Wrong of guards to stop inmate's sex act
Published: 04 Oct 2011 07:28 GMT+02:00
Updated: 04 Oct 2011 07:28 GMT+02:00
- Doc accused of snapping pics of naked patients (09 Sep 11)
- Masturbating man reported for 'moaning louder than an animal' (11 Aug 11)
- Men allege sexual discrimination at Swedish police academy (29 Jul 11)
The incident took place in September 2010 at the Västervik Norra prison in eastern Sweden, prompting the inmate's fiance to file a complaint with the ombudsman arguing that staff members at the prison behaved inappropriately when they barged in on the couple having sex.
The fiance had brought along the couple's infant daughter for the scheduled Saturday visit. After a few minutes of playing with their child, the couple fed her and put her to sleep in a stroller.
After the baby had fallen asleep, the inmate and his fiance hopped in the adjacent bed and began to get intimate.
Suddenly, there was a light knock on the door at which point two male guards entered the visiting room while the couple lay naked between the sheets.
They ordered the inmate to come outside with them, although they allowed him to put his clothes on before escorting him out of the room, leaving his naked fiance and sleeping daughter behind.
The guards chastised the inmate, claiming that “it is a crime against social services laws to have naked sexual relations in a room when a child is present”.
As a result, they were forced to step in and break off such activities when they occur.
In her complaint, the fiance called the guards' behaviour “insulting and invasive”, and the ombudsman agreed.
Not only did the ombudsman express doubts over the merits of the general ban on sex in the presence of a child, but she also argued that the guards could have explained the policy to the couple before they entered the room.
“To barge into the visiting room at such a sensitive moment constitutes a huge invasion into the inmate's and his visitor's personal privacy and requires great tact and consideration,” Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman Cecilia Nordenfelt wrote in her decision.
If the point of the interruption was simply to inform the inmate about the rules, there must have been “other, more considerate ways to deal with the situation”, she added in issuing her critique of the prison guards' actions.
Your comments about this article
fking joke protecting criminals, whats next? Are they gona say it was the female guard for getting killed by an inmate?
uhh maybe it was entrapment -_-x
example: the man who was protecting a girl from rape just was found guilty of assult and had to go to jail for a couple of years. here is a normal dude with family job life and so on. is it not good that he keeps in his kids life and and some sexual realtions with his loved one so she does not leave him for another man or cheat on him. the only thing i can see is that they should be married to have sex. or you might get into having temporary girlfriends if you know what i mean.
If the child had been five *years* old the situation might have been different. But what right do prison guards have to impose their morality on an inmate? Had the couple been at home and a child (of whatever age) been in the room no one would know. And what parents haven't gotten a sexual frison from making love when a child is asleep in the same room; the risk of being "caught" can be very erotic. (Some countries don't legislate what goes on in the bedroom.)
This report does not mention what crime the inmate was serving time for. The only justifications for guards entering the room on the suspicion of some sex act going on would be if the prisoner were in for child sex crimes or if the visitor were being raped (though that brings us back to my original question of how the guards know what is happening in the room). But the prisoner is there for committing sex crimes should he, in his case, be allowed to use the room?
And what the **** did the guards think was going to happen when the couple and child entered a conjugal rights room --- sit and hold hands, just sit and chat, play "mommies and daddies" ... oh they did.
if it was anything serious, why give him the right to have sex with his wife in the first place!?
u man enough to do the crime, then your man enough to do the time.
think before you act next time criminal.
but again, what was he charged with?
In general, I agree with you "do the crime; do the time" but family members did not break the law yet they are punished too. If the inmate were single then there would be no problem. The courts have removed his freedom as some punishment and recompense for the crime committed. However, this particular man is not single.
Why should the woman involved here not experience a healthy sex life just because her man is in prison? Is that fair on her? If there was complicity on her part, for example she knew about his criminal activities before hand, then it could be argue that she bear some of the guilt herself by losing her right to sexual intercourse with her man. (Though unless she were actually tried and found guilty of conspiracy there would be no moral right to remove her human rights to a family life.) But without any conviction she is being punished too.
Is it fair on the child as it grows up not to have contact time with both its parents? As this child grows up it will need to form a relationship with its father even though he is denied his freedom for committing a crime. Mind you as the child grews up it wouldn't be a good idea for it to be in the same room as mother and father are at it.
Maybe the prison officers should have engaged their brains and thought that being in the conjugal rights room the man was likely going to engage some other anatomical part and suggested that once the child was fed and asleep they removed it from the room for a while.
When you grow up, you will soon learn that life isn't always fair.
And if you eventually grow up, you find that some ethical and philosophical issues are harder to resolve than with an asinine comment like yours.
Is she good looking? Maybe I could help out.
There are millions of couples all over the world that have their baby's crib in their bedroom and yes, they make love in that same room. Families all over the world also often share bedrooms or even beds and do you think that stops mom and dad from having sex? No and it shouldn't, sex is normal and natural.
The fact that this child is a baby makes the whole thing even more ridiculous.
I also agree with Playmaker above. As long as the husband isn't in prison for something super heinous or for abusing his wife, it's good to let them continue to see each other and to have sex. Keeping a connection with their family will probably allow most of them to keep positive and hopefully take steps to change so that they can be with their family in the future.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.