Dr. Graves was queried as to the incidence of homosexuality in prison. He guessed that at times it could go as high as 50% of the male population-but that it was looked on differently in prison than in the outside society. By the psychiatrists it was called "situational sex behavior"-that is, something most of the men involved would not do if they had normal outlets for the sex drives and that therefore, it was not judged as harshly by prison officialsalthough they tried to keep homosexual practices to a minimum.

Dr. Graves did not feel that homosexual criminals should be given any. more special treatment than any other criminal. All criminals were special unto themselves, he felt, and should be treated for their own individual problems.

Mr. Selwyn queried Dr. Graves as to the feasibility of allowing prisoners. the right to have sexual intercourse with their wives or sweethearts as is permitted in Mexican jails. Would not this practice cut down on the 'situational homosexuality?' he asked.

Dr. Graves agreed that it probably would if there were some way to bring about our society's acceptance of this practice.

Dr. Ziferstein pointed out that our society was basically an anti-sex society, not just an anti-homosexual society. He implied that it was because of this that there were so many sex deviates, homosexuals included. Homosexuals, per se, he did not feel were dangerous to the common good. The "homosexual neurosis" is no worse than any other neurosis, he said.

Dr. Graves did not seem to necessarily agree with Dr. Ziferstein as to homosexuality being a neurosis to start with. In this society where homosexuality is connected with great moral repugnance, he felt that naturally most homosexuals were going to get neurotic over the state of affairs.

The other panelists seemd to ignore Mr. Otash except when the Moderator asked him a direct question, at which point the other panelists would take off from his answer and kick it around among themselves.

The next question was directed to Mr. Otash. Why is there such a big difference in the viewpoints of Law, Law Enforcement and Medical Opinion? asked Mr. Bradley.

Mr. Otash's answer was, "If you think these people [Homosexuals] are all right you should change the laws."

Mr. Selwyn and the rest of the panel agreed wholeheartedly. After all, it was explained, the police don't draft the laws, but are duty bound to enforce them. The laws should be changed, so that the police are not faced with this problem.

Dr. Ziferstein felt that the difference lay in the occupational hazard of each job. The policeman becomes involved in the "cops and robbers" chase at the expense of human values and the psychiatrists and social workers become involved in the human values to the exclusion of all else. He felt, however, that the latter bias was a better one.

Mr. Selwyn felt that there needed to be a balance between social protection and the rights of the individual. He mentioned the work of The Church of England's Moral Welfare Counsel and their recommendation that sex between consenting adults should not be considered a legal question at all. He concluded by adding that it may be a moral question between the private individual and his conscience, but there were no legal values involved.

Sten Russell

one

28