Corrections: an architectural investigation of an ineffective penal system

Abstract

It has been said that the degree of civilization in a society can be judged on how it treats its criminals. In the middle ages, punishments were meant to be as savage as the crimes committed. It was believed that the criminal should endure a “thousand deaths.” Over time punishment evolved and more dignity and humanity was given to each criminal. This can be seen with the addition of mourning veils at the gallows and the extensive use of the guillotine. By keeping the criminal anonymous, the crime became faceless and in regards to the guillotine, death was almost instantaneous and merely a pull of a cord. Eventually society progressed to the point where they felt that imprisonment was a more suitable punishment. The loss of wealth and civil liberties became the focus of this punishment. Imprisonment also gave the opportunity to transform the individual and ready him for his return to society. The vehicle for these intentions became the prison. Prison has always held a certain power over its incarcerated. No significant changes have been made to the first penitentiaries, ignoring building practices. Looking objectively at the prisons’ designs since their conception, surveillance and the restriction of movement have been the driving design elements. Rehabilitation has been a crucial part of the penal system since its conception, but has no real bearing on the environments designed. Is the environment we force our incarcerated to endure really cohesive to the transformation we expect? A study done in 2006 showed that within three years of an inmate’s release, sixty seven percent are rearrested and of that fifty two percent are re-incarcerated. By these numbers, less than half of the inmates are responding positively to the way our penitentiary system is operating. Prison reform is not a new idea. The issue that arises is the replacement for our current penal system. What entity or system could take the place of our prisons and deal with our criminals more successfully? In Discipline and Punish, Michel Foucault claims that, “this monotonous critique of the prison always takes one of two directions: either that the prison was insufficiently corrective, and that the penitentiary technique was still in its rudimentary stage; or that in attempting to be corrective it lost its power as punishment, that the true penitentiary technique was rigour, and that prison was a double economic error.” By attempting to focus on the rehabilitation of the inmates, the punishment was sacrificed. Foucault’s solution to these shortcomings was to return to the fundamental penitentiary techniques that the penal system was created from. He lays out seven universal maxims of the good penitential condition, which outline the necessary requirements to create a successful penitentiary. So the question arises, as designers can we reevaluate these maxims that we have based our penal system on, along with implementing modern technology, and acknowledging societies moral consciousness, create an environment that is more conducive and focuses on the rehabilitation and reintegration of our criminals?