Hubby works as a deputy warden in a medium-security prison. It houses about 2,500 inmates. He told me that hepatitis rates are climbing, as are other STDs.
This is not only a threat to the inmates’ health, but to the health of the general public. Most inmates will be released sooner or later (I think he told me the average sentence was about three years) and could infect their girlfriends or wives on the “outside.”
Hubby said he brought up in a meeting with the warden and other staff that some states now supply prisoners with condoms, and suggested that his intitution may want to do the same. The table erupted in protest at the very notion.
As Hubby says, the objections expressed were tri-fold. Firstly, sexual contact is against prison rules, and is punishable by time in “the hole.” (Isolation cell.) Secondly, it’s homosexual sex we’re talking about, and thirdly, condoms and balloons are the traditional way to smuggle contraband.
Several people at the table insisted that the prison stick with their “abstinence only” policy, and said that giving the inmates condoms would be a tacit approval of sexual contact-- which, of course, sounds just like the objections in the sex-ed debate. The conversation ended quickly, the idea summarily dismissed.
I, personally, think they should make condoms available to inmates if only because of the public health issue.
Childish giggling aside is there a reason why sexual contact is verboten? I think that is really the core issue here. If its ok for inmates to have sex then supplying them with condoms is a no brainer. Its a simple health issue thats no different from giving them antibiotics when they are sick.
Hm, I suppose an outbreak of teh gay would be bad for the other prisoners.
Its the way to smuggle stuff into prison. People don’t smuggle stuff out of prison do they?
Seriously-- the thought is that they’re there to be punished, not “hook up.” I think it probably also has a lot to do with the old morality of the penetentiary days. According to the rules, they’re not allowed to even masturbate, and if caught in the act, will be punished.
I do think there’s a bit of homophobia involved.
They smuggle stuff in, out and around the prison. Inmates are strip-searched after visits, so after a visitor brings it in, it has to be . . . ahem . . . concealed internally to get onto the yard. They also use this method if an inmate wants to get contraband to someone who is in segregation or when the inmates’ housing areas are searched for contraband.
This calls for an experiment - take one large prison, allow free condom distribution, see the results after one year. Seems to me that one extra case of prisoner HIV is more expensive than thousands of condoms.
Well, we’ve seen how abstinence has worked out with other groups that ban sex. :rolleyes: The priesthood, high schools…what makes them think people who got where they are from breaking the law are going to follow the rules in prison???
They should have baskets of them delivered to every cell. They ain’t gonna stop having sex, no matter how many prison authorities bang their shoe on the table.
Whoa, not even allowed to masturbate? This should be the debate here–is it cruel and inhuman punishment to prohibit masturbation?
To the OP, I can see not wanting to provide prisoners with the means to move contraband more easily; if it weren’t for the health aspects I would totally agree with not providing condoms. I can understand the reasoning behind not wanting to appear to condone sexual contact between prisoners when it is prohibited–however, I believe the health risks outweigh this objection as well.
Well, in the prison I work in, masturbation is not against the rules, as long as it’s not done in a public and/or harassing way. Stand at the bars, stroking and waving and hooting at the female officer, and the inmate WILL get a conduct report.
Otherwise, I think condoms in prison are a good idea. It would prevent the transmisson of some diseases, and HIV is damn expensive to treat.
But in my state, the legislators (Republican majority, hard on crime) would go absolutely batshit insane, and a significant portion of the state public would too, over proposing to give inmates condoms. Hell, they don’t even want to give them medical care!
Most people forget that 99% of the convicts in prison are going to someday be let out. Is it really wise to prevent all sexual activity for the duration of a convict’s sentence? No wonder many act out anti-social behavior when they are released.
This is pretty much what I was thinking. My assumption is that most of the sex happening behind bars is forced. How many rapists use condoms in an attempt to avoid catching/passing on a disease?
“Mmm, you shore got purty lips, boy. We gonna have some fun tonight. Hold on, I better wrap up my salami. Wouldn’t want to catch the hep, would ya?”
No offense to the OP, but I think this is a really stupid idea.
I said “coerced”, not “forced.” I think the issue of coercion in prison sex goes far beyond people being physically forced into submission.
For example, if condoms were widely available, would people who are already being victimized be “passed around” more frequently with the fear of disease transmission removed from their abuser’s minds?
I’m not sure I understand the difference between someone being physically forced to have sex with someone versus being coerced into it. Perhaps you can give a (not too graphic) example?
Coercion could involve intimidation, psychological manipulation, and other methods of exerting control instead of or in addition to physical force.
Physically restraining someone so you can have intercourse with him would be an example of physically forcing someone to have sex.
Telling someone that you’ll steal his personal possessions he doesn’t submit to sexual intercourse would be an example of coercing someone to have sex.
Anoother example would be a physically weak person being protected by another who is coerced by the threat of no longer being protected.
So to bring this back to the OP, do you feel that someone who coerces someone into sex would be more or less likely to use a condom compared to someone who would physically restrain their victim?
I think coerced sex acts that don’t involve physical violence may be more encouraged by the availability of condoms then those that do involve physical violence.
For example, I’ve read that some inmates are coerced (through non-physical means) into having sex with multiple inmates–would inmates who previously wouldn’t have engaged in anal sex with such an inmate do so if the threat of HIV and other STD’s was virtually eliminated?
Compare that to a violent sexual assault, where the perpetrator probably isn’t going to pause before penetration to slip on a condom.
with absolutely no basis for the opinion, I doubt the major premise.
In any case, disease goes two ways, so even a rapist might choose to protect himself;
Moreover, a two year jolt for vehicular manslaughter is not supposed to turn into a death sentence; given that prison authroities are (apparently) incapable of ending coerced/forced sex, amelioration of the resulting harm by providing (indeed, encouraging the use of )condoms would seem consistent with the obligation to protect prisoners from harms not judicially sanctioned.
I’ve seen some organizations report that 90% of prison inmates are raped (StopPrisonerrape.org.) However obviously any statistic like that could be highly loaded, and even if 90% of prisoners are raped it doesn’t equate to 90% of sex in prison being coercive in nature.
From my experience with friends in the corrections business it’s going to vary a lot from institution to institution. I know someone that was actually in prison and he said rape happened but it wasn’t that wide spread. A police officer I know that used to work in a prison said it was pretty wide spread in the prison he worked in, and a woman who goes to my church is a nurse at a regional jail and she said incidents of rape were fairly rare.
It’s completely forbidden by the rules here, but in practice, most guards will turn a blind eye if a man is being subtle about it.
Little to none, I would think. Inmates who are predisposed to forcing or coercing sex aren’t stopped by the lack of protection.
Secondly, there have been major efforts in the last few years at reducing prison rape and coerced sex. All an inmate has to do is ask to be placed in protective custody. If he’s worried about retribution, they can make it look like it was done for a rule infringement. If need be, they can transfer him to another housing unit or even another prison.
Rape charges are taken very seriously, and investigated intensely. Prison officials are much more sensitive to this issue than they were in the past.
More than you might think. Right now, the prisoners sometimes fashion their own condoms using latex gloves stolen from Medical. Sure, many wouldn’t use them, just the same as many people on “the outside” engage in irresponsible sexual behavior, but I would consider it well-worth-it if making condoms available would reduce disease transmission even a bit.
I honestly don’t think it would influence people one way or another. After all, a man who is disgusted by homosexual activity won’t engage in it as soon as rubbers are available. Nor would a man abruptly decide he’ll try rape since now he can do it without worrying about disease.
The fear of STDs has never been reliable when it comes to supressing sexual activity. People sometimes assume it won’t happen to* them* or they’re just willing to take the risk. Some just don’t care.
They’re gonna fuck no matter what-- that has already been abundantly demonstrated. It’s human nature. You can preach until you’re blue in the face, and leave them exposed to the consequences, and it will not have any affects on behavior. We can’t stop 'em, so I believe we should at least give them the option of protecting themselves and the public.
