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

Last Updated on September 11, 2024

conjugal visits in california prisons

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

vista crimminal law logo

  • 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.

How Do Conjugal Visits Work?

conjugal visit

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?

Inside a prison

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.

Prison Yard

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 visit

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.

conjugal visit

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.

what's conjugal visits

History of the Freedom of Information Act

what's conjugal visits

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

what's conjugal visits

Tort Law Definition & Examples

what's conjugal visits

Bail vs Bond: What’s the Difference?

SCALAWAG

Reckoning with the South

what's conjugal visits

This couple wants you to know that conjugal visits are only legal in 4 states

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)

what's conjugal visits

Editor's note: This story was co-written by inside-outside couple Steve Higginbotham and Jordana Rosenfeld, weaving together Jordana's personal experience and reporting with letters from Steve. Together, they examine popular myths around conjugal visits, their decreasing availability, and the punitive logic behind the state's policing of sex and intimacy that stifles relationships like theirs.   Jordana's words appear below in the orange boxes on the right; Steve's are in the purple on the left.

what's conjugal visits

The other day, when I told my grandmother I was researching the history of conjugal visits for an essay, she said, "Oh, like in my stories?" 

You can't talk about conjugal visits without talking about television, because television is pretty much the only place where conjugal visits still exist. A wide variety of TV shows either joke about or dramatize conjugal visits, from popular sitcoms that have little to nothing to do with prison life, like The Simpsons , Family Guy , and Seinfeld, to prestige dramas like Prison Break and Oz that purport to offer "gritty" and "realistic" prison tales. Conjugals loom large in public imagination about life in prison, which leaves people under the unfortunate impression that they are in any kind of way widespread or accessible.

Their availability has been in steady decline for more than 25 years. The mid-to-late 1990s are the often-cited high point of conjugal visits , with 17 states offering some kind of program. (Federal and maximum security prisons do not allow conjugals.) This means that at their most widespread, conjugal visits were only ever permitted in one-third of all states. 

There are only four U.S. states that currently allow conjugal visits, often called "extended" or "family" visits: California, Connecticut, New York, and Washington. Some people say Connecticut's program doesn't count though, when it comes to conjugals—and the Connecticut Department of Corrections agrees. Their family visit program is explicitly intended for the benefit of children and requires that the incarcerated person receiving visitors be a parent. Their child must attend . 

My boyfriend has been in prison for 28 years. He was 18 during the high point of conjugal visit programs. That's when the state of Missouri decided to lock him up for the rest of his natural life, effectively sentencing him to a lifetime of deep loneliness and sexual repression, not just because Missouri doesn't offer conjugal visits, but because when you are incarcerated, your body belongs to the state in every possible way—from your labor to your sex life. 

Every prison riot ever could have been prevented with some properly organized fucking.

what's conjugal visits

That's my boyfriend, Steve.

Not being able to physically express love—or even lust—builds frustration that boils over in unintended ways. 

Intimacy is policed rigidly in prison, and it has certainly worsened over the years. For most people with incarcerated lovers, intimacy happens not on a conjugal visit, but in the visiting room. Visits now may start and end with a brief embrace and chaste kiss. Open mouth kissing has been outlawed. These rules are enforced with terminated visits and even removing a person from the visiting list for a year or more.

Steve and I have kissed a total of six times.

We have also hugged six times, if you don't count us posing with his arm over my shoulder three times for pictures. The kisses were so brief that I'm not sure I remember what they felt like. He told me later on the phone that he knew he had to be the one to pull away from the kiss before we gave the COs in the bubble reason to intervene because I wouldn't. He knew this, somehow, before he ever kissed me. He was right. 

When I last visited him in Jefferson City Correctional Center, Steve told me about a real conjugal visit from '90s Missouri.

Years ago, people used to mess around in the visiting room at Potosi [Correctional Center]. Everyone knew to keep their sensitive visitors away from a certain area, because there was frequent sex behind a vending machine. I can neither confirm nor deny that cops were paid to turn a blind eye to it. I met a guy recently in my wing at JCCC who said he had heard of me, and that maybe I knew his father. I did know his father. I didn't have the heart to tell him that I probably saw his conception behind a Coke machine back in 1995.

The increasing restriction of physical touch—the expanded video surveillance of visiting spaces, the use of solitary confinement for the smallest infractions, and the withering of both in-person and conjugal visit programs—reflects the punitive logic that consensual human touch is a privilege that incarcerated people do not deserve.

This is an evil proposition, and it's one that is at the core of the ongoing dehumanization of millions of people in U.S. prisons, and the millions of people like me who love them. 

One woman with an incarcerated partner put it to researchers this way: "The prison system appears to be set up to break families up." And she's right. For the duration of his incarceration, I will never be closer to Steve than the state of Missouri is. I'm reminded during each of our timed kisses: His primary partner is the state. 

The most difficult part for me about a romantic relationship with a free woman is that I feel selfish. A lot of self-loathing thoughts creep in. I want the best for her and often question if I am that "best." However, an added benefit is that we can truly take things slowly and explore each other in ways that two free people don't often experience nowadays. We write emails daily. And these are important. We vent. And listen. We continue to build, whereas many free people stop building at consummation. 

But these are the realities rarely captured in media portrayals of romantic relationships between free world and incarcerated partners. Conjugals on TV are so disconnected from what it's actually like to be in a romantic relationship with an incarcerated person: Trying to schedule my life around precious 15 minute phone calls, paying 25 cents to send emails monitored by correctional officers, finding ways to symbolically include Steve in my life, like leaving open the seat next to me at the movies. Instead, television shows depict implausible scenarios of nefarious rendezvous that often parrot law enforcement lies. When they do so, they undermine the public's ability to conceptualize that love and commitment fuel relationships like ours. 

Although contraband typically enters prisons through staff , not visitors , television shows often present conjugal visits as a cover for smuggling, like in the earliest TV plot I could find involving a conjugal visit, from a 1986 Miami Vice episode. After his girlfriend is killed, Tubbs gets depressed enough to agree to go undercover at a state prison to bust some guards selling cocaine. In his briefing on the issue, Tubbs asks how the drugs are getting into the prison. Conjugal visits and family visits are the first two methods named by the prison commissioner, never mind that I have yet to find any evidence that Florida ever allowed those kinds of visits. 

Often, the excuse for policing visits so strictly is that drugs can be exchanged. But I know that lie is used for every type of control in prison. For over a year we had NO CONTACT visits because of the pandemic. During that time, dozens of inmates [at my facility] still overdosed and had drug-related episodes that caused them to need medical attention. Those drugs certainly didn't arrive through visits. They strip search and X-ray me going to and from visits anyway.

Everything in prison now is on camera. When a drug overdose occurs, the investigators track back over footage from visiting room cameras. One officer told me that while they were investigating drugs allegedly passing through the visiting room, they saw a guy covertly fingering his wife. This has happened on more than one occasion, but most guards will have enough of a heart not to bother with violations for some covert touching that wasn't caught until the camera review. Most. Sometimes, a rare asshole will just have to assert his power and write a CDV (conduct violation).

Write-ups or CDVs are given by staff at their discretion. The threat of solitary confinement is always looming in prison. It's another clever way of withholding physical interactions with other human beings as a form of torture. Solitary confinement for anywhere from 10 days to three months is a favorite punishment for "[nonviolent] sexual misconduct. " 

There's also a persistent media narrative that prison systems offer conjugal visit programs out of genuine concern for human welfare. A brief glance at the origins of conjugal visits in the U.S. prison system quickly disproves that theory, showing that conjugal visit programs were conceived as a tool of exploitation and social control. 

Conjugal visits originated in Mississippi at the infamous prison plantation, Mississippi State Penitentiary, or Parchman Farm. Mississippi state officials opened Parchman in the early 1900s, writes historian David Oshinsky in his book Worse than Slavery: Parchman Farm and the Ordeal of Jim Crow Justice, in order to ensnare free Black people into forced labor. Mississippi, like other Southern states during Reconstruction, passed "Black Codes" that assigned harsh criminal penalties to minor "offenses" such as vagrancy, loitering, living with white people, and not carrying proof of employment—behaviors that were not considered criminal when done by white people. Using the crime loophole in the relatively new 13th Amendment, Mississippi charged thousands of Black people with crimes and forced them to work on the state's plantation. 

Parchman officials started offering sex to Black prisoners as a productivity incentive, "because prison officials wanted as much work as possible from their Negro convicts, whom they believed to have greater sexual needs than whites," Oshinsky writes.

"I never saw it, but I heard tell of truckloads of whores bein' sent up from Cleveland at dusk," said a Parchman prison official quoted by Oshinsky. "The cons who had a good day got to get 'em right there between the rows. In my day, we got civilized—put 'em up in little houses and told everybody that them whores was wives. That kept the Baptists off our backs." 

A certain kind of sexual morality has been instilled in the minds of many people with conservative religious upbringings. They naturally force this morality on people they consider children. That is how many guards see prisoners: as children.

Many states did not begin to join Mississippi in offering conjugal visits until much later in the century, when conservative governors like California's Ronald Reagan would determine in 1968 that allowing some married men to have sex with their wives was the best way to reduce " instances of homosexuality " in prisons. 

Abolitionists who wrote the book Queer (In)Justice , consider how concerned prison administrations have historically been and continue to be about queer sex in prisons. The book exposes both the deep fear of the liberatory potential of queer sexuality, and a broader reality that prisons are inherently queer places since prisons' "denial of sexual intimacy and agency is a quintessential queer experience." 

Beyond behavioral control, the rules that determine conjugal visit eligibility are always also about enforcing criminality, since the state decides what kind of charges render someone ineligible to wed or to have an extended visit. Even in the four states that allow these visits, most people with "violent" charges are only allowed to hold their lover's hand and briefly embrace at the beginning and end of visits.

We don't even have enough privacy to masturbate. 

I can be written up if anyone sees my dick, especially in the act of masturbation. I could face solitary confinement, loss of job, visits, religious programs, treatment classes, recreation, canteen spend, and school for getting written up. Conversely, I can be strip-searched at any given time and be forced to show everything.  

Living in this fishbowl has taught me there is no hiding. Too many bored eyes in the same small area to miss anything. Guards may come knocking on the door at any moment. My cellmate is often inches away from me, and it takes coordination to manage time away from each other because we eat, sleep, go to yard, and do just about everything on the same schedule. 

I choose to skip a meal occasionally and embrace the hunger, because it is much less painful than persistent relentless desire. After years of self-release in showers, in a room with snoring cellmates, or as quickly as possible when a brief moment of privacy occurs, my sex drive is all shook up. Current turn-ons could be said to include faucets running and/or snoring men.

Ultimately, this article is not about the right to conjugal visits. It's about the ways that punitive isolation and deprivation of loving physical contact have always been tactics of the U.S. prison system. 

Regardless of the quality of the representations, the prevalence of conjugal visits in movies and TV allows people to avoid thinking too hard about what it's like to be deprived of your sexual autonomy, maybe the rest of your life.

I have been locked up since I was 18, and I am 47 now. To be horny in prison for decades is painful. To the body and soul. 

There is justice as well as pleasure at stake here, and the difference between the two is slight. 

People who love someone in prison live shorter and harder lives. That we do it anyway shows the significance, centrality, and life-affirming nature of intimate relationships to those on both sides of the wall. Maybe it even points to the abolitionist power of romantic and sexual love between incarcerated and "free" people.

So, I guess we start with that thought and work from there to find a way to tear down the system.

what's conjugal visits

As part of Scalawag's 3rd annual Abolition Week,  pop justice  is exclusively featuring perspectives from currently and formerly incarcerated folks and systems-impacted folks.

More in pop justice:.

Hell and High Water: From Gaza to Mississippi

Hell and High Water: From Gaza to Mississippi

'It's not a story—it's a life:' A look at Snapped, from the inside

'It's not a story—it's a life:' A look at Snapped, from the inside

Come on Barbie, give us nothing!

Come on Barbie, give us nothing!

Barbie: Pretty Police

Barbie: Pretty Police

Related stories:, steve higginbotham & jordana rosenfeld.

Steve Higginbotham is a writer who spent many years narrating and transcribing materials into braille for the Missouri Center for Braille & Narration Production . He is serving a death by incarceration sentence in Jefferson City, Missouri. Jordana Rosenfeld is a journalist in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. More of her work can be found at jordanarosenfeld.com .

what's conjugal visits

MyLawQuestions

  • Join Newsletter

Our Promise to you

Founded in 2002, our company has been a trusted resource for readers seeking informative and engaging content. Our dedication to quality remains unwavering—and will never change. We follow a strict editorial policy , ensuring that our content is authored by highly qualified professionals and edited by subject matter experts. This guarantees that everything we publish is objective, accurate, and trustworthy.

Over the years, we've refined our approach to cover a wide range of topics, providing readers with reliable and practical advice to enhance their knowledge and skills. That's why millions of readers turn to us each year. Join us in celebrating the joy of learning, guided by standards you can trust.

What is a Conjugal Visit?

Patrick Wensink

The bonds of a family can be severely tested when a member is incarcerated. Many prisons offer a conjugal visit program to help preserve a family's connection and to act as motivation for the prisoner. The visits differ by country, but all provide a private place for families to gather for up to several days without supervision. There are rules both the prisoner and the visitor must follow to be awarded a conjugal visit.

One of the more common views of a conjugal visit's purpose is that it is only for sex between spouses. Intercourse can be part of a conjugal visit, but for most prisons, it is not the biggest reason for its existence. The actual makeup of conjugal visitation differs from country to country, but it generally allows for family members to visit with the prisoner in private, without any barriers between them, much like if they were at home. During these visits, spouses and children are allowed to visit, with the intent of helping the family deal with the stress of incarceration by allowing them to function almost as normal for a few hours or, in some countries, for as long as three days.

what's conjugal visits

The family incentive of conjugal visits isn't the only benefit that prisons receive from these private sessions. The visits act as a reward for good behavior and are not seen as a right of the prisoner. In many cases, the prisoner must not have had any violations during a period of time before the visit. If that person has broken the rules, he or she can be denied spending private time with family members. Many prisons find this to be helpful in controlling the prisoner population.

what's conjugal visits

Conjugal prison visits rarely happen within the walls of the actual prison, but none occur offsite, either. Most prisons offer a special place that allows the prisoner and his family to relax and have some privacy. Many prisons offer a cabin or trailer for visits, and some, such as prisons in France, offer an on-site apartment.

The prisoners must have a clean conduct record, but in most cases, the visitors also must pass several standards. The most common test is a background check, because most people with a questionable legal record will not be permitted inside the prison. In many countries, individuals must pass a sexually transmitted disease test before a conjugal visit, in order to prevent the outbreak of certain diseases inside the prison.

Patrick Wensink

Editors' Picks

What Is a Photo Disclaimer?

Related Articles

  • What Are the Restriction on Last Meal?
  • What are Conjugal Rights?

Do I Have to Tell My Landlord I Have an Emotional Support Animal (ESA)?

Our latest articles, guides, and more, delivered daily.

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

An illustration shows a person using a flashlight to shine light on a security camera. Buildings and additional security cameras are featured in the background.

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.

e

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.

conjugal visits in prison love in new york correctional facility john j lennon

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.

e

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.

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.”

e

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.

This article appeared in the Winter 2022/23 issue of Esquire subscribe

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.

e

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.

e

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.

e

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.

e

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.

preview for Esquire Politics Playlist

Esquire Select Exclusives

a blurry image of a person

I Am Falling Apart

a gold and silver pen

The Bullet in My Mother’s Head

I Gave Myself a Month to Make One New Friend

a red and white circular object with gold text on it

How to Talk Like a Man

the cousin i never knew

The Cousin I Never Knew

larry bird shooting free throw

When My Father Talked About Larry Bird

a person holding a couple of boys

Who Gets to Be a Father Figure?

kings of hollywood

The Lost Art of Buying a Round for the Bar

wellness

I Am a Wellness Asshole Now

a large colorful sculpture

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

a person with the arm around a person playing drums

Inside the Savage Sport of Slap Fighting

a basketball on a wall

The Day I Finally Threw My First Punch

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?

An illustration of a bedroom with a prison guard tower through the window

“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.”

JSTOR Daily Membership Ad

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.

An illustration from Volume 3, Issue 4 of The Bridge, 1963

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.

Sad young woman and her husband sitting in prison visiting room.

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 logo

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.

"I Voted" stickers

  • Voting in American Politics: A Syllabus

A man in drag and a man in male clothes looking into each others' eyes. Photographic postcard.

  • Preserving History at the Digital Transgender Archive with Portico

Brigadier General Smedley Butler, 1927.

Genesis of the Modern American Right

No. 27 - Kakegawa: Akibayama Fork, from the series The Tôkaidô Road - The Fifty-three Stations, also known as the Reisho Tôkaidô, between 1847 and 1852

How a Rice Economy Toppled the Shogun

Recent posts.

  • Surrealism at 100: A Reading List
  • Snowball Earth
  • How Pentecostalism Shaped Rock ’n’ Roll

Support JSTOR Daily

Sign up for our weekly newsletter.

  • 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

Monthly Publication of the Evidence-Based Professionals Society

Evidence-Based Professionals' Monthly - August 2024

Evidence-based professionals' monthly - september 2024.

Monthly Publication of the Evidence-Based Professionals Society

Evidence-Based Professionals' Monthly - July 2024

Monthly Publication of the Evidence-Based Professionals Society

Evidence-Based Professionals' Monthly - June 2024

Monthly Publication of the Evidence-Based Professionals Society

Evidence-Based Professionals' Monthly - May 2024

EBP Quarterly

Understanding the Criminal Pathways of Victimized Youth

EBP Quarterly

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

EBP Quarterly

Breaking the Cycle of Absenteeism: Strategies for Prevention

Monthly Publication of the Evidence-Based Professionals Society

Evidence-Based Professionals' Monthly - March 2024

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?

what's conjugal visits

How (Not) to Get Rid of a Body

what's conjugal visits

See the outlandish lengths that killers go to dispose of their victims.

Trending on ID

Evil lives here, homicide hunter: lt. joe kenda, married to evil, the real murders on elm street, see no evil, on the case with paula zahn, deadly places, murder comes to town, murder in the wicked west, cabin in the woods, dark waters: murder in the deep, murder in amish country, home sweet homicide, murder in the heartland, love gone wrong, fatal affairs, primal instinct, bride killa, i married a mobster, seduced to slay, til death do us part, twisted love, popular id episodes.

S1 E1 Killer in the Walls

S16 E3 They Stole My Childhood

S1 E1 Cemented in Fear

S2 E3 Deadly Delivery

S1 E1 Something About Robbie

S2 E2 Home Is Where the Nightmare Is

S16 E2 Our Little Sister, the Monster

Two Shallow Graves

S1 E7 Stay Out of Dodge

S1 E1 Utah’s Lion King

Deadline: Crime with Tamron Hall

S5 E6 Code of Silence

Continue Watching

My episodes, link your tv provider to unlock thousands of episodes from the discovery family of networks..

Network availability may vary with your TV package.

Company Logo

Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

For california, colorado, connecticut, oregon, texas, utah and virginia residents only, allow sale, sharing or use of my personal information for targeted advertising.

If you switch this toggle to “no,” we will not sell or share your personal information with third parties for advertising targeted to this browser/device. Please see our Privacy Center for additional preferences.

Global Privacy Control (GPC)

When a GPC signal is not detected, we sell and share your personal information unless you toggle to “no” above.

Cookie List

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

' src=

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.)

' src=

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

9 Arresting Facts About Conjugal Visits

iStock

They're not nearly as common as pop culture might lead you to believe.

1. ONLY FOUR STATES STILL ALLOW CONJUGAL VISITS.

In the United States, conjugal visits occur only in state prisons, not federal prisons. In the early 1990s, 17 states had active conjugal visit programs. As of 2015, though, California, New York, Connecticut, and Washington are the only states that still allow conjugal visits . Two other states that recently had conjugal visit policies in place— Mississippi and New Mexico—stopped allowing the visits as of February 1, 2014 and May 1, 2014, respectively.

2. THE PHRASE "CONJUGAL VISIT" IS ACTUALLY A MISNOMER.

Today, conjugal visits are called extended family visits (or, alternately, family reunion visits). The official reason for these extended family visits is three-fold: to maintain a connection between the prisoner and his family, to reduce recidivism , and to provide an incentive for good behavior. States no longer use the phrase “conjugal visit” to emphasize the program’s inclusion of all family members, rather than just the prisoner’s spouse/partner.

3. LIKE HOTELS, PRISONS THAT FACILITATE EXTENDED FAMILY VISITS PROVIDE TOILETRIES FOR THEIR GUESTS.

In the United States, prisons have special facilities (cabins, trailers, or apartment-style housing) dedicated just to extended family visits. Some prisons provide towels, sheets, toiletries, condoms, and lube to their inmates. Other prisons provide two-bedroom apartments with a living and dining room, DVD player, TV, and games like Jenga and dominoes. Depending on the state and the specific prison’s rules, visitors may be allowed to bring groceries and prepared food to the visit.

4. BOTH PRISONERS & THEIR VISITORS MUST FULFILL CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS TO GET PERMISSION FOR A VISIT.

The specific rules pertaining to extended family visits vary from state to state. Most visits in California, Connecticut, New York, and Washington occur only in minimum to medium security prisons, and inmates must have a record of good behavior and a record of clean health. A spouse who visits their husband/wife inmate must pass a background check, body search, and be registered with the prison’s visitor list.

5. CONJUGAL VISITS ORIGINATED IN MISSISSIPPI NEARLY 100 YEARS AGO.

In 1918, the first conjugal visits occurred at a labor camp called Parchman Farm (also called Mississippi State Penitentiary). The warden, James Parchman, wanted to encourage the African-American male prisoners to work harder, so he paid prostitutes to come and have sex with the inmates each Sunday. In the 1930s, Parchman Farm began letting white male prisoners engage in this program, and female inmates were invited to participate in 1972.

6. PRISONERS IN INDIA HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT, NOT PRIVILEGE, TO BEAR CHILDREN.

In 2015, India’s government passed legislation stating that conjugal visits are a right , not a privilege, for married inmates. These inmates are also entitled, if they wish, to give their sperm to their spouse for artificial insemination. Interestingly, in 2014, prison officials in New Mexico cited the birth of children to fathers who were incarcerated as a big contributing factor (besides economic reasons) to end conjugal visits in the state.

7. PRISONS IN SAUDI ARABIA ARE SURPRISINGLY (ABSURDLY!) LIBERAL, LAX, & GENEROUS.

In Saudi Arabia, male inmates can have one conjugal visit each month. But that rule applies to each spouse, so men with multiple wives can have multiple visits each month! The Saudi government helps inmates’ families with money each month for housing, food, and education, and the government also pays for the travel (airfare and hotel) expenses that inmates’ family members incur to visit the prison. And, if the prisoner wants to attend a family wedding or funeral, he's given up to $2600 to give as a gift . The Washington Post reported that the Saudi government spent $35 million on these prisoner perks in 2014.

8. IN 2010, A GERMAN PRISONER USED HIS UNSUPERVISED CONJUGAL VISIT TO MURDER HIS VISITOR.

In April 2010, a 50-year-old inmate killed his 46-year-old girlfriend during a conjugal visit in a German prison. After sending him letters in prison, she became his girlfriend and participated regularly in six-hour unsupervised visits with him. The inmate, Klaus-Dieter H., had been imprisoned for nearly two decades for the rape and murder of a child. Unfortunately, he stabbed his girlfriend with a steak knife and strangled her during one of those visits. Because this incident came on the heels of a few other instances of slack security at German prisons (including prisoner beatings and escapes), many outraged Germans criticized prison authorities and the justice minister, Roswitha Müller-Piepenkötter. Ultimately, German prisons beefed up security and implemented stricter rules for conjugal visits, increasing the restrictions on which prisoners are allowed to have the visits.

9. BRAZIL'S CONJUGAL VISIT POLICY IS QUITE SEXIST.

In Brazil, both straight and gay male inmates can receive visitors , but female inmates rarely get the privilege of participating in conjugal visits. Unfortunately, discriminatory policies are probably the least of the female inmates’ worries: Brazil’s prison cells are overcrowded, filthy, unsanitary, and dangerous. Women in prison who are pregnant do not have access to medical care, and many female inmates are confined to isolation units without cause.

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.

what's 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?

Dopplr Legal News and Information

How Pain and Suffering is Calculated in Personal I...

what's conjugal visits

If someone experiences a personal injury due to the negligence or intentional actions of another party, the legal system allows...

Can I File for Divorce If I’m Pregnant?

For some couples, pregnancy can add uncertainty about the future of their relationship. Considering divorce when pregnant is a...

Whistleblower Protections

Whistleblowers play a crucial role in exposing wrongdoing in organizations and government entities. While whistleblowers are...

Copyright © Dopplr Legal News and Information . 2024 • All rights reserved.

  • legal questions
  • 11 Min Read
  • 15th April 2016

Conjugal Visits: Rules and History

dopplr

The phrase is well known in popular culture – conjugal visits means private alone time with a significant other while in prison. We all understand the connotation of conjugal visits, but allow me to spell it out. Yes, inmates are permitted to engage in sexual relations with their spouse during conjugal visits . However, many times these visitations are not used for intimacy at all. A lot of prisoners who earn this right choose to have family members come to see them, in an effort to remain close with those who matter most. In New York, 52 percent of these visits did not involve spouses.

Where Are Conjugal Visits Allowed?

States That Allow Conjugal Visits

States That Allow Conjugal Visits

As recently as 1995, 17 states had conjugal visit programs, although federal prisons never allowed it.

Today, only four states still allow conjugal visits:  California, Connecticut, New York and Washington. 

New Mexico and Mississippi cancelled their programs within the past two years.

How Did the Conjugal Visit Program Start?

Origin of Conjugal Visits

Parchman Farm

The very first prison to allow conjugal visits was  Parchman Farm (now  Mississippi State Penitentiary ).  Parchman farm began as a labor prison camp for black men in Mississippi which was a blatant attempt to keep slavery alive 50 years after the end of the Civil War.

Prison authorities believed that if black men were allowed to have sexual intercourse, they would be more productive. 

They also believed that black men had stronger sex drives. Therefore, every weekend, women would be driven in by the bus load to fraternize with the prisoners. There was no state control or legal status, the visits were simply thought to encourage surviving a six day work week of harsh labor and conditions, not to mention racist guards.

Over the years, conjugal visits evolved to spending more time with family. Even the aforementioned Parchman Farm had cleaned up the act by the 1960s; visits were sanctioned, furlough programs had begun, and cabins were built so inmates could spend time alone with their significant other. The prison would even provide toys for the family.

Following their model, conjugal visit programs saw a steady and fast rise in use. It was touted as a model of rehabilitation after a reporter paid a visit to Parchman Farm and declared it, “the wave of the future.”

Conjugal Visit Rules

Good behavior is an obvious requirement for earning family and conjugal visitation rights, but there’s a bit more to it than that. For the most part, the rules surrounding family visits are the same; they must be in medium security or lower prisons, and they must not have been convicted of sexual assault . However, each state has their own protocol for selecting which inmates have earned the privilege of family visitation:

  • Connecticut : Inmates cannot be level 4 or above in close custody (levels are on a scale of 1-5 and refers to how much they are monitored by guards on a day-to-day basis). They cannot be a member of a gang, be on restrictive status, or class A or class B disciplinary offenses within the past 12 months prior to requesting involvement. The spouse cannot come alone ; other eligible family members must participate.
  • New York : This state and California are the only ones that allow visitation for same-sex couples. Proof of marriage must also exist. Here are the guidelines for New York’s Extended Family Visit Program .
  • California : Inmates and visiting family members are subject to a search every four hours . See: California Extended Family Visit guidelines. 
  • Washington : There are a long list of requirements that inmates and visitors alike must meet before being allowed to participate in the visitation program. There are a slew of disallowed crimes, along with minimum time served, active participation in a reentry program, and housing status rules to qualify. If there are two family members in the same prison, joint visits can be arranged pending approval.

The length of the visit varies from six hours to an entire weekend, which is determined by the supervisor of the prison on a case by case basis. And just as there are eligibility requirements for prisoners, the same can be said for those who wish to visit them. Apart from the verification of the relationship, visitors must also be free of crime.

  • If a family member other than a spouse, such as brother or sister, wishes to visit, it will be scrutinized closely.
  • If a child is participating, a birth certificate showing that the inmate is their biological father is required.
  • If the inmate is a step-father, he must have been present during the child’s formative years (ages 7-12). There must also be consent from the child’s legal guardian.
  • The visitor cannot be on parole, or subject to criminal drug charges.

On top of these requirements is a good deal of paperwork which needs to be filled out. With all of the supervision and background checks, it would be extremely difficult for anything sinister to happen. To inmates and their family, visitation is purely about spending time with the one’s they love. So why are so many states stopping it?

Why Have Visitation Programs Been Discontinued?

As previously stated, there were 17 states with visitation programs 20 short years ago; today there are only four. The reasons for this have varied slightly, one of which being public opinion. People just don’t think criminals should have access to anything, much less time with family members. Some even get upset when they learn inmates have access to health care . Most of these people probably fail to realize that those convicted of violent crimes are not allowed to participate in family visitation programs.

Another reason is claims of contraband being snuck in and babies being conceived during these visits. But no numbers are given to back up these claims, and they appear unfounded at best as a result. The Corrections Commissioner for Mississippi even stated that they provide inmates with contraception during their visits. While there are no numbers to back up these claims, they try to use others to convince everyone that it’s too expensive.

The main reason widely given is budget cuts. That was the fallback for Mississippi and New Mexico when they cancelled their programs. In New Mexico, the program cost $120,000 a year . Their 2016 budget totals $6.2 billion . The cost of keeping the program active amounts to less than one-five hundredth of one percent of the state budget. The median household income in New Mexico is $43,782, which means that, divided evenly amongst the average taxpayer, everyone would only contribute about two cents each to a family visitation program. Yet somehow, the benefits don’t outweigh the cost.

Why Should Visitation Programs Continue?

At a rate of approximately $32,000 per year for each inmate, it’s been well documented how much it costs to keep someone in prison. Overcrowding is also a huge problem, which has many causes. But where family visitation comes into the picture is its documented ability to reduce recidivism, which show that 76 percent of those released from state prisons are arrested again within five years. Initial studies have found that visitation programs are responsible for lowering parole violations by 25 percent , but it could be higher than that according to an older study, which suggests recidivism was decreased by 67 percent because of visitation programs.

Conjugal and family visits also reduce occurrences of sexual violence in prisons by 75 percent .

This is a number too large to ignore, because the snowball effect here is that it also drastically lowers the rate of sexually transmitted diseases between prisoners. Then there is evidence that is hard to quantify. Prison guards have stated that prisoners who have access to visitation are generally happier, and are encouraged to keep up their good behavior in order to keep earning visitation privileges, or perhaps even early release. This is why prisons in the four states that still allow it have changed the name from “conjugal visits” to “family visits.” There is more to it than just intimacy; there is connection that these families are trying to maintain. If the prisoner is able to interact with the person or people for whom he will be responsible upon release, it will only motivate them to work harder to never put them through it again.

Phavy

Lifers in state of California eligible for conjugal visits as well? due gov. Jerry brown recent signed off?

Claudia

To Phavy do we know what disqualifies a lifer from getting conjugal visits besides being a sex offender and/or domestic violence. I have my husband in a state prison in CA and he has been in prison for 20 years but we needed to find out what qualifies him or disqualifies him from getting visits. Please advise, thank you in advance

The program is allowed for those who have a release date. Unfortunately it is not available for inmates serving life sentences.

Janey

If the offender has two non-sexual violent felony strikes in Ca but he has a release date and the visitor was a co defendant on an old case, can the offender get conjugal visits with the visitor if they get married?

Christiane

Very great article! As much as I advocate conjugal visitation, early justifications are shocking to me. I still hope that in future, the trend will go back to the use of extended visits in more than just 4 states. It also does not appear too expensive, particular since some prisons even charge visitors a fee per night.

Saprina

Do lifers get conjugal visits if they are in prison for non violence on woman???

It would depend on where they are sentenced and what exactly the offense is, along with how they have conducted themselves while in prison.

Tina

I pray they go back to the old way,, but with different intentions I have a question my husband was convicted of corporal punishment on a spouse does he qualify for conjugal visit yes he has a release date

Amber

Is there any way a state like FL could reconsider “family visits” I mean my boys miss their father and he was only sentenced 10 years. I was thinking of a petition but I doubt people will view it how you and I do. Just being able to watch a movie together and hang out like we use to would mean so much I can wait for sex but the joy it brings to my boys is much more fulfilling. I mean it’s so backed up in FL they could be making more money if they charged family visits.

Marilyn Wiggins

Marilyn Wiggins

Amber I will sign a petition if it’s started. The sanctity of family is important.

karen lea pollard-mills

karen lea pollard-mills

I WOULD SIGN A PETITION ALSO! LETS START ONE NATIONWIDE! NOT JUST FOR EACH STATE!

Ashley

I believe this would be great. Even if there was a price tag many people would pay it. That would help lower the cost of prisons.

Emily

Does anyone know what prisons in New York allow conjugal visits?

In the post, there is a link to the guidelines for New York’s Extended family visit program. Click it to see all the guidelines and how to apply for them. Good luck.

Leslie L Miller

Leslie L Miller

My husband is serving life without! He was convicted at 19, you know they are taking every form of human contact away from human beings and expecting them to just lay down be good and wither away slowly! Why? My husband is now 37, he is not the same person he was , we have been married 12 years together 15, never consummated our marriage! To some of us it’s a religious right if only one time! Changes need to be made in our system! It’s broken if we don’t rethink alot of things all we are going to create is detached MONSTERS, with no concept of real feelings or emotions!

Suz

I couldn’t agree more! The love of my life is serving life w/o parole and was 19 also. He’s served 15 years now and has changed, grown up and matured. Have you read about the science that states teens are not fully matured until their mid 20’s and should not be given life w/o parole at such a young age? 11 men were released on this science and more states need to follow suit and parole those who have changed and matured and will not repeat their mistakes! They deserve a 2nd chance. There is a video on this called second chance kids also! Good Luck with your husband!

Jacquelyne Garza

Jacquelyne Garza

What year where the conjugal visits taken away in California, I think it was 1994 or 1995 or 1996 which one was it ??? Please tell me.

GP

The article plainly states that CA is one of the remaining states allowing such visitation. I’ve also seen them taking place on MSNBC’s Lock Up.

bob

Will inmates who have prior rules violations for drug smuggling into the prison be permitted conjugal visits?

candi

does anyone know the list of things you can take into your conjugal visit?

C.J.

Go to the prison website

Mahlia

So inmates who have life without the possibility of parole can’t have conjugal visits at all? My guy has been transferred to a level 3 prison now. Does that mean anything?

lizy vicent

lizy vicent

I believe anybody that owns 100% of your heart is worth fighting for. Yes, I am boasting because I never adhered to some negative advice from my parents when I was about getting married. There was a war between our two family then my husband was his mothers puppy, his family members used him a lot that he cant make any decision without consulting them. What surprised me most was the moment a 36-year-old man seeks his parent and some family members consent before dating anyone, the worst happened when he was instructed to bring me along to their country home in Rampart, New Orleans, it was risky to accept such invitation.The war between our families started when he finally proposed (that was about 4 years ago), his family gave some conditions if he must wife me (we have to live with them), I was in shock when my husband accepted and was happy with their conditions (so crazy). My family wagged and demanded I should breakup with him immediately.I decided to give him the last shot as a man whom has already taken over 100% of my heart, I took a risk to go spiritual with them by consulting Priest Udene via [email protected] , I dont know how but the spiritual father already knew I was going to consult him. He first of all told me the danger I was into and how my husband has been enslaved since birth, how they keep brain washing him to do their wills.Like the quote that says a person sees clearly only with the heart, I realized that nobody saw what I saw in my husband and thats why I used the help of PRIEST UDENE to put him out of his misery. His eyes where opened by PRIEST UDENE for the first time, his family fell in love with me and granted every of our request, our families have known peace since after the love spell.It is over 2 years after the love spell and my husband has continued to improve every day without interference from his family. I have waited too long to share this amazing piece. Thanks for your time and also to PRIEST UDENE. I knew him through reading some amazing testimonies on blogs.

Tracey Duffy

Tracey Duffy

Are the visits during the weekend or weekdays, usually?

Patricia Monteiro

Patricia Monteiro

Me and my fuance plan to marry soon. He is serving a 15 to life sentence and has been in nearly 4 years now. He does not have a release date. He is single celled in a level 4 prison. He has a history of violence. Will he be eligible for conjucal visits upon marriage ?

Kat

does patton state hospital allow family visits?

mariah clifton

mariah clifton

hi…me and boyfriend are trying to get married in the california state prison but he has a prior domestic abuse charge on him from years ago with his babymomma does that stop us from conjugal visits once we are married?

jackie larbi

jackie larbi

Thank god that we do not allow this to happen in are prisons.

Cancel Reply

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.

Current ye@r *

Leave this field empty

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

U.S. flag

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.

       

  • Login or Sign up

Study Argues that Conjugal Visits Can Reduce Number of Prison Rapes

Researchers at Florida International University contend that states where sexual intercourse between prisoners and their visiting spouses is allowed have fewer rapes and sexual assaults than states where conjugal visits are prohibited, El controversial finding that disputes the theory that sexual offenses are solely crimes of power rather than a means asexual release.

"Our findings propel the idea that sexual violence can be attenuated given appropriate policy initiatives." according to the January 2012 report. "The Effect of Conjugal Visitation on Sexual Violence in Prison." from FlU researchers Stewart D'Alessio, Jamie Flexon and Lisa Stolzenhem,

The FIU study was conducted over a three-year period. from 2004 to 2006, in the states that allowed prisoners conjugal visits at the lime: California, Mississippi, New Mexico, New York and Washington. While sexual violence occurred in states that prohibit conjugal visits at a rate of 226 per 100,000 prisoners, it occurred nearly five times less frequently in the live stales that allow conjugal visits – 57 per 100.000 prisoners.

Thus "inmate-on-inmate sexual offending is much less pronounced in states that allow conjugal visitation." according to the FIU studs.

According to a report from the federal Office Justice Programs, more than 60.000 prisoners nationwide (4.5% of all state and federal prisoners) were sexually victimized in 2007. In some states' prisons, the number of victims of sexual assault that year approached or exceeded 20%. A Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) national survey published in August 2010 estimated that approximately 88.500 then-incarcerated adults had been sexually victimized while in prison or jail.

The effect of conjugal visits in reducing sexual assaults in prison should force more states to consider allowing conjugal visits, according to researchers. Conjugal visits have other positive effects. the study said, They help improve, for instance, the functioning of marriages by maintaining a prisoner's) role as husband or wife improve (he (prisoner's) behavior while incarcerated, counter the effects of prisonization, and improve post-release success by enhancing the (prisoner's) ability to maintain ties with his or her family."

"Additionally," the study said, "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."

Researchers volunteered that their study had certain limitations especially that "instances of sexual offending" in prison are underreported and. therefore, there certainly could have been more cases of sexual victimization in states that allow conjugal visits than their data concluded.

Nevertheless. the findings have her policy implications, according to the study programs, researchers argue, "should he geared to view sexual offending as a sex crime instead of solely as a crime of power." Such programming, the study says, could reduce recidivism.

"The harm caused by rape and other forms of sexual violence," researchers concluded, "reverberate through our lives, homes and communities. Additional policy initiatives directed at extinguishing sexual violence, which appears to the undertaken by (prisoners) to satisfy their sexual urges need to be identified."

Source: Florida International University. Department of Criminal Justice: "The Effect of Conjugal Visitation on Sexual Violence in Prison," American Journal of Criminal Misfire, February 2012.

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 these topics:

  • The 153 Exonerations in 2023 Include 19 Resulting From Threats or Sentences of Death , July 15, 2024. Statistics/Trends , Wrongful Conviction .
  • Decoding Recidivism: Unraveling Its Complex Metrics and Real Impact , July 1, 2024. Statistics/Trends .
  • Federal Sentencing Guidelines Place Heavy Burden on Incarcerated Victims of Sexual Assaults , July 1, 2024. Staff-Prisoner Assault , U.S. Sentencing Guidelines , Prison Rape Elimination Act .
  • Report Finds Inaccurate Field Drug Tests Major Cause of Wrongful Convictions , June 15, 2024. Drug Testing , Statistics/Trends , Databases , Wrongful Conviction , False Arrest .
  • Push Notifications Pull to the Forefront , June 15, 2024. Statistics/Trends , Police State-Surveillance , Electronic Surveillance .
  • Executions Rise in 2023, Number on Death Row Falls , June 1, 2024. Criminal Prosecution , Statistics/Trends , Death Penalty , Death Row .
  • Dixie Prison Growth Drives Number of Incarcerated Americans Above 2 Million Once Again , June 1, 2024. Statistics/Trends .
  • U.N. Panel Finds Rampant Racism in U.S. Criminal Justice System , June 1, 2024. Racial Discrimination , Commentary/Reviews , Crime/Demographics , Criminal Prosecution , Statistics/Trends .
  • New Data From BOP Reveals Technical Violations Account for Nearly a Third of First Step Act Recidivism , May 15, 2024. Crime , Statistics/Trends , First Step Act , Probation, Parole & Supervised Release , Revocation Proceedings .
  • Criminal Justice Reform Becoming a Corporate Priority , May 15, 2024. Work , Inability to Work , Statistics/Trends .

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.

what's conjugal visits

  • 97.7/97.3 The Wolf App
  • Wakin' Up with CJ and Jess
  • How to Tune in to The Wolf
  • Wolf Den of Heroes
  • Hometown of the Week
  • Concert Calendar

The Wolf

New York is 1 of 4 States That Still Allows Conjugal Visits

  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Twitter

Sometimes while scrolling on the interwebs, you come across information that makes you go "Hum, the more you know I guess."

That's exactly how we got to where we are in this moment. While researching for a completely different story I came across a website called CriminalDefenseLawyer.com and found interesting facts about prisons in New York State.

One, in particular, caught my eye. Did you know that there are only 4 states in the US that still allow Conjugal Visits? One of those states is...you guessed it, New York. The other 3 are California, Connecticut, and Washington.

What is a Conjugal Visit?

According to CriminalDefenseLawyer.com a Conjugal Visit is defined as:

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.

The website goes on to explain that back in 1993 there were 17 states that allowed conjugal visits, but in time that number has obviously dwindled.

Conjugal Visit Gets an Update

Conjugal Visits, due to how it is portrayed on television and in the movies, generally has a sexual connotation. However, its main goal is to reunite families in a home-like setting for well-behaved inmates. Now, in New York State, conjugal visits are known as the Family Reunion Program. The New York State DOC explains:

The Family Reunion Program (FRP) provides approved incarcerated individuals and their families the opportunity to meet for a designated period of time in a private home-like setting. The goals of the program include:
Preserving and strengthening family ties that have been disrupted as a result of incarceration.
Fostering positive and responsible conduct.
Facilitating post-release reintegration into the family and community, thereby reducing the likelihood of recidivism.

You can learn more about the Family Reunion Program and what Hudson Valley prisons it's offered in at DOCS.NY.GOV.

5 Hilarious Reviews Of Jails In New York

Want a sandwich in the slammer middletown has a jail-themed haunted restaurant, what do you need to visit an inmate at the dutchess county jail, more from 97.7/97.3 the wolf.

Hudson Valley Town Mention in New Riley Sager Thriller

what's conjugal visits

  • Asia - Pacific
  • Middle East - Africa
  • Apologetics
  • Benedict XVI
  • Catholic Links
  • Church Fathers
  • Life & Family
  • Liturgical Calendar
  • Pope Francis
  • CNA Newsletter
  • Editors Service About Us Advertise Privacy

CNA

What has the Catholic Church said about Medjugorje? A timeline

Medjugorje Credit miropink Shutterstock CNA

By Hannah Brockhaus

Rome Newsroom, Sep 18, 2024 / 12:50 pm

After more than four decades of investigation into alleged Marian apparitions at Medjugorje in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the head of the Vatican’s doctrine office will hold a press conference Thursday about the “spiritual experience” at the Marian site, the Vatican said.

The alleged visions of the Blessed Virgin Mary in Medjugorje occurred to six children starting on June 24, 1981, originally on a hilltop near the town.

Since they began, the alleged events and messages from Mary have been a source of controversy and division, as fame of the phenomena spread despite declarations from local bishops and Vatican authorities that there was no confirmation of their authenticity.

Devotees continued to flock to the area, however, even while Church-organized pilgrimages were banned. They were later allowed after a papal envoy found evidence of spiritual fruits for those who visited.

More than 40 years since they first claimed to have been visited by Mary, the alleged visionaries say they continue to receive messages from Mary conveying a desire for peace for the world, a call to conversion, prayer, and fasting, and certain secrets surrounding events to be fulfilled in the future.

Below is a timeline of the Catholic Church’s investigations into and decisions about Medjugorje.

April 10, 1991: After local bishops formed three different commissions to study the phenomena at Medjugorje starting in January 1982, the bishops’ conference of what was then Yugoslavia rules that “on the basis of studies conducted so far, it cannot be affirmed that supernatural apparitions and revelations are occurring” at Medjugorje.

March 23, 1996: Affirming the indications of the Yugoslavia bishops, the secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Archbishop (later Cardinal) Tarcisio Bertone, says in a response to a letter from a French bishop that official pilgrimages to Medjugorje as a site of authentic Marian apparitions, organized at the diocesan or parish level, are not permitted.

March 17, 2010: At the request of the bishops of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Pope Benedict XVI establishes a commission chaired by Cardinal Camillo Ruini to investigate the supernatural character of the events in Medjugorje. The commission includes approximately 20 cardinals, bishops, and experts.

More in Europe

Europe floods

Deadly floods in Central Europe damage famous monasteries, seminary

Jan. 17, 2014: After nearly four years of investigations into the doctrinal and disciplinary aspects of the Medjugorje apparitions, the commission formed in 2010 completes its work and submits a document, the so-called “Ruini report,” to the then-Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

June 6, 2015: Pope Francis visits Bosnia and Herzegovina but declines to stop at Medjugorje. During the in-flight press conference on the papal plane returning to Rome, the pope says the Vatican’s investigation into the apparitions is nearly complete.

Sometime in 2016: The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, under the leadership of Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller, reads and discusses the findings of the “Ruini report.” The opinions of the congregation’s members are then sent to Pope Francis .

Feb. 11, 2017: Pope Francis appoints Polish Archbishop Henryk Hoser papal envoy to Medjugorje “with the aim of acquiring a deeper knowledge of the pastoral situation there and above all, of the needs of the faithful who go there on pilgrimage.” A Vatican spokesman clarifies that the archbishop’s mandate is pastoral, and not doctrinal, in nature.

Two months after his appointment as special envoy, Hoser tells members of the press that the site bears many genuine expressions of faith, and many vocations are found there. However, he clarifies that the final determination of the apparitions’ authenticity remains to be seen.

May 13, 2017: Pope Francis speaks about the commission formed by Benedict XVI in 2010 and the so-called “Ruini report” during an in-flight press conference aboard the papal plane returning from Fátima, Portugal. He says he is personally “suspicious” of the apparitions since they appear to him to turn the Blessed Virgin Mary into a “telegraph operator” delivering daily messages.

May 17, 2017: A report in the “Vatican Insider” section of the Italian newspaper La Stampa says that the 2010–2014 commission’s “Ruini report” found a difference between the first seven alleged apparitions of June 24–July 3, 1981, and those that followed. The vote on the first seven alleged visions gave a mostly favorable opinion of supernaturality.

(Story continues below)

Subscribe to our daily newsletter

According to La Stampa , the majority of commission members also expressed an opinion that the spiritual fruits of Medjugorje were positive or mostly positive. On the supernatural character of the later alleged visions, the majority of the commission’s members said an opinion could not be expressed and two members voted against.

Dec. 7, 2017: Hoser tells Catholic media outlet Aleteia that while the pope will make a final decision on the authenticity of the alleged visions at Medjugorje, “today, dioceses and other institutions can organize official pilgrimages. It’s no longer a problem.” 

May 31, 2018: Pope Francis reappoints Hoser, retired archbishop of Warsaw-Prague, apostolic visitor to Medjugorje , tasked with overseeing the pastoral needs of the site for an undetermined length of time. This nomination follows the archbishop’s earlier role as papal envoy.

May 12, 2019: Pope Francis formally authorizes Catholics to organize pilgrimages to Medjugorje in acknowledgment of the “abundant fruits of grace” that have come from visits to the shrine, though the Church had still not issued a verdict on the authenticity of the alleged apparitions.

Aug. 14, 2021: Hoser dies in a hospital in Warsaw, Poland, after a long and serious illness. He was 78.

Nov. 27, 2021: Pope Francis names Archbishop Aldo Cavalli, a longtime Vatican diplomat, as special apostolic visitor to the parish community of Medjugorje for an indefinite period following Hoser’s death.

  • Catholic News ,
  • Marian Apparitions ,

Hannah Brockhaus

Our mission is the truth. Join us!

Your monthly donation will help our team continue reporting the truth, with fairness, integrity, and fidelity to Jesus Christ and his Church.

You may also like

Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández

Vatican announces press conference on ‘spiritual experience’ of Medjugorje

Cardinal Víctor Fernández, prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, will lead a press conference on the “spiritual experience” of Medjugorje.

Medjugorje Youth Festival

Pope Francis to Medjugorje Youth Festival: ‘God has a plan’

The youth festival, in its 34th edition, is being held July 26–30 at the site of alleged Marian apparitions in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Cardinal Stanislaw Dziwisz

Pope John Paul II’s personal secretary makes private visit to Medjugorje

Polish Cardinal Stanisław Dziwisz, archbishop emeritus of Krakow, paid a private visit to Medjugorje on July 11.

Donald Trump is headed to Wilmington: From tickets to parking, here's what to know

Portrait of Molly Wilhelm

Donald Trump, former President and 2024 presidential candidate, is expected to arrive in Wilmington on Saturday.

Five months after Trump missed his scheduled visit to the Port City after severe weather, the Republican nominee for president is expected to host a rally in New Hanover County this weekend.

Less than a week after the former President faced a second assassination attempt in West Palm Beach, Florida, Wilmington is still included on Trump's campaign schedule . Here's what you need to know about Trump's upcoming visit and what to anticipate.

Where to get tickets

Those interested in attending the rally can register for up to two free tickets on the event webpage using their mobile number. All tickets are subject to a first come, first serve basis.

Related coverage: Donald Trump to hold campaign rally in Wilmington; how to get tickets

What to expect

The rally will be held on the grounds of the Wilmington International Airport at the Aero Center, located at 1830 Flightline Road, Wilmington.

On Saturday, doors at the Aero Center are expected to open at 10 a.m., with the event expected to begin at 2 p.m., according to the event webpage.

Thousands arrived at the Aero Center for Trump's rally in April 2024, which was ultimately rescheduled as a result of severe weather. Visitors also crowded the same venue in 2022 for the "Save America" rally where Trump delivered a speech.

Security and traffic

While specifics could not be disclosed for safety reasons, Lt. Jerry Brewer confirmed that the New Hanover County Sheriff's Office is coordinating with federal agencies to provide security for the rally.

As of Tuesday, the New Hanover County Sheriff's Office had not been made aware of any anticipated detours or road closures on Saturday, Brewer said.

Representatives with the Wilmington Aero Center did not comment on expected security measures on site, citing only that the space has been rented for the rally.

In the aftermath of the most recent assassination attempt, President Joe Biden "vowed to make sure the Secret Service has every resource" for  Trump's safety , adding "there is no place for political violence."

Related coverage: Security measures in place for Trump rally in Wilmington

Parking availability

Wilmington International Airport currently operates six parking lots on site. Handicap parking is available in all lots,  according to the airport's webpage .

Thirty minutes of parking is free in each lot, with the additional rate being $1 per hour. Maximum daily prices vary by lot.

Attendees can refer to a detailed map of parking options , including information on parking availability, prior to their arrival at the venue.

Will it be live streamed?

Livestream details have not yet been released by Trump’s team.

For those who are unable to attend the rally, the StarNews will also provide full day live coverage on Saturday -- including photos, traffic updates, event details and more.

Guy Fieri's Biggest Fan Just Visited His 1000th 'Diners, Drive-Ins & Dives' Restaurant

How many have you been to?

guy fieri fan

You might consider yourself a fan of Guy Fieri's Diners, Drive-Ins and Dives . But are you a "Goes to 1,000 Diners, Drive-In and Dives"-level fan?

Chances are, you've been nowhere near the amount of restaurants that superfan Bill Grella has visited since the show first premiered in 2007. As of this past Saturday, he just reached a new milestone: His 1,000th visit to a diner, drive-in, and/or dive.

To give you a sense of scale, Diners, Drive-Ins and Dives has chronicled over 1,498 restaurants (and counting), meaning Grella has visited a whopping 2/3rds of the restaurants featured on the show. Based in the D.C. area, Grella says he's traveled all the way from Maine to Florida—even flying to Honolulu, Hawaii, to dine at the Rainbow Drive-In—with many places in between.

"The thing I love about my journey is the food, of course," Grella says. "But [what's] almost as fun for me is the experience and making friends with other Triple D fans and the restaurant staff."

bill grella

For his 1,000th visit, Grella visited Bub and Pop's , a D.C.-based sandwich shop that serves loaded Philadelphia-style hoagies; Fieri shot an episode there back in 2015. To celebrate the achievement, Grella was joined by family and friends he's made through his journey, including John and Colleen Bistor, who have each have been to 718 restaurants featured on the show.

When asked what meals have been the most memorable, Grella says there are a few stand-outs: the lobster ravioli at Rino's Place in Boston; the lobster pie at The Maine Diner in Wells, Maine; and the brisket at The Pecan Lodge in Dallas. But Grella is hesitant to pick a favorite. "I never say a place is my favorite because the places are so diverse," he says. "Some places I enjoy more for the atmosphere," he adds, saying that Lauer Krauts in Brighton, Colorado, and Chaps Pit Beef in Baltimore have impressed him both for their great food as well as their delightful staff.

fieri fan visits bub and pop's restaurant

If you, too, want to start chipping away at the nearly 1,500 spots Fieri has visited on Triple D, take some ordering advice from Grella. "Some people will only try what Guy had, but I don't. I have fallen in love with small plates since the portions are smaller and in many cases [are] the best items on the menu," and adds that experiencing the place is just as important as enjoying the food.

Headshot of Mackenzie Filson

Mackenzie Filson is a food writer and contributing digital food producer at Delish. Her favorite ice cream flavor is chocolate-pine and if wine was an astrological sign she'd be a New Zealand Sauvignon Blanc. She's never met a bag of Spicy Sweet Chili Doritos she didn't eat in one sitting.

preview for Watch Our Newest Videos

I'm Moving To The Costco Apartments

philadelphia cream cheese frosting

Philadelphia Cream Cheese Is Making Frosting

secret lives of mormon wives

How Bad For You Are The Mormon Wives' Sodas?

cafeteria double beef burger gourmet

A Guide To The Best National Food And Drink Days

mcdonald's cake

McDonald's Has A Secret Birthday Cake

grocery store never buy at the grocery store

America Has Spoken: This Is The Best Grocery Store

trader joes mistakes

10 Mistakes To Avoid At Trader Joe's

frying fries

These Are The Most Unhealthy Fries In America

national cheeseburger day deals

The Best National Cheeseburger Deals Of 2024

crinkle cut french fries

All The Fast Food French Fries, Ranked

us entertainment music award mtv arrivals

Chappell Roan Reviewed Hailey Bieber's Smoothie

whole foods market, venice, california

The Best Whole Foods Shopping Tips And Tricks

Here's what to know about Knotfest 2024 in Des Moines

Portrait of Victoria Reyna-Rodriguez

Slipknot is bringing its Knotfest music festival back to its home state of Iowa for a one-night-only anniversary event. This all-day music festival in Des Moines boasts more than 10 performances at Water Works Park.

There will be plenty of Slipknot-themed activities all weekend, too. Whether you visit the Slipknot Museum or get a bottle of whiskey signed by the artists themselves, here's what to know about Knotfest in Des Moines.

When is Knotfest Iowa 2024?

Knotfest Iowa 2024 is on Sept. 21 at Water Works Park in Des Moines.

Who is performing at Knotfest Iowa 2024?

Knotfest will host an array of musical performances, here's who's on the list:

Need a break? Play the USA TODAY Daily Crossword Puzzle.

  • Poison the Well
  • Knocked Loose
  • Till Lindemann
  • Swollen Teeth
  • Twin Temple

How can I get tickets to Knotfest Iowa 2024?

Tickets are available through the Knotfest website and start at $99.50 for general admission. VIP tickets and excursion and hotel packages are also available online.

How can I visit the Slipknot Museum?

The Slipknot Museum is an immersive exhibit showcasing Slipknot history including instruments, memorabilia, wardrobes and more. The museum will operate on Sept. 21 during two ticketed windows: 12-4 p.m. and 4-8 p.m.

Tickets are $25 until Sept. 20 and $40 on Sept. 21, and guests under 18 must be accompanied by an adult. The museum will be on the festival grounds and requires an additional ticket, which can be purchased at www.universe.com/events .

Slipknot hosting special experiences Friday at The Slaughterhouse and The Haunt

Slipknot is offering two events on Friday in preparation for Knotfest. They'll be taking over The Slaughterhouse in downtown Des Moines for a haunted house experience featuring their own memorabilia and decor. Fans will be lead through the haunted house by a member of the band.

You can also visit the speakeasy at The Haunt to hear an intimate telling of Clown’s tales from the road, with stories that have a special focus on their 1999 album, followed by a Q&A session.

Tickets for Friday's events can be found at wearesuper.co/knotfestiowa .

Meet Slipknot at Fareway

If you can't attend Knotfest, head to the Pleasant Hill Fareway on Thursday, Sept. 19 from 5 to 7 p.m. and you can meet members of the band themselves.

The group will be promoting their exclusive No. 9 whiskey and invites customers to buy a bottle and get it signed.

Meet Slipknot at Wall to Wall Wine and Spirits

You can also find members of Slipknot at Wall to Wall Wine and Spirits in West Des Moines on Friday, Sept. 20 from 1 to 3 p.m. where the group will be signing more No. 9 whiskey.

Victoria Reyna-Rodriguez is a general assignment reporter for the Register. Reach her at  [email protected]  or follow her on Twitter  @VictoriaReynaR .

Next stop, Oklahoma? Experts predict whether Harris or Trump will visit the Sooner State

Portrait of M. Scott Carter

Oklahoma voters wondering if Democrat Kamala Harris or Republican Donald Trump will visit the Sooner State before the November presidential election should probably keep wishing.

Because more than likely, it won’t happen.

Even though the 2024 presidential election is now at full speed, state voters probably won’t see a visit from either candidate or their vice presidential picks because Oklahoma isn’t a draw this cycle , political observers say.

The state is already considered a bright red spot, and low numbers of residents go to the polls , so national campaigns will focus on other states where visits will have more impact, consultant and pollster Pat McFerron said.

“Oklahoma’s November election doesn’t matter,” he said , referencing the presidential race. “And even if it were to matter, that would mean the rest of the nation has changed, and the race is over.”

Oklahoma’s small media market and number of Electoral College votes also make it a less than competitive area.

“I really don’t see a reason why either one (Republican or Democratic candidate) would come here,” McFerron said. “If it were a national popular vote, maybe. But since it’s the Electoral College it doesn’t work.”

History supports McFerron’s prediction . Oklahoma has, for years, been a low priority for national campaigns. The state has reliably voted Republican for decades. National campaigns, seeking to get the biggest return for their investment, will skip a state like Oklahoma and focus on one — such as Wisconsin — where the entire state remains in play.

More: Who won the presidential debate? We asked viewers, here's what they said

“Money is a factor,” McFerron said. “At the same time, because neither side participates in Oklahoma (because the state is already perceived as red), voter turnout remains low.”

Records show the state is currently 50th in voter turnout, he said.

What would prompt Trump to visit Oklahoma on the campaign trail?

While McFerron remains skeptical that anyone on the presidential ticket will campaign in the Sooner State, former chair of the Oklahoma Republican Party Pam Pollard said she remains hopeful that either Trump or Vance will visit for a public rally. But she acknowledged that may not happen.

Like McFerron, Pollard pointed to the campaign map as a basis for candidate visits. Georgia and Iowa are looking better for the GOP, she said, but the race remains tight.

“We as Oklahomans also have to think about the big picture,” Pollard said. “If President Trump comes here instead of going to Nevada, if that rally in Nevada could have put him over the top in the race, then I’m willing to be a good American and a sad Oklahoman and realize that President Trump may not come here.”

Of course, fundraising is a different matter.

While the need for Republicans to campaign in the Sooner State might not be as high as other states, traveling here could become more useful when money is at stake. That happened in July, shortly after Trump chose J.D. Vance as his running mate. Vance came to Oklahoma for a private fundraiser.

“If there’s a chance to raise big money at an event then candidates will come to Oklahoma,” McFerron said.

More: Oklahoma's young voters are enthusiastic about voting in the election, teacher says

Relatives of presidential candidates might make an appearance in Oklahoma

Former Attorney General Drew Edmondson — a Democrat — agreed to a point.

Edmondson said he didn’t expect a high-profile candidate like Harris or Trump to come to Oklahoma but, he added, it’s possible that someone with close ties to a candidate might make a visit.

“My guess would be that a highest profile visit [we] would get would be from a Democratic spouse,” Edmondson said. “I don’t think Trump’s wife does anything, and I don’t know if J.D. Vance’s wife is doing anything. But I think the second gentleman and Walz’s wife may be more active.”

Edmondson pointed to the visit of Jill Biden four years ago as an example.

Still, he said, most campaign strategists will focus their energies in states that are in play. Although a recent poll showed Trump and Harris are tied among voters in Oklahoma County , Trump still has a virtual lock on the statewide win.

“There’s two reasons to visit,” Edmondson said. “One is carrying the state. and the other is to raise a whole lot of money. And neither one is going to happen on the Democratic side. On the Republican side, they’re gonna get it anyway so why come?”

Trump says he will visit Springfield, Ohio, 'in the next two weeks'

Image: Presidential Candidate Donald Trump Holds Campaign Rally On Long Island politics political politician

Former President Donald Trump said at a rally Wednesday that he would travel to Springfield, Ohio, the focal point of unsubstantiated claims targeting Haitian migrants, "in the next two weeks."

"I’m going to go there in the next two weeks. I’m going to Springfield, and I’m going to Aurora" in Colorado, Trump said at a rally in Uniondale, New York.

Trump has pushed ba s eless claims that Haitian migrants in the beleaguered Ohio city are eating pets, which have repeatedly been debunked . His running mate, Sen. JD Vance of Ohio, and the ticket's allies have also spread the lie.

As for Aurora, Trump has repeatedly spread debunked rumors related to Venezuelans in the city.

Social media posts spread online falsely claiming that a Venezuelan gang had taken over an apartment complex, which local officials denied. Trump has repeatedly invoked both Springfield and Aurora at his rallies.

"You may never see me again, but that’s OK. Got to do what I got to do," Trump added. "'Whatever happened to Trump?' 'Well, he never got out of Springfield.'"

Springfield Mayor Rob Rue, a Republican, said at a n ews conference Tuesday that a visit from Trump "would be an extreme strain on our resources."

"So it’d be fine with me if they decided not to make that visit," he said.

NBC News has reported that Trump planned to visit Springfield "soon."

As Trump, Vance and their allies repeatedly spread false claims about the city, Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine said at least 33 bomb threats have been made in Springfield. DeWine, a Republican, said some of them are coming from "one particular country," which he declined to name.

The president of the Haitian Community Support Center in Springfield told NBC News that the conspiracy theory has made Haitians "scared for their lives."

Trump has spread false claims about Haitian migrants at his rallies and during his debate last week against Vice President Kamala Harris.

“In Springfield, they’re eating the dogs," Trump said, falsely, during the debate. "The people that came in, they’re eating the cats. They’re eating, they’re eating the pets of the people that live there."

Spring f ield o f f icials said there are "no credible reports" to support the claim.

The Trump campaign did not immediately respond to a request for further information about his plans for a trip.

what's conjugal visits

Megan Lebowitz is a politics reporter for NBC News.

COMMENTS

  1. States That Allow Conjugal Visits

    Conjugal visits are private time that a prisoner may spend with a spouse or married partner. Most states no longer allow conjugal visits, but some have extended family visitation programs that focus on reuniting inmates with their children and relatives.

  2. Conjugal visit

    A conjugal visit is a private meeting between a prisoner and their partner, usually for several hours or days. Learn about the legal and social aspects of conjugal visits in different countries, such as Australia, Brazil, Canada, France, India, Israel, Japan, Mexico, Netherlands, Pakistan, and the United States.

  3. What is the Meaning of Conjugal Visits & Which States Have Them

    Conjugal visits are private and intimate visits between inmates and their family members in some states, including California. Learn about the purpose, eligibility, rules, and advantages of these visits, and how they can reduce recidivism and crime rates.

  4. How Do Conjugal Visits Work?

    Conjugal visits are a practice that allows inmates to spend time alone with their loved ones, often sexually, while incarcerated. Learn about the origin, arguments for and against, and state-by-state rules of this controversial scheme.

  5. Which states allow conjugal visits?

    This article explores the history, availability, and challenges of conjugal visits in U.S. prisons, and how they are portrayed in TV shows. It also features a personal story of a couple who cannot have sex or intimacy due to the state's policies.

  6. What is a Conjugal Visit? (with pictures)

    The visits differ by country, but all provide a private place for families to gather for up to several days without supervision. There are rules both the prisoner and the visitor must follow to be awarded a conjugal visit. One of the more common views of a conjugal visit's purpose is that it is only for sex between spouses.

  7. Conjugal Visits

    Conjugal visits are overnight stays with family or partners in prison, but they are rare and controversial. Learn about the current and past programs, the rules and regulations, and the perspectives of inmates and visitors.

  8. An Incarcerated Journalist Explains Conjugal Visits and What Sex in

    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 ...

  9. Controversy and Conjugal Visits

    An article that explores the history and controversies of conjugal visits in American prisons, from their origins as incentives for forced labor to their current status as a right or privilege. It examines how conjugal visits affect prisoners' sense of touch, identity, and sexuality, and how they are shaped by race, gender, and sexual orientation.

  10. Conjugal Visits in Prison

    Learn about the effects of extended family or conjugal visits on recidivism, prison violence, and social ties for incarcerated persons and their families. Compare the policies and practices of states that have or had such programs, and the barriers and recommendations for implementation.

  11. What's The Deal With Conjugal Visits In Prison?

    Conjugal visits are time spent by prisoners with their family members, usually in a designated area. Only four states still allow them: California, New York, Connecticut, and Washington. Learn about the origins, benefits, controversies, and variations of this practice.

  12. Conjugal Visit Laws by State 2024

    4. Conjugal Visit Laws by State 2024. Conjugal Visit Laws by State 2024. California. Californiarefers 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 ...

  13. So What are the Actual Rules with Conjugal Visits and How Did They Get

    Learn how conjugal visits started in the U.S. as a way to motivate slave labor and how they are still used in some states and countries today. Find out what are the criteria, guidelines and effects of these visits for prisoners and their families.

  14. 9 Arresting Facts About Conjugal Visits

    Conjugal visits, also known as extended family visits, are allowed in only four U.S. states and have different rules and policies around the world. Learn about the origins, benefits, and ...

  15. Conjugal Visits For Prisoners Are About More Than Sex

    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 ...

  16. Benefits and risks of conjugal visits in prison: A systematic

    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.

  17. Conjugal Visits: Rules and History

    Conjugal visits are private visits with a spouse or family member in prison, often for sexual purposes. Learn about the history, rules and benefits of conjugal visits in the US, and which states still allow them.

  18. Conjugal Visitation in American Prisons Today

    A 1981 article that reviews the legal and constitutional issues, programs, and attitudes of conjugal visitation in five states: Mississippi, New York, California, South Carolina, and Minnesota. It also reports a survey of 54 correctional officials and their views on the topic.

  19. Study Argues that Conjugal Visits Can Reduce Number of Prison Rapes

    The FIU study was conducted over a three-year period. from 2004 to 2006, in the states that allowed prisoners conjugal visits at the lime: California, Mississippi, New Mexico, New York and Washington. While sexual violence occurred in states that prohibit conjugal visits at a rate of 226 per 100,000 prisoners, it occurred nearly five times less ...

  20. What Actually is a Conjugal Prison Visit

    Being locked up behind bars can sure get lonely, good thing some prisons offer prisoners conjugal visitation rights. Check out today's new video where we fil...

  21. Benefits and risks of conjugal visits in prison: A systematic

    Conjugal visits are believed to have positive effects during and after confinement. Yet, studies on the dynamics of such visits from women's point of view and their attitudes toward such visits ...

  22. BOP: How to visit a federal inmate

    Learn how to locate, approve, prepare, and plan your visit to a federal inmate. Find out the visiting hours, dress code, behavior, and contact rules for each prison facility.

  23. New York is 1 of 4 States That Still Allows Conjugal Visits

    Conjugal Visit Gets an Update. Conjugal Visits, due to how it is portrayed on television and in the movies, generally has a sexual connotation. However, its main goal is to reunite families in a home-like setting for well-behaved inmates. Now, in New York State, conjugal visits are known as the Family Reunion Program. The New York State DOC ...

  24. What has the Catholic Church said about Medjugorje? A timeline

    The head of the Vatican's doctrine office will hold a press conference Thursday about the "spiritual experience" at the Marian site, the Vatican said.

  25. Donald Trump to visit Wilmington, NC: What to know for Saturday's rally

    Five months after Trump missed his scheduled visit to the Port City after severe weather, the Republican nominee for president is expected to host a rally in New Hanover County this weekend.

  26. No. 22 Nebraska hosts its first Top 25 matchup since 2013 when No. 24

    No. 24 Illinois (3-0) at No. 22 Nebraska (3-0), Friday, 8 p.m. ET (Fox) BetMGM College Football Odds: Nebraska by 8 1/2.. Series record: Nebraska leads 14-6-1. WHAT'S AT STAKE? These teams have aspirations higher than the expectations set for them in the preseason.

  27. Guy Fieri's Biggest Fan Is Trying To Visit Every Single Restaurant

    For his 1,000th visit, Grella visited Bub and Pop's, a D.C.-based sandwich shop that serves loaded Philadelphia-style hoagies; Fieri shot an episode there back in 2015.To celebrate the achievement ...

  28. Here's what to know about Knotfest 2024 in Des Moines

    Tickets are $25 until Sept. 20 and $40 on Sept. 21, and guests under 18 must be accompanied by an adult. The museum will be on the festival grounds and requires an additional ticket, which can be ...

  29. Next stop, Oklahoma? Experts predict whether Harris or Trump will visit

    What would prompt Trump to visit Oklahoma on the campaign trail? While McFerron remains skeptical that anyone on the presidential ticket will campaign in the Sooner State, former chair of the Oklahoma Republican Party Pam Pollard said she remains hopeful that either Trump or Vance will visit for a public rally. But she acknowledged that may not ...

  30. Trump says he will visit Springfield, Ohio, 'in the next two weeks'

    Former President Donald Trump said during a rally that he would travel to Springfield, Ohio, the focal point of unsubstantiated claims targeting Haitian migrants, "in the next two weeks."