conjugal visits sweden

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.

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.

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.

.css-f6drgc:before{margin:-0.99rem auto 0 -1.33rem;left:50%;width:2.1875rem;border:0.3125rem solid #FF3A30;height:2.1875rem;content:'';display:block;position:absolute;border-radius:100%;} .css-1aglugu{font-family:Lausanne,Lausanne-fallback,Lausanne-roboto,Lausanne-local,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:1.625rem;line-height:1.2;margin:0rem;}@media(max-width: 48rem){.css-1aglugu{font-size:1.75rem;line-height:1.2;}}@media(min-width: 64rem){.css-1aglugu{font-size:2.375rem;line-height:1.2;}}.css-1aglugu b,.css-1aglugu strong{font-family:inherit;font-weight:bold;}.css-1aglugu em,.css-1aglugu i{font-style:italic;font-family:inherit;}.css-1aglugu:before{content:'＂';display:block;padding:0.3125rem 0.875rem 0 0;font-size:3.5rem;line-height:0.8;font-style:italic;font-family:Lausanne,Lausanne-fallback,Lausanne-styleitalic-roboto,Lausanne-styleitalic-local,Arial,sans-serif;} 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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

@media(max-width: 73.75rem){.css-1ktbcds:before{margin-right:0.4375rem;color:#FF3A30;content:'_';display:inline-block;}}@media(min-width: 64rem){.css-1ktbcds:before{margin-right:0.5625rem;color:#FF3A30;content:'_';display:inline-block;}} Esquire Select Exclusives

The Day I Finally Threw My First Punch

The Joker Actors, Ranked from Worst to Best

You May Live to 100. Here's How to Pay For It.

Inside My Days as a Content Bot

What Happens When Your Longtime Therapist Dies?

How (Not) To Grieve

What Is Successful Nonmonogamy Anyway?

American Tragedy: The Death of an Alabama Pastor

Is “Doomslang” Making Us All Numb?

Is It Even Possible to Become More Productive?

The All-American Father

Benefits and risks of conjugal visits in prison: A systematic literature review

Affiliations.

• 1 Division of Psychological Medicine and Clinical Neurosciences, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
• 2 School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
• PMID: 34597428
• DOI: 10.1002/cbm.2215

Background: 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.

Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted using broad search terms, including words like 'private' and 'family', to maximise search sensitivity but strict criteria for inclusion - of visits unobserved by prison staff and away from other prisoners. All included papers were quality assessed. Two of us independently extracted data from included papers, according to a prepared checklist. Meta-analysis was considered.

Results: Seventeen papers were identified from 12 independent studies, all but three of them from North America. The only study of health benefits found a positive association with maintaining sexual relationships. The three before-and-after study of partnership qualities suggested benefit, but conjugal visiting was within a wider family-support programme. Studies with in-prison behaviour as a possible outcome suggest small, if any, association, although one US-wide study found significantly fewer in-prison sexual assaults in states allowing conjugal visiting than those not. Other studies were of prisoner, staff or partner attitudes. There is little evidence of adverse effects, although two qualitative studies raise concerns about the visiting partner's sense of institutionalisation or coercion.

Conclusions: The balance of evidence about conjugal visiting is positive, but there is little of it. As stable family relationships have, elsewhere, been associated with desistance from crime, the contribution of conjugal visiting to these should be better researched.

Keywords: conjugal visit; consensual sex in prisons; imprisonment; prisoners; private visiting.

© 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Publication types

• Systematic Review
• Interpersonal Relations
• Risk Assessment
• Sexual Partners

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?

“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.”

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.

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.

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 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.

• A Potash Primer

• Lessons for American Zionism from the “Free Ireland” Cause

• Who Took the Cocaine Out of Coca-Cola?

The Great Dissenter’s Complications

Recent posts.

• How Two Rebel Physicists Changed Quantum Theory
• Rickshaw Men, Optical Computing, and Telegraph Flirting

Support JSTOR Daily

Sign up for our weekly newsletter.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Stig Bergling, a Cold War Spy Known for His Escape, Dies at 77

By Margalit Fox

• Jan. 30, 2015

Stig Bergling, one of Sweden’s most notorious Cold War spies, who in 1987 escaped from prison during a conjugal visit, died on Jan. 24 in Stockholm. He was 77.

No cause was announced, The Associated Press reported. Mr. Bergling, who died in a nursing home, had been ill with Parkinson’s disease for many years.

A former officer in Sweden’s national security police, Mr. Bergling stood trial in 1979 on charges that he had sold military secrets to the Soviet Union. Convicted that year, he was sentenced to life in prison.

What followed — including Mr. Bergling’s escape (inadvertently abetted by the Swedish authorities); an international manhunt (inadvertently abetted by the Soviets); his years on the lam amid swirling rumors of his whereabouts; and his voluntary return to Sweden, reimprisonment and later parole — was a dark absurdist farce that made headlines round the world.

Mr. Bergling’s flight from custody was a major scandal in Sweden, long known both for its progressive penal policies and its efficiency. In the wide consensus of the international news media, what made his escape possible was far too much of one and far too little of the other.

Stig Eugen Bergling was born in Stockholm in 1937 to a middle-class family: His father was in the insurance business; his mother was a secretary. In the late 1950s he became a policeman; a decade later he was appointed to the security police, an intelligence agency whose duties include counterespionage and counterterrorism.

Mr. Bergling’s job gave him access to some of Sweden’s most sensitive military documents, and in the 1970s he was alleged to have sold nearly 15,000 of them to the Soviets. It was avarice, not ideology, he later said, that turned him to espionage.

In 1979 Mr. Bergling was arrested in Tel Aviv and extradited to Sweden. At trial, there emerged a narrative of spycraft that in its 20th-century sensibilities — microdots, radio communications, letters in invisible ink — now seems almost quaint.

Though he was given a life sentence, under Sweden’s penal laws, which stress rehabilitation rather than punishment, Mr. Bergling might well have been paroled after about 15 years.

In 1986, while serving his sentence in Norrkoping, in eastern Sweden, Mr. Bergling married a longtime friend, Elisabeth Sandberg. Over the next year he was granted a series of conjugal visits at her apartment in a Stockholm suburb, including one in 1987 for which the couple planned very carefully.

That autumn, Mr. Bergling’s wife rented several automobiles under her name and took out a bank loan of some $12,000. The Swedish authorities had already unwittingly furthered the couple’s plans by allowing Mr. Bergling — who said he hoped for eventual parole and a fresh start afterward — to change his name to Eugen Sandberg. According to news reports, they also issued him a new passport in that name.

On the evening of Oct. 6, 1987, an unarmed guard escorted Mr. Bergling to his wife’s home for a routine conjugal visit. In the interest of propriety, the guard repaired to a nearby hotel for the night.

On Oct. 7, when the guard called at the apartment, the couple were nowhere to be found. As Mr. Bergling described it afterward, they had stolen out the back door early that morning, disguised as joggers, availed themselves of at least one of the waiting cars, made for Finland and from there traveled to the Soviet Union.

It took more than 10 hours before the Swedish authorities issued an official alert for Mr. Bergling, partly because they seemed confused, according to news reports, about which name to search for. But by then he had crossed the border, undetected, as Eugen Sandberg.

An international furor ensued. On Oct. 19, Sten Wickbom, the Swedish justice minister, resigned over the escape.

For the next seven years, with police forces in 70 countries alerted to their flight, Mr. Bergling and his wife were reported to have roamed throughout Eastern Europe and the Middle East. Amid a welter of rumors — among them that he had undergone plastic surgery and was ensconced in Vienna, selling real estate — they eluded their pursuers.

In February 1991, with the fugitives still at large, a Swedish television station wrote to the Soviet authorities, alerting them to the suspected presence in their country of an escaped Swedish criminal named Eugen Sandberg. (The letter failed to mention the precise nature of his crimes.)

Believing Mr. Sandberg to be a garden-variety crook, the Soviet interior minister obligingly took to the airwaves, exhorting the public to search for him. But this, too, proved of no avail.

In 1994, saying they were homesick for their families, Mr. Bergling and his wife returned to Sweden of their own accord. Mr. Bergling was returned to prison; his wife, who was not charged, died of cancer in 1997.

Mr. Bergling, who was paroled on medical grounds that year, is believed to have been married and divorced at least once more; information on survivors could not be confirmed. In recent years he had lived under the surname Sydholt.

In the wake of Mr. Bergling’s arrest, Sweden was forced to reorganize its defense and security operations at an estimated cost of $45 million, United Press International reported in 1987. By all accounts the cost of his flight in terms of international embarrassment was also considerable.

“Apart from actually giving him a ticket to Moscow,” an unnamed Swedish official told the Australian newspaper The Courier-Mail in 1987, “there was not much more we could have done.”

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Conjugal Visits in Prisons Discourse: Is it Even an Offender Rehabilitation Option in Africa?

Advanced Journal of Social Science

Conjugal rights issue in prisons is indeed an old debate. This article reviewed the literature on the genesis of prisoners’ conjugal visits programme, its global prevalence and the scholarly debate for and against its provision to understand if it can be a rehabilitation option in African countries’ prisons. It has been noted that conjugal visits programme was haphazardly started in the 1900s in Mississippi before becoming an official programme in 1989. Though they were discontinued later in 2014 in Mississippi, conjugal visits are still provided in many penitentiary facilities in America, Europe, Asia and Africa. Studies have revealed that conjugal visits are capable of reducing the problems of homosexuality, sexual assaults and physical violence in prisons. It has also been observed that, apart from the fact that denial of conjugal rights to the prisoners’ spouse could be a form of punishment to innocent victims, conjugal visits can be incentives for good prisoners’ behaviour and ...

Related Papers

Elias Z. Mapendere

elias mapendere

Conjugal rights of prisoners as a fundamental right emerging with the 2013 Constitution of Zimbabwe is the focus of this article. The article argues for the recognition of the same within the context of other fundamental rights directly enshrined such as the right to found a family and the right not to be subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment. The national objective of protecting the family institution can also be used to interpret the Constitution as enshrining conjugal rights for prisoners. The Constitution of Zimbabwe is a transformative constitution and one of the areas that the transformative agenda can be realised is through recognition of prisoners' conjugal rights. A brief comparative analysis with other jurisdictions such as India, United States of America and other countries shows a growing trend towards embracing recognition of conjugal rights within the framework of strengthening family institutions.

Paper presented at AIDS in Context International …

Caroline Agboola, PhD

Although consensual same-sex sexual relationships in female prisons have been a topic of scholarly discourse, it has received little attention in African countries, and South Africa is no exception. Consensual same-sex sexual relationships between females in African prisons have received little attention by researchers since studies on prison sex in Africa tend to focus on the sexual relationships between male prisoners, particularly the coercive nature of such relationships. Drawing on the retrospective narratives of six female former prisoners, this study examines the consensual nature of same-sex sexual relationships in South African female prisons. One of the findings of this study suggests that consensual same-sex sexual relationships in South African female prisons are pervasive. It was reported that the motivations for female prisoners' engagement in consensual sexual relationships with other females in prison are the desire to satisfy material, sexual, and emotional needs, as well as, the desire for friendship and companionship.

Godfrey Kangaude

Bhavana Dhoundiyal

Journal of International Social …

Ojo M Agunbiade

The latest reform in the Nigerian criminal justice system is in line with the global trend to shift from a retributive penal system, where the well being of offenders was a trivial issue, to a rehabilitative system where the welfare of offenders is given a pride of place. The issue of HIV/AIDS in ...

Gender, sexuality and the body: Critical perspectives (collection of papers)

Helena Machado , Manuela Ivone Cunha

Jussara Carneiro Costa

This article analyzes the guarantee of the right to conjugal visits in contexts of incarceration for women and adolescent girls in a prison and in a socio-educational incarceration institution in the state of Bahia (Brazil). As exploratory research, the objective of this article is to understand how the right to conjugal visits is guaranteed (or not), the perceptions about this right, the difficulties for its fulfillment and the intersections with strategies of body control and sexuality of adult women and adolescents who are deprived of their liberty. Based on data obtained from literature review, documentary analysis and interviews with part of the staff at the incarceration institutions, it is possible to grasp the perceptions about the right to conjugal visitation by incarcerated women and adolescent girls, and the peculiarities of its implementation given gender specificities. Este articulo analiza la garantia del derecho a las visitas conyugales en contextos de encarcelamiento...

Sharon Nyambe

The present study was aimed at the investigation of conjugal visitation and family bonding among incarcerated people. The study was conducted in Addis Ababa,Kaliti correctional center. 136participants (38 females and 98 males) were selected by using purposive sampling. A selfreported questionnaire that consisted of questions on social background, conjugal visit and family bonding was administered. The data obtained were analyzed using Parson ProductMoment Correlation Coefficient and independent sample ttest. The result of correlation coefficient(r = .275, p < .05, N =136)showed a weak, positive and statistically insignificant relationship between conjugal visitation and family bonding among families who have no child; and(r = .53, p < .05, N = 136) showed a statistically significant relationship among incarcerated people who have a child or children. The independent sample t-test also demonstrated statistically significant difference (-2.90, df = 134, p <. 05) between male ...

RELATED PAPERS

Siti Hidayat

ENGLISH FRANCA : Academic Journal of English Language and Education

valisneria utami

Edumaspul: Jurnal Pendidikan

Ahmadi Hamsa Ramadhan

Cadernos Brasileiros De Medicina

Rogerio Motta

Alon Goshen-Gottstein

Thrombosis Research

Véronique Regnault

Maureen Oisakede

Informe No. 7 FMP

Sergio Angel

Sports Coaching Review

Robyn Jones

Aiste Blaviesciunaite

firas AL-Horamee

Research Papers in Economics

Beate Caesar

AP: Online Journal in Public Archaeology

Ignacio Rodríguez Temiño

Acadia学位证 阿卡迪亚大学毕业证

Dompet Pouch Handmade

jual suppliervendor

jfas.ege.edu.tr

Segel Kafgimel

Thomas Schott

买canterbury毕业证书 新西兰坎特伯雷大学毕业证学位证书文凭学历认证原版一模一样

Action Research

Annette Bilfeldt

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Conjugal Visits in Prisons Discourse: Is it Even an Offender Rehabilitation Option in Africa?

Conjugal rights issue in prisons is indeed an old debate. This article reviewed the literature on the genesis of prisoners’ conjugal visits programme, its global prevalence and the scholarly debate for and against its provision to understand if it can be a rehabilitation option in African countries’ prisons. It has been noted that conjugal visits programme was haphazardly started in the 1900s in Mississippi before becoming an official programme in 1989. Though they were discontinued later in 2014 in Mississippi, conjugal visits are still provided in many penitentiary facilities in America, Europe, Asia and Africa. Studies have revealed that conjugal visits are capable of reducing the problems of homosexuality, sexual assaults and physical violence in prisons. It has also been observed that, apart from the fact that denial of conjugal rights to the prisoners’ spouse could be a form of punishment to innocent victims, conjugal visits can be incentives for good prisoners’ behaviour and rehabilitation in prisons. However, apart from the fact the programme is likely to be expensive and costly to African countries whom their general strife is prisoners’ overcrowding, most of the arguments against conjugal visits are moral-based such as that the programme is likely to perpetrate one-parent family system and is prone to abuse by both prisoners and prison staff. It has, therefore, been concluded that it cannot hurt anybody if legally married prisoners and their spouses are provided with a right to enjoy conjugal visits especially in those jurisdictions which have embraced rehabilitation philosophy.

BBC News. (2000, June 29). Sex on sentence. BBC News Online. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/812165.stm

Ben Avraham, H. (2012). Prisoners’ conjugation. http://www.shabas.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/765524A8-206E-43BC-A197-1B49E488D3D1/0/etyakdotasirim.pdf

Burton, P., Pelser, E., & Gondwe, L. (2005). Understanding offending. Prisoners and rehabilitation in Malawi. https://issafrica.org/research/books/understanding-offending-prisoners-and-rehabilitation-in-malawi

California Department of Corrections. (2003). Inmate visiting guidelines. CDCR. http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Visitors/docs/InmateVisitingGuidelines.pdf

Carlson, B. E. & Cervera, N. (1991). Inmates and their wives. Greenwood.

Cavan, R. S. & Zemans. (1958). Marital relationships of prisoners in twenty-eight countries. The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, 49(1), 50- 57. https://doi.org/10.2307/1140923

Chabana, C. (2017, June 28). SA should consider conjugal visits in prison. News 24. https://www.news24.com/news24/mynews24/sa-should-consider-conjugal-visits-in-prison-20170628

Clemmer, D. (1950). Observations on imprisonment as a source of criminality. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1931-1951), 41(3), 311-319. https://doi.org/10.2307/1138066

Duba, N. (2016). The status of prisoners’ right to conjugal visit in Ethiopia (Master thesis, Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia). http://etd.aau.edu.et/handle/123456789/14497 .

Durrant, R. (2013). An introduction to criminal psychology. Routledge.

Einat, T. & Rabinovitz, S. (2012). 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

Einat, T. (2017). Conjugal visits. In K. R. Kerley (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Corrections. John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118845387.wbeoc001

Gates, N. et al. v Collier, J. et al. (1972). 349 Fed. Supp. 881. US District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/349/881/1501708/

Goetting, A. (1982). Conjugal association in prison: The debate and its resolutions. New England Journal on Prison Law, 8, 141-154.

Goyal, S. (2018). Conjugal rights of prisoners. Bharati Law Review, 57-73. http://docs.manupatra.in/newsline/articles/Upload/22A58DF8-EA77-472B-B0B5-F06ECDF5EB61._Goyal_Dr._Asst._Prof._57-73_Family.pdf

Hensley, C., Koscheski, M. & Tewksbury, R. (2002). Does participation in conjugal visitation reduce prison violence in Mississippi? An exploratory study. Criminal Justice Review, 27(1), 52-65. https://doi.org/10.1177/073401680202700104

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). https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02886816

Hopper, C. B. (1962). The conjugal visit at the Mississippi State Penitentiary. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, 53, 340-44. https://doi.org/10.2307/1141470

Hopper, C. B. (1969). Sex in prison: The Mississippi experiment in conjugal visiting. Louisiana State University Press.

Hopper, C. B. (1989). The evolution of conjugal visiting in Mississippi. The Prison Journal, 69(1), 103 – 110, https://doi.org/10.1177/003288558906900113

Howser, J., Grossman, J., & MacDonald, D. (1983). Impact of family reunion programs on institutional discipline. Journal of Offender Counseling Services and Rehabilitation, 8, 27-36. https://doi.org/10.1300/J264v08n01_04

Israel Prison Service. (2012). Inmates statistics. Retrieved from http://www.shabas.gov.il/Shabas/TIPUL_PRISONER/Prisoners+Info/

Kitta, T. (2015, June 18). Malawi Law Commissions, stakeholders review the Prison Act. Malawi News Agency (MANA) Online. https://www.manaonline.gov.mw/index.php/component/k2/item/3231-malawi-law-commissions-stakeholders-review-the-prison-act

Knowles, G. J. (1999). Male prison rape: A search for causation and prevention. The Howard Journal, 38, 267-282. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2311.00132

Krahn, N. M. W., Arruda, J. S. & Costa, J. C. (2020). Conjugal visits in the context of incarceration of women and girls in the State of Bahia, Brazil: Permissions, prohibitions and (in)visibilities. Oñati Socio-Legal Series, 10(2), 415-441. https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-1052

Lusaka Times. (2018, January 25). Allow sex in prison, says the Prison Care and Counselling Association. https://www.lusakatimes.com/2018/01/25/allow-sex-prison-says-prison-care-counselling-association/

Magombo, K. (2016, October 21). Sex on sentence in Malawi prisons non-starter – Law Commission. Nyasa Times. https://www.nyasatimes.com/sex-sentence-malawi-prisons-non-starter-law-commission

Majaliwa, C. (2012, November 2). Tanzania: Conjugal rights to be granted to prisoners. Tanzania Daily News. https://allafrica.com/stories/201211030279.html

Masangano v Attorney General & Others. (2009). MWHC 31 (15 of 2007 in the High Court). Malawi LII. https://malawilii.org/mw/judgment/supreme-court-appeal/2009/31-0

Mbewe, K. (2016, May 28). Prisons conjugal visits on cards. Zambia Daily Mail. http://www.daily-mail.co.zm/prisons-conjugal-visits-on-cards/

McElreath, D. H., Doss, D. A., Jensen III, 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

Murray, J., Farrington, D. P., Sekol, I. & Olsen, R. F. (2009). Effects of parental imprisonment on child antisocial behaviour and mental health: A systematic review. The Campbell Collaboration. https://doi.org/10.4073/csr.2009.4

Mustin, J. (1980). The Family: A critical factor for corrections. http://www.fcnetwork.org/reading/mustin.html

Mwangi, W. (2019, April 5). Inmates demand conjugal rights, balanced diet and right to bury kin. Nairobi News. https://nairobinews.nation.co.ke/life/inmates-demand-conjugal-rights-balanced-diet-and-right-to-bury-kin

Nacci, P., & Kane, T. (1983). The incidence of sex and sexual aggression in Federal prisons. Federal Probation, 7, 31-36. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/92865NCJRS.pdf

New Mexico Department of Corrections. (2006). Inmate visitations. http://corrections.state.nm.us/policies/CD-100200.pdf

Nzangaya, A. (2016, May 24). Activists want inmates to have sex in prisons. Malawi 24. https://malawi24.com/2016/03/24/activists-want-inmates-sex-prisons/

Phakathi, M. (2012, October 12). Swaziland: Allowing conjugal visits - a premature adjudication? Think Africa Press. https://allafrica.com/stories/201210150018.html

Phiri, S. (2016, July 16). CHREAA supports conjugal rights for prisoners. MBC. https://www.mbc.mw/news/entertainment/item/633-chreaa-supports-conjugal-rights-for-prisoners

Presse, F. (2018, July 15). Tanzania president says prisoners should be kicked and made to work 'day and night'. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/15/tanzania-president-says-prisoners-should-be-kicked-and-made-to-work-day-and-night

Republic of Malawi. (2010). The Constitution of the Republic of Malawi. Government Press.

Robertson, J. E. (2003). A clean heart and an empty head: The Supreme Court and sexual terrorism in prison. North California Law Review, 81, 433-481. https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4027&context=nclr

Rweyemamu, A. (2018, July 15). JPM: This is how Tanzania prisons should be run. IPP Media. https://www.ippmedia.com/en/news/jpm-how-tanzania-prisons-should-be-run

Schneller, D. P. (1976). The prisoners’ families. A study of the effects of imprisonment on the families of prisoners. R and E Research Associates.

Shamel, N. (2004, October). Authorities are debating the necessity of conjugal visits, but are they not setting the forest for the trees? Egypt Today. Retrieved from http://www.egypttoday.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=2517

Shayi, F. (2008). Sexual practices in South African prisons from the perspective of Christian ethics (Doctoral thesis, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa). https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b609/93fb4a03617411c0e5162c5c17a6534d24a1.pdf

Sichone, C. (2019, April 2). Zambia: Woman rights for prisoners... ZCS considering conjugal visits for inmates. Times of Zambia. https://allafrica.com/stories/201904020463.html

Singh, A. & Dasgupta, A. (2015). Prisoners’ conjugal visitation rights in India: Changing perspectives. Christ University Law Journal, 4(2), 73-88. https://doi.org/10.12728/culj.7.5

Smit, D. V. Z. & Dunker, F. (Eds.). (2001). Imprisonment today and tomorrow: International perspective on prison rights and prison conditions. Kluwer Law International.

Tapfumaneyi, R. (2019, August 23). No relaxation on inmates’ conjugal rights ban – ZPCS. New Zimbabwe. https://www.newzimbabwe.com/no-relaxation-on-inmates-conjugal-rights-ban-zpcs/

Thompson, C., & Loper, A. B. (2005). Adjustment patterns in incarcerated woman: An analysis of differences based on sentence length. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 32, 714-732. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854805279949

University of Minnesota. (2018). Ratification of International Human Rights Treaties – Malawi. Human Rights Library. http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/research/ratification-malawi.html

UNODC. 2015. United Nations standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners. (The Mandela Rules). United Nations. http://www.unodc.org/documents/justice-and-prison-reform/GA-RESOLUTION/E_ebook.pdf >

Washington Department of Corrections. (2005). DOC guide for friends and family of incarcerated offenders. Retrieved from http://www.doc.wa.gov/general/P184.pdf

Wyatt, R. (2006). Male rape in U.S. prisons: Are conjugal visits the answer. Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, 37(2), 579-614. https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1381&context=jil

Yakubu, S. (2018). The rights of inmates to conjugal rights: Uganda in perspective. Unilag Law Review, 2(1). https://unilaglawreview.org/james/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/the-rights-of-inmates-to-conjugal-rights-yakubu-ulr-2018-vol-2-ed-1.pdf

How to Cite

• Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)

Copyright (c) 2021 Samson C R Kajawo

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License .

Author(s) retains full copyright of their article and grants non-exclusive publishing right to  Advanced Journal of Social Science and its publisher AIJR Publisher. Author(s) can archive pre-print, post-print, and published version/PDF to any open access, institutional repository, social media, or personal website provided that Published source must be acknowledged with citation and link to publisher version. Click  here  for more information on Copyright policy Click  here  for more information on Licensing policy

Make a Submission

Newsletters & alerts.

Quick Links

• Browse Volumes & Issues
• Aims and Scope
• Section Policies
• Editorial Team
• Online Submissions
• Track your Article
• Author Guidelines
• Peer Review Process
• Reviewer Guidelines
• Publication Frequency
• Publication Ethics
• Open Access Policy
• Digital Archiving Policy
• Article Processing Charge (APC)
• CrossMark Policy
• No Plagiarism
• Copyright Notice
• Licensing policy
• Privacy Statement
• Journal History
• About Publisher

Current Issue

Published by AIJR Publisher Darussalam, Dhaurahra, Balrampur, U.P. (India)

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

Inmate rights and prison reform in sweden and denmark, additional details.

428 East Preston Street , Baltimore , MD 21202 , United States

No download available

Availability, related topics.

How Do Conjugal Visits Work?

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?

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.

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 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.

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.

History of the Freedom of Information Act

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

Tort Law Definition & Examples

Bail vs Bond: What’s the Difference?

Why this Arctic church in Sweden married 20 couples in 5 hours

Kiruna's iconic church — and, in fact, the whole town — is in the process of being relocated.

Social Sharing

Sylvi Jatko and Jan-Olof Brynefall always intended to have a small, simple wedding. But when they tied the knot on Friday, entire news crews were on hand to document the occasion.

That's because they were one of 20 couples who got hitched during a five-hour wedding whirlwind at the historic Kiruna church in northern Sweden on Friday. 

The 40 newlyweds were the last to say their vows in the iconic, A-frame building before it gets uprooted and relocated — along with the entire town. 

"It was a very special feeling," Jatko told As It Happens host Nil Köksal.

A mining town on the move

Kiruna is a small Arctic town in northern Sweden, and home to the world's largest iron ore mine. Run by the state-owned company LKAB, it supplies about 80 per cent of European Union's iron ore supply .

It's also poised to play a role in Europe's green technology future. Last year, LKAB announced that Kiruno is home to more  than a million tonnes of rare earth elements , used in the manufacturing of wind turbines and electric vehicles.

But even before this discovery, the Kiruna mine had long been expanding and ramping up production. And this growth has caused land deformation that,  according to the Guardian , is cracking the foundations in local buildings and threatens to swallow the town up.

As a result, an overwhelming majority of the town's residents voted a decade ago  to relocate the entire community about three kilometres away, one building at a time. 

The massive undertaking started nine years ago, and is expected to continue for years to come. 

Part of that relocation is moving the town's church in its entirety.

"The church will be taken apart, piece by piece, then rebuilt in exactly the same way three kilometres to the east," vicar Lars Jarlemyr  told Reuters in 2015 .

Designed by architect Gustaf Wickman and built between 1909 and 1912, the bright red building has long been a community hub in Kiruna and an architectural icon in Sweden.

Its design was inspired by a traditional lávvu , a tent-like temporary dwelling used by the Indigenous Sámi people.

'It's warming my heart'

Jatko, who is Sámi , says it's "hard to describe" what the church means to her. She, her siblings and all of her children all had their confirmations there. 

She and Brynefall have been engaged for three years. But about two and a half weeks ago, they had a conversation that forced them to speed their plans along.

"I said to Olof that I want to marry in the church. And then he said, 'Have you not seen the advertisements in the paper?'" Jatko said. 

The church, she soon learned, was about to close its doors to prepare for the big move. On Sunday, it held its final service, and it won't be open again for another two and a half years in its new location.

But on Friday, to bid the adieu, it held a wedding blitz for all those who wanted to get married there before the move. Jatko and Brynefall signed up, and became the second couple of 20 to say their vows that day.

CBC reached out to church leaders for comment, but the local vicar is on a much-needed vacation after a weekend of farewell ceremonies.

Jatko, meanwhile, says she will visit the church again when it reopens in its new location, though she admits it won't be the same. 

But she's glad she was able to make one final memory there before it closed its doors.

"It's warming my heart," she said.

Interview with Sylvi Jatko produced by Livia Dyring

Add some “good” to your morning and evening.

Get the CBC Radio newsletter. We'll send you a weekly roundup of the best CBC Radio programming every Friday.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Google Terms of Service apply.