Talk:Conjugal visit

Correction and Detention Facilities (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Correction and Detention Facilities, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Correction and Detention FacilitiesWikipedia:WikiProject Correction and Detention FacilitiesTemplate:WikiProject Correction and Detention FacilitiesCorrection and Detention Facilities articles

Sexology and sexuality Low‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

August 2006

See discussion on the talk page? This isn't much of a talk page, much less a discussion. Maybe we could do without the tag? --71.248.77.118 01:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The message "The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view" refers to the fact that this article seems to be only about conjugal visits in the united states, whereas wikipedia is not US-specific. The article needs to be rewritten to take into account conjugal visits in the rest of the world. --Xyzzyplugh 13:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And putting an "around the world" section, but still with a primary focus on the US doesn't count as remedying the problem. Brentt 20:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pop culture/trivia section

Triviacreep has hit this article. Few if any of the entries in pop culture influences meet the criteria of WP:TRIVIA, so I'm being bold and removing them. Fireplace 15:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They're back, and still as useless as ever. -Phoenixrod (talk) 05:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed pop culture references where the significance of the conjugal visit was not described. Kept those that did. 83.150.91.39 (talk) 11:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/08/12/chapman.no.parole/index.html This could serve as trivia. Additionally, the article seems to contradict the Wikipedia page's statement that conjugal visits cannot occur in maximum security situations. 71.129.152.208 (talk) 04:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Ashley[reply]

Struck down?

> The Federal Bureau of Prisons does not allow conjugal visits <

Didn't the US federal government signed various UN treaties that say people have the inalienable right to reproduce? Int'l treaties signed and ratified supercede national constitutions and legislations.

No, they don't. The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any international treaties, signed and ratified or not, that contradict the Constitution are null and void. - MSTCrow 17:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unconstitutional, not null and void. -91.32.237.142 16:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you're suggesting that the Constitution declares that people do *not* have the inalienable right to reproduce (otherwise it couldn't actually contradict it). Do you have the citations for that? I have never seen/heard of that. 74.211.15.51 19:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Treaties are typcially co-equal to the US Const. We also tend to opt out of parts of treaties we don't like, which is the most probable answer here. Jcforge (talk) 20:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contradict

Paragraph 1 states that conjugal visits are the right of the spouse, not the inmate. Paragraph 2 states that they are contingent on the inmate's good behaviour. How can the inmate's behaviour impinge on a right of the spouse? Zargulon 16:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the inmate's criminal behavior is what causes them to be sent to prison, then it impinges on the "right" of the spouse to spend their life with that person. And their children.Eregli bob (talk) 14:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hands up, who can count?

Today, conjugal visitation programs, also known as the Extended Family Visit, survive in only six states: California, Connecticut, Mississippi, New Mexico, New York, Washington and South Dakota.

I count seven states there. Later on in the article...

New York, California, Mississippi, Washington, Connecticut, and New Mexico are the only six states that currently allow conjugal visits.

So does good ole' South Dakota have them, or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.29.167.236 (talk) 23:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...I want to say, "Yes, but only with your sister," but Alabama wasn't mentioned, so it wouldn't be as accurate. Dunno, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.95.247.110 (talk) 10:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For Discussion:This should not be redirected from Conjugal Rights

I'm not sure this should be in receipt of a redirection form conjugal rights.

While Conjugal Visits are , in SOME countries, the way that conjugal rights are addressed for incarcerees, conjugal rights are a more widespread topic, are not necessarily related to incarceration, and in my opinion a different topic both ethically and historically (see Roger Moore's Bio for an example where neither party was incarcerated) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.64.11 (talk) 17:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both partners incarcerated?

Is there any jurisdiction in the world that allows a married couple, with both of them incarcerated for the same crime, to meet? -- 77.189.70.109 (talk) 20:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the trend here?

In the United States section, the article currently states,

Today, conjugal visitation programs, also known as the Extended Family Visit, survive in six states. (emphasis added by HH).

The clear implication of the word "survive" is that such programs are under attack and being phased out. But is this so? The article says nothing more to make this clear. So my question is, what is the trend here? Are these programs expanding or shrinking? HuskyHuskie (talk) 18:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

source for edit 25.11.2017

I made an edit fixing something inaccurate, the source is in hebrew so I didn't put it in ref: Israel Prison Service Rules. Orielno (talk) 06:28, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]