NCJ Number
140779
Journal
Criminal Justice Journal Volume: 14 Issue: 2 Dated: (Fall 1992) Pages: 425- 450
Date Published
1992
Length
26 pages
Annotation
This analysis of prisoners' rights with respect to conjugal visits and artificial insemination concludes that the California court considering these rights should dismiss the litigation for failure to state a claim upon which any relief may be granted.
Abstract
In 1991, 14 death row inmates at San Quentin filed a lawsuit seeking the right to father children. Anderson and the other plaintiffs allege that the prison authorities have infringed upon their constitutional right to procreate by denying them conjugal visits and an opportunity to preserve their sperm for procreation through artificial insemination. However, all persons who are incarcerated experience a basic diminution of constitutional rights. They have very little expectation of or right to privacy, and the right to procreate is derived from the right to privacy. In addition, case law has established that no constitutional right of privacy exists for conjugal visits for death row inmates. The death row inmates differ from other inmates, so the equal protection clause is not violated. Similarly, denial of the right to procreate does not represent cruel and unusual punishment. Thus, the plaintiffs have failed to provide any constitutional grounds for their complaint. Footnotes