THE PRESS THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1977. Prisons: a modest proposal
The penalties of a term of imprisonment have generally been assumed to include the exclusion of sexual relationships A moment’s reflection suggests this might not always be in the best interests of the prisoners or of the community. Some people when deprived of a normal sexual relationship are prone to unstable and irrational behaviour. To the extent that the community expects prisons to rehabilitate as well as punish, it is badly served if prisoners return to normal life in a state of excessive sexual frustration. The adjustment of prisoners is not likely to be improved by the brutalising effects of the illicit homosexual relationships which occur from time to time in some institutions.
The importance of sexual relationships in the rehabilitation of some criminals has begun to be recognised. Experiments abroad have gone further than in New Zealand, especially in Scandinavia: even here some forms of confinement for less serious offences include provisions for prisoners to return to their wives and families for brief periods, especially in the time immediately before their release.
That is a long way from the kind of illicit sex during visiting hours which a member of Parliament claims he saw during an inspection of a maximum security institution. If the member for Invercargill (Mr N. P. H. Jones) was not mistaken in what he saw, a breach of prison regulations was being added to an offence against good taste and the sensibilities of other less fortunate or more inhibited prisoners and their visitors. That is a matter for the prison authorities to correct. Instead of threatening to resign from the caucus committee on justice, Mr Jones might use the opportunity, as others are doing, to reconsider the place of sex in the lives of prisoners.
Should prisons provide facilities for prisoners to enjoy something approaching a normal sex life? That would mean clean, secluded beds and a
time-table for their use which fitted in with the wishes of prisoners, their sexual partners, and the organisation of the prison. Anything more mechanical and less romantic is hard to imagine. If such a system were to be fair it could not, of course, be confined to men’s prisons. The community is no longer so Victorian as to pretend that women have no need for sex or pleasure from it. But what of homosexuals and lesbians? Would they be denied access to what they would regard as “ normal ” sex? For that matter, would heterosexual activity be limited to those prisoners who had a wife or husband willing to co-operate? Should prisons condone or promote adulterous relationships? What of prisoners, whether married or single, who could not persuade a partner to join them? The prison service can hardly be expected to pimp for its inmates, but if sex in prisons were limited to a fortunate few it might generate more problems of discipline and behaviour than it solved. Would prison visitors be expected or encouraged to provide new services for less fortunate prisoners?
These are distasteful questions for which there are no obvious answers likely to satisfy most of the community. Such questions cannot be evaded by those who would like to see a more liberal attitude towards sex for prisoners. Any changes are probablj’ best left to be made on the advice of those most qualified to assess their effects—senior staff of the Justice Department and prison psychologists. But the most important consideration should be the well-being of the community. Prison remains a punishment; life there should not be improved merely for the comfort of prisoners. Only changes which promise more hope of rehabilitation of offenders should be contemplated. On the face of it, a regular and assured sex life for all prison inmates would not necessarily be in the community’s best interests. Anything less would be unfair and discriminatory towards some prisoners.
THE PRESS THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1977. Prisons: a modest proposal
Press, 10 February 1977, Page 12
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Press. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 3.0 New Zealand licence. This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.
Copyright in all Footrot Flats cartoons is owned by Diogenes Designs Ltd. The National Library has been granted permission to digitise these cartoons and make them available online as part of this digitised version of the Press. You can search, browse, and print Footrot Flats cartoons for research and personal study only. Permission must be obtained from Diogenes Designs Ltd for any other use.
This newspaper was digitised in partnership with Christchurch City Libraries.