The hidden inhumanity of incarceration: Quantifying the suffering caused by banning sexual intimacy behind bars

Abstract

Research Summary

Correctional institutions generally ban consensual sexual intimacy among incarcerated people—a policy that traces historically to homophobic bias and persists today because of institutional inertia and untested claims about its security benefits. Is such sexual deprivation cruel and inhumane? Using a novel experimental method—relative harm valuation (RHV)—in two national surveys, we investigate public opinion on sex bans, quantifying the perceived suffering that would result from sexual deprivation. The results are striking. Most respondents prefer criminal victimization to the loss of sex and believe sexual deprivation is more agonizing than negative life events involving illness, injury, job loss, and infidelity. About half of respondents prefer to be flogged or caned over suffering a permanent sex ban, and one-fourth prefers to have a body part (e.g., hand) amputated. Our data also reveal that only a minority of respondents opposes allowing consensual sexual intimacy behind bars, and most believe that prohibiting sex encourages rape.

Policy Implications

Policy makers and correctional officials should reconsider banning consensual sexual intimacy among incarcerated people for two reasons. First, it is a form of nonjudicial punishment that causes suffering and violates human dignity. Second, it is a policy that lacks empirical backing, given the absence of relevant research. We argue for a new “golden rule” of corrections: If a correctional policy, such as banning masturbation or consensual sex, inflicts suffering on incarcerated people, it should be tested experimentally to see if it has any benefits. Given that our findings (and others) show that sex is a basic human need, experiments are needed to test whether it is possible to relax prohibitions on consensual sexual intimacy (and masturbation) behind bars without compromising institutional safety.