Punishment
- Conjugal visits
Three issues that would inform the decision to adopt conjugal visits procedure for prisoners include: the impacts of the visits on the well-being of the prisoners and on the family unit; the impact of the procedure on prisoners’ violent behavior; whether the conjugal visits would serve to eliminate or mitigate cases of sexual abuse especially in male prisons. The relevant data in this case consists of research on the relationship between the programs and the rate of violence in the prison among the participating prisoners. The data on studies done on how conjugal visits affect the welfare of the family unit will also be important in this case. These two issues are important since they are focused on the family units including the fact that transformation of violent prisoners will help in maintaining nuclear family and reducing the emotional stress among the spouses of the inmates. The issue of sexual abuse has been shown to be a common problem especially in male prisons (Wyatt, 2005).
The review on the research would help in adopting the conjugal visit program for individuals who have shown behavioral change apart from individuals who have been convicted for sexual abuse (Hensley, Koscheski, & Tewksbury, 2002). It is necessary to introduce the program since it focuses on individual and family well-being. The family is an important unit even when an individual has been sentenced for a given crime and where communication and interaction with family members is curtailed, the inmates may become more violent or aggressive towards officer or one another (De Claire, & Dixon, 2017). Opponents for this program argue that the conjugal visits are likely to bring about negative attitudes on the part of prisons that are not permitted to take part in the program. A major argument is that the visits would provide an opportunity for the prisoners to access contrabands and drugs, resulting in a big problem in the prison facilities (Hensley, Koscheski, & Tewksbury, 2002). The program also has some disadvantage with the major problem being related to the visits being the spread of infectious diseases such as HIV/AIDs. This is especially true if the prison officers fail to adopt effective precautionary measures (Hensley, Koscheski, & Tewksbury, 2002). Laxity in security would raise many concerns relating to the procedure.
- Dean Claude Odermatt case
The issue of chemical castration involves using medication to eliminate any sexual interest and the ability of the individual to engage in sex. The procedure is effective as long as the administration of the drugs continues but will be ineffective the moment the medication procedure is discontinued. The use of chemical castration has some benefits over the conventional surgical procedure. The procedure can be life-long for some of the sex offenders but may also allow them to normally engage in sex especially in psychotherapy context (Douglas et al 2013). The procedure can be administered voluntarily to the sexual offenders. Moreover, it may serve to relief the public through the knowledge that the procedure is being administered to the sex offender (Douglas et al 2013). The process of chemical castration should be performed on offenders who have been accused of sexual battery or who have been consistent sexual abusers. Since the procedure cannot be presented as an option for incarceration, it should be adopted to prevent these individuals from reoffending (Douglas et al 2013). Thus, the offender who has been incarcerated may be given an opportunity to be chemically castrated or face longer imprisonment.
References
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.
Wyatt, R. (2005). Male rape in US prisons: are conjugal visits the answer. Case W. Res. J. Int'l L., 37, 579.
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.
Douglas, T., Bonte, P., Focquaert, F., Devolder, K., & Sterckx, S. (2013). Coercion, incarceration, and chemical castration: An argument from autonomy. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 10(3), 393-405.
