone ever make them less likely to drink in a field at 16?) and also that they're not taking away your life, just your freedom.

dublincitadel wrote:

Q1: What about the conjugal rights of murdered victims ? They can sadly no longer have a family

Well I don't mean to be offensive but that's something they're no longer able to worry about.

You're also absurdly assuming every inmate is a murderer

Q2: Who exactly is expected to pay for this 'recreational sex provision' for criminals, the PAYE worker I presume ?

Conjugal visits tend to be proportional to good behaviour - less trouble, long term pschological effect could be calmer prisonors, due to slightly more bearable lifestyle. The net affect would be less taxpayers money spent on prison security.

Q3: What about the security issues this proposal raises ? Are all parties going to be strip searched ? they're going to have there clothes off anyway. The liberals would eat anyone suggesting this alive.

Surely you didn't think about that one. No one considers it unreasonable to stripsearch visitors of convicted criminals, and it's already in practice.

Q4: On top of the initial expense of setting this up, who will pay for the upbringing of children born out of such visits ? oh ? hang on, the gob****e PAYE worker again, silly me !?

Who pays for the social welfare for 16 year old's maternity benefits when they cant support their kids? That's just nitpicking, and I'm sure protection would be provided.

As I mentioned earlier prison is there to take away your freedom, not your life. And practising the latter is comparable to gouging out your eyes to spite your face.

Take away sex why not heat or toilet facilities? They're still human beings, what does it say about us if we can't see that? Freedom is sufficient.

dublincitadel

rsynnott wrote:

Actually, in most cases it SHOULD be rehabilitation..

Do you believe that for some prisoners, rehabilitation is simply a non-runner? Genuine question, not intended in provocative tone.

rsynnott wrote:

Irrelevant; we do not operate an eye for an eye system. If we did, we'd execute murderers. In any case, the vast bulk of prisoners are not murderers.

I disagree, there was no intended suggestion of ‘an eye for an eye’ I was simply asserting, that when considering what ‘a murderer’ is in prison for, should we readily consider such privileges as conjugal visits lightly? Forgive me for suggesting that the monies available for the prisons, as it stands, could be better spent in other areas, in my opinion, which may also alleviate security pressures in the future.I also only spoke about ‘murderers’ specifically, because I was referring to the man interviewed on 106 at the time whose brother was serving life, for murder. He was insistent that it was his brother’s ‘entitlement’. I just think he, personally, ‘believes’ he’s entitled to a lot, considering

rsynnott wrote:

Irrelevant argument; the mother will get childrens' allowance and such regardless of who the father is.

Firstly I have to say, I don’t pay tax, I’m a student, I singled out the PAYE worker because, in the broader picture, when these ideas are suggested by people I would consider ‘Ultra Liberal’ and to some degree The ‘Pseudo-intellectia’ The working man/woman would surely exclaim!

”Jeasus! Now we’re payin taxes for bleedin knockin shops in the joy!”

Because generally, their opinion is rarely considered, even though, its possible to argue, they are more likely to be victims of crime than Professionals.
I don’t disagree with the concept of, what I think they call, ‘Retorical Justice’ where first offenders of crimes against the person are brought face-to-face with their victims, in order that they fully understand the implications of their crime, for example: facing somone they crippled after an unprovoked assault or similar, but I really think conjugal visits are too much, in terms of entitlements for murderers.

rsynnott wrote:

Eh? The mod isn't a mod of this forum; he's a regular user here.

well f*c….excuse me ?? !! , I’m evidently not so familiar with boards, but I do believe “Karl Hungus” has the word ‘moderator’ under his name, and in the context the term ‘mod’ was used in this case, and the general discussion, whether he moderates on this board or not, is in itself, irrelevant.

Manic Moran

If they really want to have a kid, they can 'relieve stress' into a bottle, send it to an artificial insemination chap, and pay for the process, much like any other private couple who wish to use AI for whatever reason.

I don't know if I particularly object to the concept of conjugal visits as a reward for good behaviour, but I certainly don't see the merit that says that we must allow the prisoners sex because they have a right to have kids.

NTM

dublincitadel

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote:

You're also absurdly assuming every inmate is a murderer

I was only refering to the man in the 106 interview and murderers specifically

rsynnott

dublincitadel wrote:

Do you believe that for some prisoners, rehabilitation is simply a non-runner? Genuine question, not intended in provocative tone.

Yes, of course.

dublincitadel wrote:

I disagree, there was no intended suggestion of ‘an eye for an eye’ I was simply asserting, that when considering what ‘a murderer’ is in prison for, should we readily consider such privileges as conjugal visits lightly? Forgive me for suggesting that the monies available for the prisons, as it stands, could be better spent in other areas, in my opinion, which may also alleviate security pressures in the future.I also only spoke about ‘murderers’ specifically, because I was referring to the man interviewed on 106 at the time whose brother was serving life, for murder. He was insistent that it was his brother’s ‘entitlement’. I just think he, personally, ‘believes’ he’s entitled to a lot, considering

Don't think it's a valid reason to be against this, though I don't think this is a good idea anyway.

dublincitadel wrote:

Firstly I have to say, I don’t pay tax, I’m a student, I singled out the PAYE worker because, in the broader picture, when these ideas are suggested by people I would consider ‘Ultra Liberal’ and to some degree The ‘Pseudo-intellectia’ The working man/woman would surely exclaim!

”Jeasus! Now we’re payin taxes for bleedin knockin shops in the joy!”

I'm a student as well, and pay only minimal tax. Actually, though, isn't it usually the upper-middle class who get most excited about what their tax is being spent on?

dublincitadel wrote:

I don’t disagree with the concept of, what I think they call, ‘Retorical Justice’ where first offenders of crimes against the person are brought face-to-face with their victims, in order that they fully understand the implications of their crime, for example: facing somone they crippled after an unprovoked assault or similar, but I really think conjugal visits are too much, in terms of entitlements for murderers.

It isn't necessarily murderers, tho. Only a small proportion of all prisoners are murderers.

dublincitadel wrote:

well f*c….excuse me ?? !! , I’m evidently not so familiar with boards, but I do believe “Karl Hungus” has the word ‘moderator’ under his name, and in the context the term ‘mod’ was used in this case, and the general discussion, whether he moderates on this board or not, is in itself, irrelevant.

His status as a moderator is irrelevant here.

Sleepy

To paraphrase Bill Hicks: "And I'm the one that's single??!!!"

Regardless of this alleged "right" to procreate. Does society really want it's worst reproducing? The offspring of such individuals can be virtually guaranteed to have a poor upbringing. A father/mother in jail and their other parent still actually interested in maintaining a relationship with a criminal trying to bring the child up alone hardly sounds like a recipe for a well adjusted child!

Another thing: if this is to be argued on the basis of 'a right to procreate', would participants have to prove that no contraception was being used? Wouldn't mandatory blood tests (to check for the pill) be a more severe violation of human rights?

The very idea of prison is to exclude criminals from society until they've been rehabilitated. Surely this should be prevented from adding to the population until they've been rehabilitated too?

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote:

Conjugal visits tend to be proportional to good behaviour - less trouble, long term pschological effect could be calmer prisonors, due to slightly more bearable lifestyle.

The same could be said for allowing heroin use in prisons tbh.

The net affect would be less taxpayers money spent on prison security.

To imagine that the calming effect of sex on those inmates that have a partner prepared to provide them with conjugal visits (probably a minority of inmates) would reduce risk to wardens enough to enable reduced numbers of wardens is stretching the boundaries of reality. To suppose that even if this were the case it would reduce the numbers of wardens required enough to counter-balance the extra wardens needed to search the inmate's partner, guard the area the conjugal visits were taking place in and pay for the administration of such a scheme, hell even the increased laundry bill is just being ridiculous.

dublincitadel

seamus wrote:

It says that everyone should have the right to marry and found a family. Thus, if he already has a child (or indeed a pet), the family has been founded.

conjugal visits with your pet !!!??:eek: disgraceful !!

sorry i just had to post it

dublincitadel

rsynnott wrote:

His status as a moderator is irrelevant here.

ok ok ? so he's not a moderator ??:rolleyes: it's entirely contextual ? if he has 3 stripes i'd still call him sargent.....sorry karl, no disrespect intended

rsynnott

dublincitadel wrote:

ok ok ? so he's not a moderator ??:rolleyes: it's entirely contextual ? if he has 3 stripes i'd still call him sargent.....sorry karl, no disrespect intended

He's a moderator, but elsewhere. Here, he is free to be just a normal poster, and carries no special authority.

marcsignal

dublincitadel wrote:

conjugal visits with your pet !!!??:eek: disgraceful !!

sorry i just had to post it

ha ha ha ha ha !!

sorry i just had to break my bo****ks laughing

anyways back to business gentlemen, i think we're agreed karl isn't a moderator here...... Karl, I'v bad news, you're not a moderator

Bottle_of_Smoke

Sleepy wrote:

To paraphrase Bill Hicks: "And I'm the one that's single??!!!"

Regardless of this alleged "right" to procreate. Does society really want it's worst reproducing? The offspring oqf such individuals can be virtually guaranteed to have a poor upbringing. A father/mother in jail and their other parent still actually interested in maintaining a relationship with a criminal trying to bring the child up alone hardly sounds like a recipe for a well adjusted child!

Tell me you're under 16, the "WORST" what the ****, what makes the ones who get caught the worst? and by what merits are they the "worst"

Another thing: if this is to be argued on the basis of 'a right to procreate', would participants have to prove that no contraception was being used? Wouldn't mandatory blood tests (to check for the pill) be a more severe violation of human rights?

if i was in prison id make sacrifices on certain violations, but I don't see many people in prison wanting kids nor willing "outsiders" anyhow

The same could be said for allowing heroin use in prisons tbh.

What country are you in? Just I'd like to avoid the ones where sex is illegal

To imagine that the calming effect of sex on those inmates that have a partner prepared to provide them with conjugal visits (probably a minority of inmates) would reduce risk to wardens enough to enable reduced numbers of wardens is stretching the boundaries of reality. To suppose that even if this were the case it would reduce the numbers of wardens required enough to counter-balance the extra wardens needed to search the inmate's partner, guard the area the conjugal visits were taking place in and pay for the administration of such a scheme, hell even the increased laundry bill is just being ridiculous.

Ok think things through before you post them - A prisonor who know's its not completely impossible for him to get laid in coming months is less bitter. You cant argue against that. Actually try me.

This would make them less likely to pick fights etc(less tension), therefore its a slightly easier job for a warden, then they dont fell they need quite as much pay to do the job - well wont be as likely to feel they deserve more. Therefore over time the payroll bill annual increase is lower = less money to be spent on salaries. Not all that ridiculous.

marcsignal

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote:

No one considers it unreasonable to stripsearch visitors of convicted criminals, and it's already in practice.

Is that true ?? what i mean is, are we talking 'stargazer' ? I think they used to call it that in the maze prison ? squatting over a mirror on the floor ? that's pretty humiliating i'm sure

Bottle_of_Smoke

marcsignal wrote:

Is that true ?? what i mean is, are we talking 'stargazer' ? I think they used to call it that in the maze prison ? squatting over a mirror on the floor ? that's pretty humiliating i'm sure

And given the circumstances its neccessary, and needless to say if you're not willing to do it you're not getting laid. Just like if you find it humilliating to be searched before getting on a plane, you wont be flying.

simu

Sleepy wrote:

Regardless of this alleged "right" to procreate. Does society really want it's worst reproducing? The offspring of such individuals can be virtually guaranteed to have a poor upbringing. A father/mother in jail and their other parent still actually interested in maintaining a relationship with a criminal trying to bring the child up alone hardly sounds like a recipe for a well adjusted child!

Yeah, but Ireland does do eugenics really (which is what this would be an instance of) - whether this is fortunate or not, of course, is a matter of opinion! o_O

rsynnott

simu wrote:

Yeah, but Ireland does do eugenics really (which is what this would be an instance of) - whether this is fortunate or not, of course, is a matter of opinion! o_O

It's not really active eugenics.

simu

rsynnott wrote:

It's not really active eugenics.

No, more covert.

Sleepy

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote:

Tell me you're under 16, the "WORST" what the ****, what makes the ones who get caught the worst? and by what merits are they the "worst".

Nope, 25 actually. Can you give me a lower example of a human being than a criminal? The fact they've been caught would suggest they're not even intelligent scumbags tbh, though that's neither here nor there.

if i was in prison id make sacrifices on certain violations, but I don't see many people in prison wanting kids nor willing "outsiders" anyhow

Well, if they don't want kids, they can hardly argue this on the basis of a 'right to procreate' can they?

What country are you in? Just I'd like to avoid the ones where sex is illegal

No need to be a smartarse if you can't defend your argument.

The chief warden of Mountjoy has already gone on public record to state that the Irish prison system would be over-run with violence if it wasn't for the 'calming influence' of cannabis on inmates.

You're advocating allowing inmates to be allowed conjugal visits on the basis of the calming effect of sex. I'd contend that providing the heroin addicts in our prisons with heroin would have a far more profound 'calming effect' than allowing prisoners to get laid every now and then. Who would you rather have a row with: a junkie who hasn't had a hit in a week, or a regular inmate who hasn't been laid in a while? I'll take the regular inmate myself, he's far less likely to go to the same extremes as a guy suffering heroin withdrawal.

Ok think things through before you post them - A prisonor who know's its not completely impossible for him to get laid in coming months is less bitter. You cant argue against that. Actually try me.

Less bitter, sure. I don't argue against that, I just think you're extremely naieve if you believe that imprisoned criminals are so less likely to be violent because of the possibility of a conjugal visit that we could reduce warden numbers or pay wardens less. If an inmate has a partner prepared to go through the humiliation of a strip search in order to have sex with them, presumable they were having plenty of sex on the outside, where they commited the crime they're serving their sentence for in the first place?

This would make them less likely to pick fights etc(less tension), therefore its a slightly easier job for a warden, then they dont fell they need quite as much pay to do the job - well wont be as likely to feel they deserve more. Therefore over time the payroll bill annual increase is lower = less money to be spent on salaries. Not all that ridiculous.

ROFL, so an ever so slightly easier job will make wardens forget about the soaring property prices, inflation, their kids college fees etc?

Don't be ridiculous. Prison Wardens have one of the strongest unions in this country. Their unions have yet to give an inch on the topic of their over-time, what makes you think they'd be prepared to lower their wage demands because there's a slightly less chance of them being shivved? Personally I think you've more chance of them releasing any inmate that promises on his mammy's life that he won't be a criminal any more...

mountainyman

seamus wrote:

Perhaps he means 43.3.1° which states

'he' in this instance was Chief Justice Finlay

seamus wrote:

... neither states necessarily that the state should aid a person in excerising these rights, rather that it will protect them.

If you see Breathnach v Ireland the judge found that it was too much trouble for the state to allow prisoners vote and I think that would be easier than conjugal visits.

MM

marcsignal

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote:

And given the circumstances its neccessary, and needless to say if you're not willing to do it you're not getting laid. Just like if you find it humilliating to be searched before getting on a plane, you wont be flying.

Valid, and i accept that, but, you stated earlier that strip searches were already in effect, what i wanted to know was, is that a fact ? where is it taking effect ? for what catagory prisoners ? and do you mean latex gloved fingers in the back door ? or squat over a mirror ? if you can be specific.

I'd also like to probe further (excuse the pun) on the point 'rsynott' posted about rehabilitation. What kind of balance are we talking about in terms of, where does punishment stop and rehab begin ?? For the purposes of the discussion i'd also like to focus on 'serious/dangerous criminals' and perhaps 'repeat offenders', as opposed to 'petty thieves' etc. anybody ??

dublincitadel

I feel initially it should be about punishment, and after a given period of reflection and acceptance of their predicament, onward to rehab, if deemed relevant/potentially benificial. Then 'perhaps' other priviliges could be earned, but conjugal visits ? still think its a 'nicht nicht' myself. It has been posted already regarding children born as a result of such visits, i think they'd have a difficult time avoiding the almost inevitable perpetuation of the crime cycle they would be brought up in. They simply would know no other life.

'monkey see, monkey do' (a metaphor not intended, in derogatory tone)

metrovelvet

What about women who are in prison during their reproductive years?

I cant see whats so wrong about conjugal visits for anyone. Isnt sex a basic human need? Like food or sleep?

dublincitadel

metrovelvet wrote:

What about women who are in prison during their reproductive years?

Consider this, who would raise any child born to a female prisoner serving 20 years? if the child was concieved in, say the 5th year of her term, for example.

metrovelvet wrote:

I cant see whats so wrong about conjugal visits for anyone. Isnt sex a basic human need? Like food or sleep?

I still do not share the view that conjugal visits are generally a prisoners 'entitlement' Sorry, they are in prison for a reason, because they have wronged society in some way and have to pay for their crime. Providing them with facilities for recreational sex, or reproduction will not serve to help them face up to their responsibilities as a citizen.

Bottle_of_Smoke

dublincitadel wrote:

I still do not share the view that conjugal visits are generally a prisoners 'entitlement' Sorry, they are in prison for a reason, because they have wronged society in some way and have to pay for their crime. Providing them with facilities for recreational sex, or reproduction will not serve to help them face up to their responsibilities as a citizen.

Society has to take some responsiblity for prisonors wanting and sometimes needing to do the things that get them imprisoned. Of course I dont mean all of them. You can be unlucky and get a few months for having a half ounce of dope on you. That doesn't warrant taking aways basic wants.

Right now I dont have time to properly reply to your main post Dub, but you misundertood what I was saying for one or two points. I'll try explain better later

Dave!

Ridiculous, they're there for a reason, prison isn't supposed to be pleasant.

seamus

metrovelvet wrote:

Isnt sex a basic human need? Like food or sleep?

No. If you lose the use of your sexual organs, you can still function as a human being. If you lose the use of your stomach, you have two options: Spend your life hooked up to an IV or die.

dublincitadel

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote:

Right now I dont have time to properly reply to your main post Dub, but you misundertood what I was saying for one or two points. I'll try explain better later

Thats kosher, im not going anywhere, unless i'm unlucky enough to get arrested for smthn

Bottle_of_Smoke

DaveMcG wrote:

Ridiculous, they're there for a reason, prison isn't supposed to be pleasant.

But they're not neccesarily there for something bad enough to be treated as unpleasant as they are.

sleepy wrote:

Can you give me a lower example of a human being than a criminal? The fact they've been caught would suggest they're not even intelligent scumbags tbh, though that's neither here nor there.

Yes of course I can, George Bush is the first name that comes to mind. There's people in prison for cannibis offences - growing enough that's considered supply (when it's clearly not :P) They're no worse than fat bastards driving to work destroying our natural environments with emissions because they're just too lazy to walk. Also you should consider that it's not enjoyable to commit most offences that put you in prison, so maybe we should ask not only what offences they're committing but also look at why they so, and as society as a whole is responsible to a small extent we shouldn't go taking all the prisoners rights.

Quote:
if i was in prison id make sacrifices on certain violations, but I don't see many people in prison wanting kids nor willing "outsiders" anyhow

Well, if they don't want kids, they can hardly argue this on the basis of a 'right to procreate' can they?

I don't agree procreating should be a human right. What I meant was that if I was a prisonor & I had the choice between being stripsearched(probed even) & spending another 3 months with just my hand I'd sacrifice my violation rights.

The con's husband\wife also has their sex with the person taken away - and they haven't neccesarily done anything wrong

Quote:
What country are you in? Just I'd like to avoid the ones where sex is illegal

No need to be a smartarse if you can't defend your argument.[\QUOTE]

I was illustrating the point that heroin & sex are completely different as for good reasons heroin is illegal

The chief warden of Mountjoy has already gone on public record to state that the Irish prison system would be over-run with violence if it wasn't for the 'calming influence' of cannabis on inmates.

You're advocating allowing inmates to be allowed conjugal visits on the basis of the calming effect of sex. I'd contend that providing the heroin addicts in our prisons with heroin would have a far more profound 'calming effect' than allowing prisoners to get laid every now and then. Who would you rather have a row with: a junkie who hasn't had a hit in a week, or a regular inmate who hasn't been laid in a while? I'll take the regular inmate myself, he's far less likely to go to the same extremes as a guy suffering heroin withdrawal.

No not solely advocating it on that basis, I advocate it because I think it's morally wrong to take sex away from someone when you're only supposed to be taking their freedom. I'd just see it as an additional benefit.

On your junkie\inmate argument I think if I ended up in a row with either I'd be pretty ****ed, however for someone who's so concerned about PAYE workers taxes it comes as a bit of a surprise that you think it makes more sense to provide pharmaceutical grade heroin(which would be done if the motion was passed) than letting people have sex. They're just too unrelated to compare.

However if your question asked if I'd prefer getting in a row with a regular inmate, or one who had the knowledge that he wasn't so disconnected from society that he could have opportunity for occasional fornication. Id say
on average it's safer with the less bitter one.

Quote:
Ok think things through before you post them - A prisonor who know's its not completely impossible for him to get laid in coming months is less bitter. You cant argue against that. Actually try me.

Less bitter, sure. I don't argue against that, I just think you're extremely naieve if you believe that imprisoned criminals are so less likely to be violent because of the possibility of a conjugal visit that we could reduce warden numbers or pay wardens less.

Over time, no one's expecting instantaneous results. In general if prisonors were less bitter there'd be more good behaviour (no longer have to find a way to deal with not being allowed to have sex - which could stop some lashing out/picking fights for no good reason) good behaviour leads to earlier release dates & then we stop paying their prison costs.

If an inmate has a partner prepared to go through the humiliation of a strip search in order to have sex with them, presumable they were having plenty of sex on the outside, where they commited the crime they're serving their sentence for in the first place?

They didnt commit the crimes that got them there in a prison environment, so that's completely unrelated. I think it's pretty naive to assume I think sex will lead to a perfect prison system.

Quote:
This would make them less likely to pick fights etc(less tension), therefore its a slightly easier job for a warden, then they dont fell they need quite as much pay to do the job - well wont be as likely to feel they deserve more. Therefore over time the payroll bill annual increase is lower = less money to be spent on salaries. Not all that ridiculous.

ROFL, so an ever so slightly easier job will make wardens forget about the soaring property prices, inflation, their kids college fees etc?

When you decide how much pay is neccessary to make you do your job you consider property prices & college fees. You also consider that because you do a high risk job you deserve more pay. If that risk goes down you wont feel you deserve quite as much, be it subconscious or not.

Everyone in any job earning 19K+ gets an annual pay rise to compensate for (or cause) inflation

Don't be ridiculous. Prison Wardens have one of the strongest unions in this country. Their unions have yet to give an inch on the topic of their over-time, what makes you think they'd be prepared to lower their wage demands because there's a slightly less chance of them being shivved? Personally I think you've more chance of them releasing any inmate that promises on his mammy's life that he won't be a criminal any more..

As I've said they'd still be entitled to other payrises & the unions would still make a case, it just might mean they'd be happy with their unions getting them a slightly smaller increase.

Valid, and i accept that, but, you stated earlier that strip searches were already in effect, what i wanted to know was, is that a fact ? where is it taking effect ? for what catagory prisoners ? and do you mean latex gloved fingers in the back door ? or squat over a mirror ? if you can be specific.

This is not exhaustive I admit but there must be some way of doing it effectively if conjugal visits are permistted in the states(some)

dublincitadel

I never made any of those statements above you're quoting me on above ?? have you been at the brandy ?? I think you meant to quote 'sleepy'

Bottle_of_Smoke

dublincitadel wrote:

I never made any of those statements above you're quoting me on above ?? have you been at the brandy ?? I think you meant to quote 'sleepy'

Error noted & post amended. Cheers

Dave!

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote:

But they're not neccesarily there for something bad enough to be treated as unpleasant as they are.

Well then that's a problem with the law, not the prison. If it's not bad enough to go to jail, then they shouldn't be in jail; if it is, then it shouldn't be pleasant.

Bottle_of_Smoke

DaveMcG wrote:

Well then that's a problem with the law, not the prison. If it's not bad enough to go to jail, then they shouldn't be in jail; if it is, then it shouldn't be pleasant.

Well if there's no foolproff law system in place it's hardly fair to make all the inmates suffer

My Say

Easy discussion for someone who is not affected by this situation. I am shortly turning 27 and paying tax since I am 16 which has been no benefit to myself. I have no criminal record or have no intention on being on that side of the law. Unfortunately my partner is a repeat offender and ends up back in prison within a couple of months of release each time. On each release he is given no assistance to help him deal with the outside world, and while you might think this is some pitiful excuse live with someone going through it and you will see. So my question is do I deserve to suffer? My chance of having a family may be gone when he is next released. I pay my taxes and that seems to be the main concern here so do I not get to have the opportunity to have a family with my chosen life partner going by my record?

Sleepy

It's not society's job to correct your lousy decisions tbh.

If you want to have a family: leave the repeat offender (as let's face it, anyone classed as such is hardly going to be a good role-model for his kids, nor, I'd wager anything like a good father to them). Or option B, get him to use whatever facilities are available to him in the way of rehabilitation whilst inside and to start abiding by societies laws.

Do you deserve to suffer? No.
Do you deserve to suffer the consequences of your own poor decisions? Yes.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.