Konstantins Briskins Dissertation by PDF Uploads

Conceptualising Prison Architecture Since the 17th Century

Konstantins Briskins Newcastle University 1

Contents Preface

Third Generation: Communication and Unit Management

Prison Architecture as a Mirror of Society

Origins of the Third Generation Prisons

Execution as the Predecessor of Detention

Behavioral Psychology as a Design Driver

First Generation: Makeshift Prisons

Unit Management

Ancient Prisons and The Absent Typology

The Model’s Decline

Makeshift Prisons

Learning From Norway

The Role of Wealth in The Pre-reformed Prisons

Halden Prison’s Green Campus

Harbingers of the Reforms

The Insular Village of the Bastøy Prison

Effectiveness and Recidivism

Influence of Ecclesiastical Practices

Conclusion: The Story So Far

Architectural Models

Bibliography

Cellular Arrangement and The Panopticon

List of Figures

Second Generation: Reformed Prisons

Preface Architecture has many purposes. Buildings that we design can foster mental or spiritual growth, relieve pain, provide a space for contemplation or astonish us with their aesthetic qualities. There is however a typology that is drastically different from the rest of the edifices we are so used to. It is historically surrounded by mystery, veiled in darkness and evokes fear. When we talk about bad architecture, we often assume that the task to create a pleasant environment has been failed. But what if the task was to design a place for torture? What if its single goal was to punish an individual and who would even assign such a goal? By asking such questions we are approaching the unchartered territory of prison architecture. Its importance is often undermined since a ‘normal’ person would never come in contact with this typology. Architecture for detention is seen as a phenomenon created for the outlaws, outcasts or simply the other. We are very keen on making this divide. In reality the field of penal design is much closer to us then we think. It represents the power dynamic within the social and political systems we inhabit. The cultural phenomena that are conventionally seen as the ‘good’ and the ‘evil’ are imaginary constructs. Some are necessary for our survival while others are damaging. Prison architecture is the most polished and well-defined spatial and material manifestation of these constructs. The main aim of this paper is to demonstrate and conceptualize the cultural, political and social development of western societies through the architectural lens of correctional facilities.

Prison Architecture as a Mirror of Society

Execution as the Predecessor of Detention

Most people familiar with the trends of current architectural discussions would agree that prison

Jailing of convicts as the main form of punishment was preceded by a set of brutal tools of con-

typology is rarely present in the limelight of such conversations. There are obvious reasons for

trol that involved different kinds of physical harm and in extreme cases - execution. Generally, it is

the apparent invisibility of the topic. Firstly, places for detention only constitute a small fraction of

possible to outline seven prevailing methods of punishment that comprise “death, physical injury,

the structures being erected yearly and hence are incapable of competing with student accom-

deprivation of liberty, disgrace, forced labour, financial penalties, and banishment”.1 Different socie-

modations, offices or private housing. Secondly, concepts like disobedience and correction are

ties across multiple time periods could have drastically ranging punitive strategies and one’s social

overshadowed by the current conceptual trends of making buildings greener, more inclusive and

status and wealth had significant influence on the particular form of punishment since a well-es-

egalitarian. Lastly, the potential end user of a prison might not be the exact person an architect is

tablished code of internationally accepted laws is a relatively recent phenomenon. Nevertheless,

desperate to design for. Even though this assumption is subjective there is a tangible difference be-

the previously mentioned methods can be seen as a basic collection of responses to undesirable

tween designing public edifices for young creatives and prisons for convicted rapists, arsonists or

behavior in individuals where execution is meant for the most ‘unsuitable’ social actions. While cap-

murderers. While none of the mentioned circumstances are false prison typology should not remain

ital punishment is still present in some countries it has undoubtedly lost its popularity and is only

in the low of architectural hierarchy since its social role spans beyond the conventionally accept-

used in the most severe legal cases. To understand the roots of punitive detention one must first

ed niche. It offers unique and invaluable insights into often hidden social and political conditions

understand the aims behind corporal punishment and public executions and why such methods

across different places and time periods. Prison architecture can reveal the gaps between liberal

lost their vitality.

agendas and oppressive realities, whether societies are split into rigid classes or value equality, the

Firstly, it is worth considering the symbolic nature of the pain inflicted upon a convict in the ancient

role of an individual and most importantly the value of human life and dignity. Prison can be seen

and medieval times. It was a physical manifestation of the state’s power but also served as a graph-

as a social mirror – a more pronounced material reflection of the world’s darkest truths. Ironically

ic representation of the ethics present in the past. Even though, nowadays, places of confinement

prison’s materiality sets it apart from a form of punishment so appalling it had no need for enclosure.

for serial killers tend to be more austere than those intended for robbers, severity of a crime is only reflected by the length of a sentence or the size of a fine. That was not the case before imprisonment obtained its popularity. Physical punishments were meant to reflect the weight of committed crimes following the logic of the Old Testament: ‘An eye for an eye’. For example, “Ordinary thieves were whipped and banished; those who had committed qualified thefts were hanged, murderers and bandit leaders were broken on the wheel; and arson and sacrilege (e.g., church robberies) were punished by various forms of burning”.2 The messages carved in these dark rituals could be read clearly by a spectator but often failed to become internalized. Secondly, when archaic types of punishment are considered, a purely economic benefit of such approach becomes apparent. Executing or mutilating an individual is easier and cheaper than building a jail, hiring wardens and providing food and water for the offender.3 In the Middle Ages material resources were scarce and understandably physical harm and capital punishment were more affordable ways to control the masses. Capital punishment became less popular by the late 17th century and began to fade away from 1750s onwards or at least lost its brutality.4 Effectiveness of public executions has always been questionable as a method of control since it levels out the moral image of the criminal and the state and consequently normalizes violence within a society.

Figure 1. Execution of François Ravaillac, assassin of Henry IV of France (1610) It is hard to say whether the crime or the punishment was more barbaric.

Norman Johnston, Forms of Constraint (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2000), p. 5.

Anton Blok, The symbolic vocabulary of public executions. History and power in the study of law. New directions in

legal anthropology (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2019), p. 47. 3

Allan Brodie, Jane Croom and James O Davies, English Prisons (Swindon: English Heritage, 2002), p. 10-11.

Blok, The symbolic vocabulary of public executions, p. 50.

At some point following the rise of humanism authorities had a profound epiphany that it is easier to prevent a crime by introducing multiple sets of rituals, practices and social rules or in other words disciplines. The emergence of such disciplines can be seen as a natural response to the ever-growing technological advancements and the introduction of novel social institutions.5 Public internalization of the mentioned practices requires moral supremacy of the state that produces them. Hence the barbaric practices of the past had to be abandoned to avoid corruption of the government’s reputation that had recently obtained a new value. Simultaneously, societies were rapidly accumulating wealth and became economically capable of replacing death with deprivation of liberty. Public executions as the first social reflection in the presented narrative are capable of telling a rich story about the western world before the 17th century. It was a brutal place where regardless

First Generation: Makeshift Prisons Ancient Prisons and The Absent Typology

of religious dogmas empathy and humanness were abandoned and replaced by a spectacle of cruelty. While the message that the medieval authorities wanted to engrave was the one of fear the public convinced of their innocence for a long time had been finding great joy in the scenes of criminals being burned, hanged or beheaded. Executions show that the governments of the Middle Ages were much more concerned about their power rather than the moral image they presented. Essentially the only difference between the people and the state was in the ‘legal’ right of the latter to abuse the first. Judging by its preferred punitive methods the state did not strive to be seen as benign or caring even though the church propaganda of the time would suggest otherwise. Perhaps what this apparatus reveals is the hypocrisy of the authorities preaching about the divine yet acting in devilish ways. Lastly, the executions show the state of poverty that the medieval period is commonly known for. They reflect the reality of societies that were not able to afford significant investments in building prisons, feeding and guarding prisoners and paying wardens since an average worker of the time was often cold, hungry and ill. Luckily, as economy and technology changes so do our belief systems and a new era was emerging at the horizon.

Punitive detention as a phenomenon did not emerge after the abandonment of public executions. In fact, prisons have a history as long as auditoriums, stadiums and shrines. Unfortunately, the data about archaic places for detention is either unreliable or insufficient to be used in a rigorous historic discussion. As with any kind of ancient building the chances of intact structures’ survival are relatively slim. While remains of walls, fortifications and shrines could still be found by archaeologists there is not enough evidence to identify them as prisons with any kind of certainty. On the contrary, underground places for detention having better chances of avoiding deterioration could sometimes be more informative.6 One example of such structure is Mamertine prison in Rome built approximately in the first or second century B.C.E. The prison comprised three levels: “confinement in the lower pit may have been used in lieu of the death penalty, the rooms above for sentenced men in irons, and the rooms in another level of the prison above ground for minor offenders”.7 This precedent not only shows that some ancient cities had purpose-built prisons but also that there was a vertical hierarchy of confinement within its walls. Historical discussions about penal architecture tend to begin in the 18th century with the emergence of the reformed prisons and the introduction of an individual cell. While the majority of ancient places for detention were simply veiled by the merciless hand of entropy there was a step between public executions and purpose-built prisons that is often ignored. These were the makeshift gaols which were slowly becoming the heirs of public executions and dominated the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries before prison reformation took place. As architects we are used to typologies and sets of distinctive features that they include. Practical spatial arrangement of hospitals, airports, shopping malls and schools can be immediately deciphered as soon as one finds himself in these environments. What makes the pre-reformed prisons so different is the virtual absence of such features. These gaols were incorporated into other building types such as “hovel, cottage, house, workshop, lodging house, terrace alley, court and tenement” as well as churches and city gates.8 Hence there was no initial design thought put into the buildings as their purpose was assigned post factum.

Michel Foucault and Alan Sheridan, Discipline and Punish (New York: Vintage Books, 1995), p. 138.

Norman Johnston, Forms of Constraint (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2000), p. 6.

Ibid., p. 7.

Robin Evans, The Fabrication of Virtue (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), p. 16.

Perhaps the absent typology of the pre-reformed prisons can be explained by the fact that up until 17th century detention was seldom the actual legal punishment but a phase preceding its

The Role of Wealth in The Pre-reformed Prisons

more popular forms – fines, execution, mutilation or banishment.9 Nevertheless, some convicts had to pay their debt to society by being jailed in case any other form of punishment was too brutal or

Prisons of the seventeenth century functioned in a fashion strikingly similar to the world outside

unsuitable. For example, female and underage offenders as well as poor debtors would be rarely

of its walls. There was a distinction between rooms that a prisoner would occupy depending on the

found ‘hanging from the gallows’ since imprisonment being a relatively humane punitive instrument

price he or she was able or willing to pay for different kinds of privileges. One’s social class was

was seen more merciful.10 Following the rise of punitive detention makeshift prisons were spreading

another aspect that defined conditions of incarceration. For example, in many prisons there was the

taking their own place in the penal chronicles.

‘masters’ side’ for gentry with glazed windows and a view, while ‘common side’ would rarely even have a window.14 However, darkness was not the only drawback of the lower-class wards as they would get immensely crowded forcing prisoners to share beds. This aspect was essential in the critique of prison reformers and played a vital role in the introduction of individual cells.

Makeshift Prisons As it was mentioned before most the pre-reformed prisons were allocated within buildings of various types. There was however the need for security that significantly influenced decisions about what places were chosen. Naturally, structures of immense endurance such as towers, keeps and gatehouses were preferable since no modification was needed for them to adopt a new purpose.11 At least that was true from the state’s perspective. Obviously, the rooms that had little to no windows or ventilation because of their defensive nature were not suitable as human habitats. Storerooms lacking “adequate light, air, sanitary facilities” were often made into prisons which shows what kind of space a convict would occupy.12 One account coming from the reformer advocating new ways of confinement describes places of early detention in a particularly grim way: “tortured bodies wasting in dungeons, debauchery and rebellion under stinking vaults; unredeeming hells full of vermin and cruelty; dank, crowded hives”.13 Were the early prisons’ realities as unbearable and inhuman as their descriptions? The answer to this question would be secondary to a different enquiry: “For what social class and how wealthy was the person incarcerated?” Here we are approaching the aspect of early detention that seems the most striking and peculiar considering our contemporary perception of prisons. Being so used to the egalitarian nature of prisons makes it hard to imagine them functioning like the rest of the western capitalist world. In some ways modern prisons can be seen as microcosms embodying principles of equal societies with an addition of warden dictatorship. Even when distinction between conditions of confinement is made it comes from the severity of the crime and not

Figure 2.

the wealth of a criminal. However, a wealthier person is able to pay a fine to avoid detention in some cases.

16th Century engraving depicting torturous conditions of an early Italian prison. The image only represents one side of the story. A drastically different environment could be seen in a duke’s or priest’s cell. 9

Norman Johnston, Forms of Constraint (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2000), p. 16.

Ibid., p. 7.

Ibid., p. 9.

Ibid., p. 10-11.

Robin Evans, The Fabrication of Virtue (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), p. 9.

Robin Evans, The Fabrication of Virtue (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), p. 31-32.

Some places for detention were worse than others for the poor. For example, in Newgate an infamous English prison of the time ‘common siders’ had to live in unheated windowless barracks

3a.

and sleep on the floor made out of stone.15 Another penal establishment originally built as a royal residence that possessed similar characteristics as the Newgate prison is the Tower of London. The lowest levels of the White Tower that the castle’s name is derived from were occupied by “pirates,

3b.

rebels and Jews” and only had “some slits for light and air”; in the same castle the second floor of

the Beauchamp Tower “had a spacious room with windows and a fireplace for nobles and church-

3c.

men, who might be allowed to bring possessions as well as their own servants”.16 Fundamentally, it can be said that class and profit were the driving forces in the arrangement of both social and architectural aspects of these prisons. Since no particular thought was put into their designs gaolers were free to decide where to allocate prisoners and their own houses. Naturally these decisions were informed by the desire to penetrate and control the ‘prison market’. Being the Figure 3.

most profitable “the passage of goods, persons and information in and out of the prison” was both controlled and encouraged by prison authorities. Hence the gaoler mainly concerned with super17

vision of prison economy occupied a peripheral position that would both provide control and avoid suffocating this beneficial traffic.18 When the key aspects of the subject are summed up, we get a fairly clear picture of the kind of

The Beauchamp Tower 1. - Room for One Person 2. - Fireplace 3. - Glazed Windows

establishment a pre-reformed prison was. Firstly, its initial design was not purposeful and merely adopted its function making such prisons range drastically in their geometry, materiality and atmosphere as well as hiding their presence within a city. Secondly, their organization applied post factum was predominantly a product of gaolers’ vision which in turn stemmed from the profit driven nature of such gaols. Conditions of these prisons cannot be seen holistically but were dependent on the wealth and social status of prisoners. Lastly, they were much more liberal compared to the examples that followed. As Anglo-Dutch philosopher Bernard Mandeville said about his visit to Newgate

prison: “They eat and drink what they can purchase, everybody has admittance to them, and they are debarred from nothing but going out”.19 What are the lessons about the societies and politics of the 17th century that the makeshift prisons

1a.

can teach us? Firstly, they reveal the apparent divide between different social classes at the time. Class and status are complicated phenomena and a lot can be said about their role in history and modern life. The pre-reformed prisons show that wealth and family played the key role in the way a person was treated before the Enlightenment. “Money cannot buy happiness” is a widely accepted claim. That was barely applicable when depending on one’s origin and capital he or she would be either thrown into a dark filthy and crowded chamber or lead a relatively comfortable even though

1b.

restricted life in a spacious room surrounded by familiar servants. Secondly, the buildings and how they were ruled and arranged can tell us about the nature of power at the time. In essence authorities were less present in the matter and did not have a well-defined overarching agenda apart from greed.

Robin Evans, The Fabrication of Virtue (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), p. 39.

Norman Johnston, Forms of Constraint (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2000), p. 13.

Evans, The Fabrication of Virtue, p. 23.

Ibid., p. 30.

Ibid., p. 39-40.

Figure 4.

The White Tower 1. - Crowded Prison Halls 2. - Unglazed Windows 3. - Isolation Chamber

Harbingers of the Reforms The seventeenth century was a period of global turmoil with constant wars and fatal corruption of the church meaning that criminals were the last people governments were concerned about. The discussed structures are great examples of what happens when the state is not in charge of their institutions and it is controlled from within. It does not mean that an authoritarian type of regulation of each instance of human life is beneficial. It simply makes the dangers of virtually unregulated anarchy ruled by profit more evident.

Second Generation: Reformed Prisons Unlike its predecessor the second-generation prisons are a product of deliberate design with a

In the mid-18th century Europe, a wave of reformers took on the task to speak up about the in-

variety of moral, religious and political agendas heavily influencing its form, materiality and spatial

human nature of prisons at the time advocating for a novel approach to detention. As a product of

arrangement. Individual cells introduced in the 18th century have been the most conventional and

both architectural and cultural shifts new forms of prisons emerged. Before we delve into the origins

immediately recognizable architectural feature of penal establishments until modern days. There

of the second-generation prisons it is worth acknowledging that the discussed shifts were not un-

are multiple ways of looking at the origins of the cellular arrangement with the most prominent influ-

precedented. Perhaps less apparent but as important attempts to introduce some form of morality

ences having their roots in religion and politics.

and regulation were made in places like Newport before the emergence of finalized architectural proposals that employed deliberate zoning and symmetrical spatial arrangement.20 It tells us that the ideas that informed the second-generation designs were previously tested and had been accumulating over a long period of time. Essential to these shifts is the fact that power left the hands of gaolers and to some extent prisoners and was given to the external authorities and architects who were hired by these institutions. One can say that ‘gaols’ ruled themselves while ‘prisons’ were ruled by the force outside of its walls. A force which had a plan, an agenda and the tools, political as well as architectural to implement its vision of the novel type of punishment.

Figure 5.

Robin Evans, The Fabrication of Virtue (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), p. 46.

Which architectural tools lead to obedience? Transparency of an enclosure? Isolation of an inmate? Invisibility of a warden. The panopticon is the epitome of such principles and a ‘proud’ forefather of the totalitarian prisons that followed its lead.

Influence of Ecclesiastical Practices

Architectural Models

One can argue that the cell is a heir of medieval monasteries which also had small individual

‘Ideal prison’ designs that have preceded the reforms by at least three centuries were produced

rooms designed for reflection and contemplation. Anchorite cells were perhaps the most extreme

as virtual structures but in the same way science fiction influences technological progress these

examples of self-isolation. Such a cell would be typically adjacent to a church and served as a

designs undoubtedly inspired architects of the eighteenth century commissioned to plan the first

space for eternal divine closure of an anchorite. A person would be “literally bricked” into his cell

reformed prisons. Generally, three major points can be outlined within each of the proposed de-

during a funeral-like ceremony and stayed there until his death with minimal food and water pro-

signs. Firstly, prisons had to be secure and prevent escape. For example, the fifteenth century ar-

vided though small slits.

Even though religious practices themselves demanded ascetism and

chitect Leon Battista Alberti when describing a perfect prison proposed to “surround it with strong,

solitude, incarceration both voluntary and enforced was present in monasteries and churches as a

high wall, pierced by no opening, and supply it with towers and galleries; between this wall and the

form of punishment.

wall of the cells there should be a gap of three cubits for the guards to make night-time patrols to

Monks who were disobedient to the ecclesiastical orders were often locked in their own dormi-

intercept any conspiracy to escape”.24 Secondly, they should have had a hierarchy reflecting the

tories while offences of a more serious nature were punished by detention in a prison cell within a

severity of a crime. This point is particularly interesting because while security has always been a

religious building.

More importantly criminals who had no previous relationship with the church

major concern of prisons real attempts to segregate serious criminals from minor offenders were

were able to seek asylum in these establishments. Since the church ruled over such individuals

rarely seen before reformation. Architects such as Antonio Averlino (1400 – 1469) and Joseph Furt-

attempts were made to correct them rather than simply punish. This approach can be seen as a

tenbach (1591 – 1667) both envisioned a prison where conditions would vary depending on the

predecessor of the cellular prison designs that followed. Moreover, an apparent connection can be

crime committed.25 Lastly, prisons were seen as a medium for a public message. In some cases,

traced between the panopticon and the rows of monastic cells arranged around central cloisters of

the actual conditions of detention could be drastically different from the message authorities de-

monasteries.

sired to send. One of the eighteenth-century architects Francesco Milizia proposed that a prison’s

exterior should evoke feelings of “darkness, threatening, ruins, terror” in order to scare people into obedience while his design comprised pleasant courtyards with plants and spacious rooms.26 Attitudes and public views have a pendulum like nature meaning that changes occur usually as a response to the previous set of ideas and often represent an extreme reaction. From this perspective the second-generation prisons were an extreme reaction to the vile conditions and the ‘ungodly’ behavior of the convicts inhabiting common wards of the makeshift gaols. Perhaps the most famous are the accounts of John Howard who traveled around the Great Britain and wider Europe assessing and documenting conditions of prisons in the 18th century. Howard was bluntly unsatisfied with both the conditions themselves and the association between prisoners. Isolation of inmates as believed by Howard and other Christian prison reformers at the time was beneficial in two ways. Firstly, it ensured that prisons would not turn into hubs of moral corruption with hard criminals influencing minor offenders.27 Secondly, it used the nature of the human mind against the convict. Just like monks whose ascetism and loneliness brought them closer to god, prisoners were supposed to obtain awareness about their deeds once their thoughts became their only companions. In practice the religious concerns about spiritual growth which were mainly interested in the afterlife often ignored the physical and mental needs of the jailed bodies and hence led to the architecture that Figure 6. Plan of the Arkadi Monastery established in the 16th Century. Red areas indicate monk cells while blue ones show the location of work rooms. The linear arrangement of rooms around a central cloister has an apparent link with the panopticon and prison designs of the 18th Century.

was often inhabitable even though designed for a purpose.28

Norman Johnston, Forms of Constraint (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2000), p. 29.

Ibid., p. 30.

Ibid., p. 31. Elizabeth Grant and Yvonne Jewkes, Finally Fit for Purpose: The Evolution of Australian Prison Architecture

Allan Brodie, Jane Croom and James O Davies, English Prisons (Swindon: English Heritage, 2002), p. 1.

Norman Johnston, Forms of Constraint (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2000), p. 18.

(The Prison Journal, Vol. 95(2), 2015), p. 225.

Ibid., p. 21.

Johnston, Forms of Constraint, p. 27.

Cellular Arrangement and The Panopticon

In order to clarify the infamous architectural prototype and its influence on the second-generation prisons it is worth looking at the original work of its creators - Jeremy Bentham and his brother written in 1787. Before the actual geometry of the panopticon is discussed one should become

The cellular arrangement acts as the epitome of power and control over an individual. While

familiar with the key beliefs that the authors possessed. Firstly, in Bentham’s eyes supervision was

dungeons and common cells allowed to remain invisible and hide in the crowd the novel spatial

without any doubt the ultimate goal of such establishments or as he put it “the more constantly the

strategy prevented any prisoner from escaping the ever-seeing eye. The 18th century prisons that

persons to be inspected are under the eyes of the persons who should inspect them, the more per-

adopted principles of the panopticon rejected features of a dungeon and used visibility and light to

fectly will the purpose of the establishment have been attained”.30 It is obvious that an individual’s

ensure discipline and obedience.29 This emerging use of light and visibility marks a shift from one

mental health was the last concern of the philosopher’s architectural proposal or perhaps he did

type of incarceration to another. While darkness and abandonment are conventionally accepted as

not see how the feeling of uninterrupted supervision can be damaging to the psyche. Secondly,

unappealing conditions, they are not particularly effective at depriving one’s liberty. An abandoned

the incarcerated people were outspokenly considered to be a low-class group which might explain

person is free in his actions and in addition is concealed from the law by the veil of darkness. On

why discipline trumped any humanistic considerations of the project. In Bentham’s writings touch-

the contrary, hiding in a well-lit environment is a difficult challenge. Panopticon is the ultimate cage

ing upon the removed communication between prisoners and members of the high society one of

since it creates an illusion of the constant supervision.

the advantages of the prototype was “the great load of trouble and disgust, which it takes of the shoulders of those occasional inspectors of a higher order, such as judges, and other magistrates, who called down to this irksome talk from the superior ranks of life, cannot but feel a proportionable repugnance to the discharge of it”.31 Bearing in mind the beliefs outlined before we can now delve into the model’s geometry: “The building is circular. The apartments occupy the circumference. These cells are divided from one another, and the prisoners by that means secluded from all communication with each other, … The apartment of the inspector occupies the center…”

In the author’s mind this arrangement could

become a holy grail of any type of institution that required discipline and observation or at least the sense of being observed at all times. The visibility of the panopticon’s prisoners was insured by the light conditions and the transparency of the cell itself: “The inner part of the cell is formed by an iron grating, so light as not to screen any part of the cell from the Inspector’s view”.33 With every potential prisoner remaining visible at all times the panopticon’s arrangement went a step further. Bentham was not satisfied with mere visibility but wanted to ensure that the observer remains invisible to the incarcerated by the means of partitions within the inspector’s lodge as well as “blinds, as high up as the eyes of the prisoners in their cells can, by any means they can employ, be made to reach”.34 What is particularly sinister is the author’s conviction that these principles whilst in a less pronounced form could be employed and introduced into people’s lives from the youngest age. Envisioning a ‘panopticon school’ Bentham optimistically explained that: “all play, all chattering, in short, all distraction of any kind, is effectually banished by the central and covered situation of the master, seconded by partitions or screens between the scholars”.35

Figure 7. 30

Central tower of the panopticon shedding light on the transparent cells ensuring uninterrupted supervision around the clock.

Michel Foucault and Alan Sheridan, Discipline and Punish (New York: Vintage Books, 1995), p. 200.

Jeremy Bentham, Panopticon: Or, the Inspection-house (Dublin: Thomas Byrne, Eighteenth Century Collections On-

line, 1791), p. 3. 31

Ibid., p. 27.

Ibid., p. 4.

Ibid., p. 5.

Ibid., p. 6.

Ibid., p. 107

Essentially a spatial condition was created where power lost the necessity to have a body that supports it but rather became imbedded in the psyche of the people who it is supposed to control. It is perhaps the most efficient form of power and even nowadays can be seen in the widest range of social establishments such as hospitals, madhouses, army buildings and schools. While there is no physical tower in the centre of modern cities and social edifices it is replaced by a metaphorical one. Its place is taken by the rituals and disciplines as well as general modes of behavior that came into being as a necessary response to the industrialized world. These modes preventing us from ill behavior possess the same nature as the central tower of the panopticon - they ensure order without any external force required to maintain it. What makes the panopticon and the late 18th and the early 19th century prisons so fascinating is the purity and physical embodiment of these principles. They act as polished models of the political system we are currently inhabiting.36 That is the reason why prison design matters. It stems from and can give clues to the underlying principles of the social structures all of us are a part of. Even though, the majority of actual prisons did not have circular designs with central towers for supervision except perhaps for Presidio Model in Cuba and Stateville Correctional Center in Illinois they employed a similar set of panopticon-like features – separation, openness and transparency. From the 1840s and following the design model of the Pentonville prison in London places for detention began to exhibit similar designs – individual cells open to internal atria arranged in rows and accessed from narrow landings on each floor.37 This arrangement ensured division and complete visibility of each prisoner but was still less authoritarian than its forefather – the panopticon. It required movement of the controlling body and hence provided a relief for the inmates since supervision was visible and inconstant. While less effective than the infamous prototype the discussed typology had the same goals and placed a convict in an anxious position with the constant possibility of being seen. The roots of linear cellular prisons can be traced back to the beginning of the 18th century. One of the earliest examples would be the house of correction for boys in Rome built in 1704.38 The structure was erected at the site of an existing hospice. This institution can be seen as an architectural prototype of the typology. It’s architect Carlo Fontana aimed to produce a prison that would encourage moral growth achieved through labor and constant supervision as well as separation of young inmates. The building had “a rectangular structure with thirty outside cells arranged on three tiers with balconies or galleries on each level” – an arrangement similar to the Pentonville prison.39 Fontana envisioned that the plan would allow guards to monitor prison cells from any point ensuring appropriate behavior.

Figure 8. Pentonville prison is an archetypical example of the totalitarian linear arrangement of transparent cells open to an atrium.

There is a lot to be deciphered from the features of the 18th and early 19th century prison designs in regards to the way western societies were changing and functioning at the time. It was a

Essentially these drastically different prison typologies reflected the shift in the social role of a body.

watershed moment when the rapidly industrializing world and the emergence of a disciplined body

It obtained a function and hence had to be controlled in order to implement the plans of the higher

produced a paradoxical society with external control ensured from within. During that period, one

social layers. The overwhelming majority of prisons built after the 18th century precedents followed

could also see how social and political agendas were gaining strength and the state was inventing

their lead in terms of spatial arrangement and cellular design. Most of the modern prisons still com-

new and more efficient ways to preserve its power.

prise rows of individual cells and provide complete visibility of the inmates constantly ensuring a sense of possible supervision. Perhaps it is reflective of the global state of power relations and its

Michel Foucault and Alan Sheridan, Discipline and Punish (New York: Vintage Books, 1995), p. 205.

Allan Brodie, Jane Croom and James O Davies, English Prisons (Swindon: English Heritage, 2002), p. 6.

Ibid., p. 35.

Norman Johnston, Forms of Constraint (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2000), p. 36.

mechanisms that remained relatively unchanged from the late 18th century. On a more optimistic note, many attempts were made with varying degrees of success to challenge the status quo of prison designs and reflect societies with liberal, humanistic and progressive agendas.

Third Generation: Communication and Unit Management

Origins of the Third Generation Prisons It is only possible to speculate about the reasons people’s perception of what a penal institution should look like changed in the 20th Century. Perhaps previous system did not prove to be particularly effective. In the US during the Nixon presidency correction was not considered a crucial part of the prison experience which eventually led to the growth of inmates and in 1971 motivated the Bureau of Justice to create a “multidisciplinary research team composed of correctional administrators, architects, psychologists, and social scientists”.40 Essentially the third-generation prisons are a product of this multifaceted research. The initial attempt to introduce the novel penal practices consisted of three high rise buildings called Metropolitan Correctional Centers or MCC’s allocated in New York, Chicago and San Diego. These structures

Balance is one of the essential features of any successful endeavor, ideology or edifice. Radical

became the first correctional facilities in the US to be known as “new generation” prisons and devi-

ideas are never born in the abstract space, they are fueled by anger of the people responding to the

ated significantly from their conventional predecessors both in their verticality and the arrangement

vile realities of their environment. The third-generation prisons of the 20th century can be seen as an

of cells, guard stations and communal areas.41

attempt to combine beneficial aspects of the first and the second generations. It acknowledges the mentally torturous side of complete isolation and the role of communication in the recovery as well as the need to control and separate inmates in order to avoid total chaos. On the contrary, the direct

Behavioral Psychology as a Design Driver

supervision model employed by such prisons does have its questionable sides. In a way being even more reminiscent of the panopticon than the second-generation prisons it uses the central position

The discussed prison type also marks a point in history when psychology entered the discussion

of the supervisor in an unprecedented way changing the relationship between the power and the

of penal architecture. Perhaps the most noticeable influence can be traced back to the works of be-

incarcerated body.

havioral and social psychologist Robert Sommer.42 The key interest of Sommer’s work was the relationship between people and their environments and how one shapes the other and vice versa. He was keen to find out what spatial features mattered the most and how spaces designed for different purposes could accommodate the ranging needs of vulnerable, isolated and confused individuals including the elderly, deranged and imprisoned. In Sommer’s vision even the most mundane and seemingly unimportant interior objects like furniture could have a therapeutic effect or shape people’s relationships. For example, when the psychologist did an experiment in an old people’s facility which in many ways resembles a prison in terms of its organization, he tried to encourage communication by manipulating the ward’s furniture. The initial “shoulder-to-shoulder arrangement was unsuitable for sustained conversation” but allowed for easier cleaning and made the place look neat in the eyes of the ward’s staff.43 To facilitate mingling of the old folk chairs were arranged around tables which increased both “transitory and sustained interactions”.44 Interestingly, a very similar arrangement of chairs and tables can be seen inside the wards of the third-generation prisons.

Figure 9.

Figure 10.

Figure 11.

MCC San Diego

MCC New York

MCC Chicago

Elizabeth Grant and Yvonne Jewkes, Finally Fit for Purpose: The Evolution of Australian Prison Architecture

(The Prison Journal, Vol. 95(2), 2015), p. 226. 41

Jessica Benko, The Radical Humaneness of Norway’s Halden Prison [online] Available at: https://www.nytimes.

com/2015/03/29/magazine/the-radical-humaneness-of-norways-halden-prison.html [Accessed 18 January 2021].

Three titans of the novel penal ideology which have challenged the status quo of prison designs. Paradoxically their exteriors go against the aim to create a humane prison and possess dystopic and sinister qualities.

Grant and Jewkes, Finally Fit for Purpose: The Evolution of Australian Prison Architecture, p. 228.

Robert Sommer, Personal Space (New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1969), p. 79.

Ibid., p. 85.

Particularly important for the subject of prisons are Sommer’s ideas in regards to the role of time spent in a specific space. He argued that “There is ample evidence that perception of all kinds is affected by continued viewing, which makes bright colors appear duller and unusual patterns less startling”.45 This lack of stimulation can lead to depression, psychosis and in the most severe cases of sensory deprivation to hallucinations. Consideration of this phenomenon can explain the differ-

ence between the third-generation color pallets and the extreme asceticism of the 18th Century prison designs.

Unit Management The essential design features of the discussed prison type stem from the principles of Unit Management – a system created to ensure a quicker delivery of correctional programs by dividing inmates into relatively small groups of 100 and allocating them around communal spaces with unit managers, psychologists and correctional councilors who would work closely with each group allowing to establish personal relationships.46 Striving to ensure the intimate character of the relationships between the power and the body the buildings comprised short rows of cells arranged around a central space which combined the roles of a guard post and a communal area for prisoners. One can argue that the central position of the warden can be linked with the panopticon but this perspective would be fairly superficial. Firstly, the supervisor was not a distant opaque entity but a part of the collective since the central area was shared by guards and inmates. Secondly, the cells of such establishments were not nearly as transparent with bars replaced by conventional doors. Hence the authority lost its passive and abstract image and began to be actively involved in the process of moral recovery. The discussed shift is also noticeable in the size of units containing groups of just 50 to 100 inmates, which are much smaller than the traditional wings. The strive of these designs was to create micro communities of prisoners and guards by providing a “day room, where they ate, socialized and met with visitors or counsellors, minimizing the need for moving inmates outside the unit”.47 One of the most prominent examples of the novel architectural model is the Chicago Metropolitan Correctional Center built in 1971. The building’s “88-m high triangular tower broke new ground in the development of podular units and resolved issues arising from housing prisoners on an inner city site by using a high rise model”.48 With its small two-story units initially housing 44 inmates and comprising cells open to communal rooms the design set an example of an alternative correctional space, which promotes a community-like lifestyle. Obviously, architecture alone is incapable of shaping one’s behavior and multiple accounts of staff’s cruel treatment of inmates in third-generation prisons support this point. Nevertheless, it shows the changes in the design aims which became less associated with creation of the abstract space of absolute control and more with a sense of belonging and moral growth. 45

Robert Sommer, Personal Space (New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1969), p. 89.

Elizabeth Grant and Yvonne Jewkes, Finally Fit for Purpose: The Evolution of Australian Prison Architecture

(The Prison Journal, Vol. 95(2), 2015), p. 228. 47

Jessica Benko, The Radical Humaneness of Norway’s Halden Prison [online] Available at: https://www.nytimes.

com/2015/03/29/magazine/the-radical-humaneness-of-norways-halden-prison.html [Accessed 18 January 2021]. 48

Figure 12.

MCC Chicago Plans A. – Medical Housing (8th Floor); B. – Mechanical (10th Floor); C. – Inmate Units (13th to 20th Floors); D. – Immigration Detainees (21st to 24th Floors); E. – Community Based Unit (17th to 18th Floors); F. – Exercise Rooftop Terrace

Grant and Jewkes, Finally Fit for Purpose: The Evolution of Australian Prison Architecture, p. 230.

The Model’s Decline Unfortunately, the prototypes built in the 1970s had failed to become the new norm of prison architecture. While not completely abandoned in the following years the Unit Management ideas were adopted by roughly 350 institutions that constitute only 7 percent of all correctional facilities in the US.49 The new type of prison was not received with open arms. Due to the Robert Martinson’s critique of the project and its frivolous use by authorities the model was stripped of the chance to spread even though later the sociologist agreed with the apparent effectiveness of some of its features.50 On the bright side a few progressive designs created in the following years and accommo-

Learning From Norway Halden Prison’s Green Campus

dating prisoners with longer sentences took the idea of community centered spaces for correction a step further. In the next decades in the west campus like designs began to emerge. Borrowing

When it comes to the topic of alternative or progressive prisons most people having no back-

architectural strategies that are conventionally used for medical and educational purposes these

ground in the field would still mention the Scandinavian examples of Norway, Sweden or Denmark.

structures composed of playfully allocated building clusters with shared courtyards sought to bring

Perhaps they would use words like ‘humane’ or ‘comfortable’ and oppose these places for deten-

freedom and spaciousness into prison life.51

tion to the grim interiors of conventional western jails with dark cells arranged in rows, barred win-

While the discussed architectural phenomenon only produced a small fraction of the prisons

dows, tall walls crowned with barbwire and inmates living in hellish conditions.

built in the last 50 years it reveals the emergence of an important social and political trend present

One should ask however what is a humane prison? It might be that physical comfort, the quality

in both penal and global realms. It is a reflection of a society where a “body” is being treated as

of light and materials particularly within a space designed for long-term isolation are the defining

an “individual”. The distinction between the two terms is the driving principle in the design of the

qualities of a humane prison. One of the most popular architectural precedents that is believed to

third-generation prisons. The discussed facilities reflect the social reality where a person’s wellbe-

embody the discussed qualities is Halden Prison in Norway opened in 2010. The prison’s design

ing is taken into consideration and hence multiple spheres of scientific knowledge are introduced

has more in common with a college campus or a haven for refugees than a conventional jail type.

to ensure one’s mental and physical health are intact. What caused the shift from totalitarian control

Following Scandinavian approach its architects Erik Møller Architects and the Norwegian HLM

to a more caring albeit well-established type of power? While the intricacies of the question would

Arkitektur AS have designed a building integrated into the landscape forming a symbiosis between

not suggest a definitive answer a subjective guess could be presented. An early industrialized

wild nature and artificial structures.

society did not demand any creativeness or intelligence from the working class it was dependent on. A physically trained body was sufficient. Hence total control of the mentioned body was an adequate measure and ensured stable production of goods. In the modern world the role of creative thinking and a sharp mind which is directly related to mental health is steadily increasing due to the replacement of physical labour by machinery. Perhaps the third-generation prisons can be seen as a reflection of the state’s strive to defend potentially talented workers that the new type of economy relies on.

Jessica Benko, The Radical Humaneness of Norway’s Halden Prison [online] Available at: https://www.nytimes.

com/2015/03/29/magazine/the-radical-humaneness-of-norways-halden-prison.html [Accessed 18 January 2021]. 50

Ibid.

Elizabeth Grant and Yvonne Jewkes, Finally Fit for Purpose: The Evolution of Australian Prison Architecture

(The Prison Journal, Vol. 95(2), 2015), p. 232.

Figure 13.

Figure 14.

Prisoners of the Halden Prison in the workshop (Left) and the common room (Right). Once the officer is removed from the images one might assume that it is an advertisement for a student accommodation with a selection of mature models.

The only distinct feature of the Halden prison that gives out a clue about its function is the tall con-

So, what matters the most when designing for detention if it is not the quality of light, furniture and

tinuous wall that defines the perimeter of the facility. It is also the only architectural tool used directly

presence of greenery and stillness? According to the ex-inmate’s story respect, dignity and normal

as a reminder of the inmates’ incarceration as “it looms everywhere, framed by the cell windows,

treatment are the features one needs the most in isolation.58 Essentially it was the good relationships

shadowing the exercise yards, its pale horizontal spread emphasized by the dark vertical lines of

with the prison authorities that mattered the most for John K. and the absence of which was so

the trees”.52 There is a sense of tension between the ‘liberal’ and more conservative narratives within

painful in Halden. One can assume that perhaps the problematic nature of the relationship between

the prison’s design with the first being the dominant one. By using ‘harder’ and ‘softer’ materials

John and the Halden staff was caused by the inmate’s aggressive behavior, the staff themselves or

such as dark brick and untreated wood respectively a hierarchy of security was established.

anything but the prison’s design. Even though attempts were made to encourage communication

Another fascinating phenomenon in Halden prison is its vast use of land. This deliberate decision

between the staff and the inmates by making guard stations small the general arrangement of cells

to spread living units and other facilities across the landscape comes from the architects’ strive

is not in line with this aim which becomes apparent after a single glance at the plans of Halden’s

to bring a sense of normalcy into the prison by “requiring inmates to walk outside to their daily

living units. The linear cells with corridors for monitoring is strikingly reminiscent of the second-gen-

commitments of school or work or therapy, over uneven ground, up and down hills, traveling to

eration reformed prisons of the 18th century. There is however a number of key differences that

and from home, as they would in the world outside”.54 Lastly, we can see how some aspects of the

must be outlined. Firstly, there is no vertical connection of the rows through the means of atria. Con-

prison’s plan were designed to encourage closer relationships between the staff and the inmates.

ventional bars were replaced by thin door windows decreasing transparency and the rows them-

For example, the guard stations were made particularly small forcing the wardens to step outside

selves are relatively small making the units closer to the American model. Bearing such significant

into the common rooms to socialize with the incarcerated. It is hard to disagree with the apparent

improvements in mind the arrangement itself still does not create a sense of community like in the

benevolence of the Halden architects’ intentions and there is a lot to be learned from this architec-

case of the third-generation prisons. Perhaps arranging the cells around a central common room

tural piece. It is also necessary to understand that even the best of our intentions might not lead to

would be a better option. Interestingly that is exactly what the architects did on a bigger scale by

a perfect outcome and an alternative view might reveal the previously unseen or even unthought

placing multiple units in a ring. To summarize the lesson of the Halden prison it is possible to design

drawbacks of our designs.

a place for detention that encourages contemplation and communication, does not revolve around

A strikingly different picture of the same prison has been painted by one of the Halden’s ex-in-

punishment and brings some degree of normalcy into prison life. One should be careful however

mates John K. who wrote an essay about his experience there. His accounts clearly indicate that

when assuming what would be therapeutic for a person removed from his or her usual environment

there are no absolute design values and it is this relativity of a particular spatial or environmental

and always remember to be consistent about the chosen design narratives.

feature that can make it both divine and tormenting. For John the serenity of virgin Norwegian forests was a source of great pain since he was desperately craving what was familiar to him: “the sound of traffic, stress, people, the noise of the city and the smell of asphalt and exhaust”.56 As architects we tend to see these phenomena as disturbances which should be blocked, shunned

Halden Prison (Block B)

and avoided like blinding glare or acrid funk. It is almost impossible to hear a designer proclaim: “I want my building to be noisy and smell like petrol” but an individual displaced from his usual urban environment begins to feel abandoned or banished. Hence conventional architectural laws are not always applicable to the typologies dealing with isolation and displacement. John was also fairly blunt about his disregard for the comparatively outstanding quality of the furniture and finishing in Halden. As he wittingly puts “a tiled bathroom could not remove the sense of desolation”.57

Jessica Benko, The Radical Humaneness of Norway’s Halden Prison [online] Available at: https://www.nytimes.

com/2015/03/29/magazine/the-radical-humaneness-of-norways-halden-prison.html [Accessed 18 January 2021]. 53

Irina Vinnitskaya, The Most Humane Prison in the World [online] Available at: https://www.archdaily.com/154665/

halden-prison-erik-moller-arkitekter-the-most-humane-prison-in-the-world [Accessed 18 January 2021]. 54

Benko, The Radical Humaneness of Norway’s Halden Prison.

Ibid.

Elisabeth Fransson, Francesca Giofrè and Berit Johnsen, Prison, Architecture and Humans (Oslo: Cappelen Damm

Figure 15.

Akademisk/NOASP, 2018), p. 31-32. 57

Ibid., p. 33.

Elisabeth Fransson, Francesca Giofrè and Berit Johnsen, Prison, Architecture and Humans (Oslo: Cappelen Damm

Akademisk/NOASP, 2018), p. 34.

The Insular Village of the Bastøy Prison

Let’s come back to John K. who was outspokenly dissatisfied with the Halden prison. It was Bastøy where John was transferred after Halden and where he felt normal at last. He attributed his peace of mind to a couple of factors including his ability “to personalize his house and in an

Another example of a penal establishment which is often discussed in a tandem with Halden is

important way” and the respect experienced in the communication with the prison staff.61 Even

the Bastøy prison allocated on the Bastøy island 75 kilometers south of Oslo and founded in 1982.

though both prisons are considered to be examples of a progressive approach to detention one

The correctional center’s design would never come close to being considered by the Pritzker Prize’s

can imagine how different the experiences in Halden and Bastøy prisons are. While the first estab-

Committee but it is one of the finest examples of a humane approach to detention. Prisoners of the

lishment strives to achieve the same goals as the latter it remains in a lot of ways conventional. It

Bastøy live in small wooden cottages in groups of five or six where they are supposed to stay from

has rows of individual cells, warden stations with direct supervision and a tall concrete wall around

11 p.m. to 7 a.m.; the house contains a common room, a kitchen and separate bedrooms provided

its perimeter. Bastøy on the other hand is no different than a common insular Norwegian village.

for each of the inmates.59 Moreover, apart from the curfew there is very little regulation in regards to

Hence it has better chances to feel like an actual community and foster change in behavior given

prisoners’ life. It might seem bizarre but the majority of the staff leave the island at night practically

that work, education or a combination of the two remain mandatory. It is obviously impossible nor

allowing prisoners to do as they wish. It is this kind of trust that separates the Norwegian system

advisable to make every prison in the world insular to avoid walls as symbols of detention but the

from the rest of the world and which is highly debated among the people involved in the field of

prison provides a valuable precedent of an incarcerated community that lives and functions in the

penology.

closest to normalcy way.

Isolation provides a great condition for change and it is therefore essential to ensure that people are treated with dignity and respect so they can reconsider their views on society and law. They might begin to appreciate human connection more once it becomes the only source of joy in their lives. The same idea applies to work and education which are common practices at Bastøy. A sense of community created by sharing a house with other inmates, absence of archetypical penal design features, the normality of the cottages’ architecture and the ability to customize one’s environment are the key aspects of the prison and what sets it apart from conventional examples and the Halden prison.

Figure 16.

Figure 17.

Homes of Bastøy prisoners are no different than conventional cottages of Norwegian fishermen. The inmates live together in small groups and are able to decorate their houses. Would the reader be able to define the type of the place presented above? Figure 18. (Opposite)

Tom Vander Beken, The Role of Prison in Europe (Palgrave Macmillan, 2016), p. 61-62.

Ibid., p. 56.

Elisabeth Fransson, Francesca Giofrè and Berit Johnsen, Prison, Architecture and Humans (Oslo: Cappelen Damm

Akademisk/NOASP, 2018), P 35.

Effectiveness and Recidivism So far, the discussion mainly revolved around the conceptual and humanistic aspects of the Norwegian architectural precedents. It is worth asking whether these models are actually efficient. Can they be implemented elsewhere? What can they tell about the country and its society as a whole? Recidivism rates showing whether an inmate has reoffended upon release are conventionally considered to be the best pieces of data that indicate whether a prison system is successful or not. The results of an independent study assessing a two-year period showed that Norway’s recidivism rate in 2005 was 20%.62 For comparison the data taken from the Bureau of Justice Statistics website indicates that 67.8% of inmates released after 2005 in the US were arrested in the following three years.63 A quick google search in 2021 would show an even bigger divide with 20% in Norway and 76.6% in the US. At first the difference between these two numbers seems astonishing. There are however a few factors that would drastically change them. Firstly, the Norwegian report is one year shorter and only considers recidivists who received a prison sentence. This particular rate cannot be called recidivism but reincarceration rate. Hence the 68% and 76.6% are not indicative of this kind of recidivism. Only 36.2% of inmates in the US received another sentence to be served in prison or jail following a three-year period after their release in 2005.64 If only prison sentences were to be considered this number would drop to 22%.65 With this swift analysis of the data that is being used to produce captivating yet superficial numbers the difference between Norwegian and American penal systems changed from 56.6% to mere 2%. Does it mean that both systems are the same? No. It only means that fairly often statistics are either false or not indicative of the actual situation. The recidivism rate alone cannot reveal the complexities that are involved in defining an effective prison. Perhaps effectiveness in itself should not even be considered the main goal but one of the indicators that a system is working well. The most valuable quality of Halden, Bastøy and similar prisons is not their low recidivism rates. It is their ability to show a society’s true face. To reveal how far has we come from public beheadings, hangings, crucifixions and other torturous and barbaric forms of punishment.

Conclusion: The Story So Far Social paradigms are in a constant state of flux which makes a historian’s task to present a coherent picture of the world’s development so difficult. The main argument of this paper is that when it comes to power relations of a given place and time prison architecture is one of the most indicative typologies. Correctional facilities are capable of reflecting the essential laws and beliefs that are used by authorities and consequently govern societies. Perhaps the reason prison architecture possesses such qualities is that it is the only typology that is truly enforced. The involuntary presence of a convict within prison’s walls is the closest condition to being born into a society without making a choice. It is ironic how similar prisons and societies are. Both are not chosen by the one experiencing it, both are capable of molding and influencing one’s character and behavior, both can be brutal or relatively gentle depending on the place and time one was born or convicted. The main difference is that later in life it is possible to choose to live in a different society but by the time we have this option social conditions have already made us who we are. If we accept prison as a microcosm representing unpolished and exaggerated nature of social paradigms what is the story its architecture can tell? The early prisons of the 17th century paint a picture of a society where class and wealth were the main factors influencing the way a person would be treated. Spacious individual rooms with large glazed windows for dukes and priests were ‘balanced out’ by dark dungeons full of vermin where poor inmates would had to share beds. These establishments also showed the virtual absence of external power and no desire of gaol keeper to control anything but the ‘prison market’. With some degree of skepticism these prisons can be described as either elitist or anarcho-capitalist because of the diminished role of authority and the absolute supremacy of wealth and status in these facilities. A drastic shift from this model can be seen in the following reformed designs of correctional centers. With the introduction of transparent individual cells and open linear arrangement no prisoner could escape the warden’s gaze. Its architecture aimed to isolate inmates and enforce obedience heavily relying on the principles of the panopticon. The prisons also became egalitarian with separation into classes only reflecting the nature of one’s crime rather than his status. Because of the obsession with docility, well-established role of the authority and equal conditions of detention for all the prisons of the 18th century can be described as totalitarian.

Ragnar Kristoffersen, Relapse Study in the correctional services of the Nordic countries (2013)

Matthew R. Durose, Alexia D. Cooper, Ph.D., and Howard N. Snyder, Ph.D., Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 30

States in 2005: Patterns from 2005 to 2010 (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2014) 64

Ibid.

The 1970s American prototypes as well as the Norwegian models can be seen as a middle ground between the previous generations. Such facilities and their architecture acknowledged the

Bibliography

necessity of freedom, communication and normalcy for the incarcerated. Their use of central communal areas, campus-like planning and landscaping strived to bridge the gap between prisons and

1. Norman Johnston, Forms of Constraint (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2000)

the external world. They did not reject supervision but tried to replace it with staff involvement by

2. Anton Blok, The symbolic vocabulary of public executions. History and power in the study of law. New directions in legal anthropology (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2019)

shrinking guard stations or blurring the boundaries between the supervisor and the incarcerated. Essentially both examples seek to use authority in a more nurturing way while ensuring order. The 1970s correctional facilities can be described as socialist with the emphasis on the beneficial role of authority and collectivist values while the northern examples and particularly the Bastøy prison are closer to left libertarian ideologies emphasizing individual freedom and communication. How is the story of changing prison design narratives applicable? Is the link between the prevailing social paradigms and the architecture of correctional facilities so strong the latter can be used to understand the first? While it might not show the exact type of political or ideological system a government aims to embody it has a unique capacity to reveal the true colors of a given place or period. We often hear about liberal values of the west but what happens when we disagree with the law? Architecture is silent but it speaks louder than senators, governors, celebrities and reporters. It shows the cracks in their speeches and how the majority of the western countries to this day still employ completely totalitarian spatial arrangements for the ones who disagree with its ‘liberal’ views. It also shows that some places practice what they preach and try to understand, work with and reintegrate a misbehaving person rather than punish him. Prison designs can be indicative in two ways. They can either show the actual social values and beliefs of a country or the incoherence and hypocrisy that hides in the shadows of metal bars.

3. Allan Brodie, Jane Croom and James O Davies, English Prisons (Swindon: English Heritage, 2002) 4. Michel Foucault and Alan Sheridan, Discipline and Punish (New York: Vintage Books, 1995) 5. Robin Evans, The Fabrication of Virtue (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982) 6. Elizabeth Grant and Yvonne Jewkes, Finally Fit for Purpose: The Evolution of Australian Prison Architecture (The Prison Journal, Vol. 95(2), 2015) 7. Jeremy Bentham, Panopticon: Or, the Inspection-house (Dublin: Thomas Byrne, Eighteenth Century Collections Online, 1791) 8. Elisabeth Fransson, Francesca Giofrè and Berit Johnsen, Prison, Architecture and Humans (Oslo: Cappelen Damm Akademisk/NOASP, 2018) 9. Jessica Benko, The Radical Humaneness of Norway’s Halden Prison [online] Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/29/magazine/the-radical-humaneness-of-norways-halden-prison.html [Accessed 18 January 2021]. 10. Robert Sommer, Personal Space (New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1969) 11. Irina Vinnitskaya, Halden Prison/ Erik Møller Arkitekter + HLM arkitektur - The Most Humane Prison in the World (archdaily.com). [online] Available at: https://www.archdaily.com/154665/ halden-prison-erik-moller-arkitekter-the-most-humane-prison-in-the-world [Accessed 18 January 2021]. 12. Tom Vander Beken, The Role of Prison in Europe (Palgrave Macmillan, 2016) 13. Ragnar Kristoffersen, Relapse Study in the correctional services of the Nordic countries (2013) 14. Matthew R. Durose, Alexia D. Cooper, Ph.D., and Howard N. Snyder, Ph.D., Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 30 States in 2005: Patterns from 2005 to 2010 (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2014) 15. Dominique Moran and Yvonne Jewkes, Linking the carceral and the punitive state: A review of research on prison architecture, design, technology and the lived experience of carceral space (Annales de géographie, 702-703(2), 2015) 16. Thomas Markus, Buildings & Power (London: Routledge, 2005) 17. Ryan Berger, Kriminalomsorgen: A Look at the World’s Most Humane Prison System in Norway (SSRN Electronic Journal

List of Figures 1. Author Unknown, 1900, Execution of François Ravaillac, assassin of Henry IV of France, 1610, engraving, accessed 19 January 2021, https://www.britannica.com/topic/drawing-and-quartering 2. Author Unknown, 1550-1600, The Prison, Italy, engraving, accessed 19 January 2021, https:// www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/367818 3. Author’s Original Work 4. Author’s Original Work 5. Willey Reveley, 1791, The Panopticon, England, drawing, accessed 25 January 2021, https:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon#/media/File:Panopticon.jpg 6. Author’s Original Work 7. Adam Simpson, 2013, The Panopticon, digital drawing, accessed 19 January 2021, https:// www.nytimes.com/2013/07/21/books/review/the-panopticon-by-jenni-fagan.html 8. Author’s Original Work 9. Author Unknown, San Diego Metropolitan Correctional Center, Photograph, accessed 20 January 2021, https://www.theprecisioncs.com/precision-construction-services-awarded-design-build-contract-for-the-bureau-of-prisons-metropolitan-correctional-center-in-san-diego 10. Christopher Sadowski, 2020, New York Metropolitan Correctional Center, Photograph, accessed 20 January 2021, https://nypost.com/2020/03/06/feds-uncover-stash-of-contraband-inmanhattan-prison-where-jeffrey-epstein-died 11. Courtesy of the Weese Family, Chicago Metropolitan Correctional Center, Photograph, accessed 20 January 2021, http://hicarquitectura.com/2017/03/harry-weese-campbell-u-s-courthouse-annex-chicago-illinois 12. Author’s Original Work 13. Knut Egil Wang, 2014, Halden Prison, Norway, Photograph, accessed 20 January 2021, https://archive.instituteartistmanagement.com/?49800532755136778403&EVENT=WEBSHOP_ SEARCH&SEARCHMODE=OFFER&OFFER=969 14. Knut Egil Wang, 2014, Halden Prison, Norway, Photograph, accessed 20 January 2021, https://archive.instituteartistmanagement.com/?49800532755136778403&EVENT=WEBSHOP_ SEARCH&SEARCHMODE=OFFER&OFFER=969 15. Author’s Original Work 16. Espen Eichhöfer, 2010, Prison Island Bastøy, Norway, Photograph, accessed 25 January 2021, https://www.espen-eichhoefer.de/gallery/bastoy 17. Espen Eichhöfer, 2010, Prison Island Bastøy, Norway, Photograph, accessed 25 January 2021, https://www.espen-eichhoefer.de/gallery/bastoy 18. Knut Egil Wang, 2014, Halden Prison, Norway, Photograph, accessed 20 January 2021, https://archive.instituteartistmanagement.com/?49800532755136778403&EVENT=WEBSHOP_ SEARCH&SEARCHMODE=OFFER&OFFER=969