Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-5bf98f6d76-sglwb Total loading time: 0.241 Render date: 2021-04-21T02:38:27.226Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

Controlling Consensual Sex Among Prisoners

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 December 2018

Abstract

Despite recent legal advances for LGBT citizens, including the Supreme Court's recognition of a constitutional right to engage in private, consensual, same-sex sex, prisons continue to regulate sex in much the same way they have been doing since the nineteenth century. Nationwide, prisons bar consensual sex among prisoners, and those who violate this policy face severe punishment, including administrative segregation. Interviews with prison officials from twenty-three states uncover beliefs linking consensual sex with violence that places the overall security of the prison at risk. While supporting LGBT rights and the decriminalization of same-sex sex in society, officials insist that prisons are not suited for similar change. This article explains why prison officials have been so committed to this policy and argues that the time has come to reconsider prison regulation of consensual sex.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © American Bar Foundation, 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Borchert, Jay. In press. A New Iron Closet: Failing to Extend the Spirit of Lawrence v. Texas to Prisons and Prisoners. In The War on Sex, ed. Halperin, D. and Hoppe, T. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1989. Social Space and Symbolic Power. Sociological Theory 7 (1): 1425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bureau of Justice Statistics. 2008. Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners. National Former Prisoner Survey. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice.Google Scholar
Bureau of Justice Statistics. 2009. Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice.Google Scholar
Calavita, Kitty, and Valerie, Jenness. 2015. Appealing to Justice: Prisoner Grievances, Rights, and Carceral Logic. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Crank, John P. 1994. Watchman and Community: Myth and Institutionalization in Policing. Law & Society Review 28 (2): 325–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dolovich, Sharon. 2012. Forms of Deference in Prison Law. Federal Sentencing Reporter 24 (4): 245–59.Google Scholar
Dunn‐Giles, Cheryl. 1993. Turner v. Safley and its Progeny: A Gradual Retreat to the “Hands‐Off Doctrine?Arizona Law Review 35:219–36.Google Scholar
Eigenberg, Helen. 2000. Correctional Officers and Their Perceptions of Homosexuality, Rape, and Prostitution in Male Prisons. Prison Journal 80 (4): 415–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fligstein, Neil, and McAdam, Doug. 2011. Toward a General Theory of Strategic Action Fields. Sociological Theory 29 (1): 126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foucault, Michel. 1979. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
Georgia Department of Corrections. 2012. Orientation Handbook for Offenders. Forsyth, GA: Georgia Department of Corrections.Google Scholar
Hagan, John. 1989. Why Is There So Little Criminal Justice Theory? Neglected Macro‐ and Micro‐Level Links Between Organization and Power. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 26 (2): 116–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanssens, Catherine, Moodie‐Mills, Aisha C., Ritchie, Andrea J., Spade, Dean, and Vaid, Urvashi. 2014. A Roadmap for Change: Federal Policy Recommendations for Addressing the Criminalization of LGBT People and People Living with HIV. New York: Center for Gender & Sexuality Law at Columbia Law School.Google Scholar
Hensley, Christopher, and Tewksbury, Richard. 2002. Inmate to Inmate Prison Sexuality: A Review of Empirical Studies. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse 3 (3): 226–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoppe, Trevor. 2013. Controlling Sex in the Name of “Public Health”: Social Control and Michigan HIV Law. Social Problems 60 (1): 2749.Google Scholar
Horwitz, Paul. 2008. Three Faces of Deference. Notre Dame Law Review 83 (3): 10611146.Google Scholar
Iowa Department of Corrections. 2006. Policies and Procedure. Des Moines, IA: Iowa Department of Corrections.Google Scholar
Johnson, Carrie, and Chappell, Bill. 2014. Solitary Confinement Costs $78k per Inmate and Should Be Curbed. Washington, DC: National Public Radio.Google Scholar
Kunzel, Regina. 2008. Criminal Intimacy: Prison and the Uneven History of Modern American Sexuality. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
LaMont, Michelle, and White, Patricia. 2005. Workshop on Interdisciplinary Standards for Systematic Qualitative Research. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.Google Scholar
Lerman, Amy, and Page, Joshua. 2012. The State of the Job: An Embedded Work Role Perspective on Prisoner Officer Attitudes. Punishment & Society 14 (5): 503–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynch, Mona. 1998. Waste Managers? The New Penology, Crime Fighting, and Parole Agent Identity. Law & Society Review 32 (4): 839–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynch, Mona. 2000. Rehabilitation as Rhetoric. Punishment & Society 2 (1): 4064.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maynard‐Moody, Steven, and Musheno, Michael. 2000. State Agent or Citizen Agent: Two Narratives of Discretion. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 10 (2): 329–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McEvoy, Alan, and Spirgen, Nicole. 2012. Gambling Among Prison Inmates: Patterns and Implications. Journal of Gambling Studies 28:6976.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meyer, John W., and Rowan, Brian. 1977. Institutional Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony. American Journal of Sociology 83 (2): 340–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrill, Calvin. 2008. Culture and Organization Theory. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 619:1540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nixon, Gary, Leigh, Gordon, and Nowatzki, Nadine. 2006. Impacting Attitudes Towards Gambling: A Prison Gambling Awareness and Prevention Program. Journal of Gambling Issues 17. http://jgi.camh.net/loi/jgi (accessed May 2, 2016).Google Scholar
Page, Joshua. 2013. Punishment and the Penal Field. In The Sage Handbook of Punishment and Society, ed. Simon, J. and Spark, R., 152–66 New York: Sage.Google Scholar
Robinson, Russel. 2011. Masculinity as Prison: Sexual Identity, Race and Incarceration. California Law Review 99:13091409 Google Scholar
Shay, Giovanna. 2010. Ad Law Incarcerated. Berkeley Journal of Criminal Law 14 (2): 329–94.Google Scholar
Simon, Jonathan. 2013. Punishment and the Political Technologies of the Body. In The Sage Handbook of Punishment and Society, ed. Simon, J. and Sparks, R., 6089 New York: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sumner, Jennifer, and Sexton, Lori. In press. Same Difference: The “Dilemma of Difference” and the Incarceration of Transgender Prisoners. Law & Social Inquiry.Google Scholar
Sumner, Jennifer, Sexton, Lori, Jenness, Valerie, and Maxon, Cheryl. 2014. The (Pink) Elephant in the Room: The Structure and Experience of Race and Violence in the Lives of Transgender Prisoners in California. In Routledge International Handbook of Race, Class, and Gender, ed. Jackson, Shirley A., 128–43, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sykes, Gresham. 1958. The Society of Captives: A Study of a Maximum‐Security Prison. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Timmermans, Stephan, and Tavory, Iddo. 2012. Theory Construction in Qualitative Research: From Grounded Theory to Abductive Analysis. Sociology Theory 30 (3): 167–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrence v. Texas., 539 U.S. 558 (2003).Google Scholar
Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 556 (2015).Google Scholar
Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996, 110 Stat. 1321.Google Scholar
Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, 117 Stat. 972.Google Scholar

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 22
Total number of PDF views: 29 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 27th December 2018 - 21st April 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Controlling Consensual Sex Among Prisoners
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Controlling Consensual Sex Among Prisoners
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Controlling Consensual Sex Among Prisoners
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *