ARCHITECTURAL RESPONSE TO THE SHIFTING UNDERSTANDING OF MODERN IMPRISONMENT FROM PUNISHMENT TO RE-ADAPTATION
Figure1: MODISI,N.P.K.M. ARCHITECTURAL APPLICATIONS. Digital image. in N.P.K.M., MODISI. 1989. “Architecture,Incarceration and Penal Ideology A Model Prison -For Houston”. Master, Rice University.
Concepts of crime and punishment have always been present in societies but architecture of punishment meaning the design of the spaces where punishment happens is a relatively new consideration. Architecture of spaces for penalty has shifted profoundly through history according to the trending understanding for punishment from detention to punishment and lately to rehabilitation. As need for new prisons came up, search for a new prison strategy emerged. The concept was creating more humane prisons for prisoners since the punishment for the prison was the freedom taken away but not the prison itself, believing humane, conditions and design for prisoners might rehabilitate the convict while the given retribution. This concept of a new prison had been revised once more idealizing a prison as a healing place for the convicts. These changes in the perception of punishment of a crime and prison, caused important need for changes/improvements for prison design. It is important to investigate the penal ideologies to better understand the architectural design of criminal institutions. This paper analysis the effects of penology on architectural design of prisons through a comparison between two prisons carrying radically opposite understandings of punishment, HM Pentonville prison and Halden prison.
Figure2: Illustration published in 1907 for Charles Dickens’ essay on prison in American Notes edited in Evans, Robin. 1982. The Fabrication of Virtue: English Prison Architecture, 1750-1840. Cambridge [Cambridgeshire] ; New York: Cambridge University Press.
The concepts of crime and punishment have always been present in every civilization. It has been a foundational concept for every civilization in history and still is. Each culture had different ways to deal with crime. Most popular punishment, other than paying fines, for every country in the modern era, deprivation of freedom by imprisonment is a fairly new concept in the history of punishment. Incarceration as a punishment, rather than detention is being used for approximately three centuries. With the rise of incarceration as punishment, a new architectural typology has risen, prisons. Not much attention was given to the previous detention centers so called prisons as the person held was subjected to the punishment of the space and the deprivation of freedom. Since it is a new method, there are no set principles for incarceration hence the ideology behind incarceration shifts radically in different cultures. ‘There are places of punishment and isolation or places for the treatment and rehabilitation of those convicted of a crime, and even places of repression and symbols of terror.’1
‘Architecture is never neutral. It is at all times, and places involved in exerting power.’2 Independent from the aimed function, prisons are tools of power and the architecture of such facilities can assert strong statements and ‘thus have political qualifications’ 3. Some newer ideologies underpin the possibility of rehabilitation through imprisonment and the architecture of the prisons. It is not possible to have a comprehensive analysis for prison architecture without understanding the beliefs or standards of the era that the facilities have been built and operated for around 300 years but our research shows ‘that the architecture of incarceration has always been underpinned by a belief that prison design has a moral influence both on inmates and on the community at large.’4
With this belief in mind this thesis aims to explore the role of architecture on prison buildings compared to the penal ideology of the era, the influence of the ideology on architecture and architecture on the users of the facility. The method to analyse the connection between the penology and architecture of prison is made through a comparison of selected prisons. Pentonville prison and Halden prison are selected for this comparison. Both prisons are high-level security prisons and built to hold the most dangerous criminals of the country. Selected prisons represent important points in the history of penology and prison architecture. Pentonville presenting a more conservative idea for punishment with isolation and Halden being the example for the more innovative idea, rehabilitation and reintegration.
1 Molden, a., 2012. Prison Architecture Classification by objectives. In: Advanced Research in Scientific Areas 2012. Cluj-Napoca.
2 Fransson, E., Giofrè, F., & Johnsen, B. (2018). Prison Architecture as a Field of Study: A Multidisciplinary Contribution. In Fransson, F. Giofrè & B. Johnsen (Eds.), Prison, Architecture and Humans (pp. 19-27). Cappelen Damm Akademisk.
3 Grönegräs, Max. 2019. “International Differences in Prison Architecture.” MaRBLe 2 (October). https://doi. org/10.26481/marble.2019.v1.741.
4 Jewkes, yvvone. 2007. “The Evolution Of Prison Architecture”. In Handbook On Prisons, 1st ed. Willan Publishing. https://books-library.net/files/books-library.online-02270115Zk9S2.pdf.
Architecture can be very effective on how we live in a space and the psychological effects of the space for the users, but architects don’t decide on the space alone. Space is defined with the needs and claims of the user, client. When it comes to the institutionalized buildings government and the laws and consequently public becomes the client and in this case, architecture follows an ideology, claims of the public good rather than specific needs of the individuals. Prisons are not different. While prison design demands some specifications for the safety and security of the inmates, staff and the surrounding community, it also carries implications of the social ideology for the punishment in the society of their time. Even though prisons are expected to have a long lifetime while being built, it is yet an unanswered question if prison architecture and the ideology lays under, considers the possible changes through the lifetime of the prison design. ‘Architecture responds to the space-time context in which it is set, and prison architecture is no exception’5. On the contrary of the general belief and current situation of prisons being the only punishment for the crimes in society, there are several different ideologies on the penal justice system.
‘The prison system is not the child of laws but of norms. It serves only one purpose, which is to create criminality, enabling ever-more profound control over people in return. If this institution has been able to survive until now, it is because it has been supported by a political system that has aimed to make the accumulation of people both a docile and a useful process. In other words, prison is the result of a choice. It has not always existed and has, moreover, since its inception, been considered “unsound”.’ 6
Punishment has always been a key factor for the people who committed offends which are not accepted by society and law for the peaceful living conditions for all civilizations, but the modern understanding of a prison in which offenders are put behind bars and punished with deprivation of his/her freedom is a rather new thought and according to Pollock ‘prison is the most complicated way of punishment’7 .Before punishment was applied imprisonment, corporal punishment in means of the pain of the body was used. Punishments used to take place in public places to set an example for the rest of society to reduce criminality. The death penalty was sanctioned as much as for petty crime as murder before the 16th century when imprisonment was not a punishment, but prisons were only detention centers for criminals until their sentences were executed. The modern understanding of punishment with deprivation of freedom in prison while the rehabilitation of the person, emerged in the late 18th century and started to replace corporal punishment. Even though this new system of penalty sounds more humane than corporal punishment ‘humanism does not, in fact, wholly explain the choice of imprisonment as the new method of punishment’8 . As the human body gained importance with the industrial revolution prisons became the ‘most important tools to redefine the relationship
5 Fikfak, Alenka & Kosanović, Saja & Crnic, Mia & Perovic, Vasa. (2016). The contemporary model of prison architecture: Spatial response to the re-socialization programme. Spatium. 1. 27-34. 10.2298/SPAT1534027F.
6 Bert, J. (2012). “It is the prisons themselves that put up a resistance.” Discipline and Punish by Michel Foucault. Revue du MAUSS, 2(2), 161-172. https://doi.org/10.3917/rdm.040.0161
7 Pollock, J. (ed.) (2005) Prisons: today and tomorrow. 2nd edition.Sudbury: Jones & Bartlett Publishers, Inc. as quoted Fikfak, Alenka & Kosanović, Saja & Crnic, Mia & Perovic, Vasa. (2016). The contemporary model of prison architecture: Spatial response to the re-socialization programme.Spatium. 1. 27-34. 10.2298/SPAT1534027F.
8 Bert, J. (2012). “It is the prisons themselves that put up a resistance.” Discipline and Punish by Michel Foucault. Revue du MAUSS, 2(2), 161-172. https://doi.org/10.3917/rdm.040.0161
Wbetween power and body, now considered as the vector of the workforce’9 . The change of human bodies from being the subject of the punishment to possible labour force which would lead to a negative effect on the economy if they were harmed, forced the penal system to shift from punishment of the body to rehabilitation and reintegration of the workforce back to society maybe even after some education and training. ‘The philosophy of imprisonment significantly changed in the 19th century; prison was seen as redemptive and capable of changing the individuals within to become better people’10 . This shift in penology towards a more rehabilitative prison system created a more humane prison design and environment. Catucci states this fact as:
‘A “more gentle way of punishment” has established itself speaking the language of human dignity. In fact, it was functional to a form of power which had no more interest in destroying bodies. The old spectacle of the law glaringly torturing criminals was replaced by a timetable in prisons and at work, by a meticulous system of surveillance, widespread and rarely visible.’11
This kind of punishment can be categorized under the relative theories of punishment which means punishment happens for a change in the prisoner’s habit, aiming for future crime prevention rather than absolute theories assuming the person deserves to be punished and cannot be rehabilitated by punishment.12 The hard work of trying to change someone’s habit of crime is not easy but contributes to the reintegration process of the prisoner back into society. The reintegration is an important factor for the modern prison system to make sure prisoners do not come back to the prison where another social ecosystem would emerge and thus create a circular movement between prisoners in the carceral system. Catucci points to this case of reincarceration of prisoners with the formation of a new society within the prison with a text from Foucault’s book Discipline and Punishment:
‘What was criticized about the prison at the beginning of the nineteenth century (to create a population of outcasts and offenders) is now taken as inevitable. Not only it is accepted as a fact, but it is also established as a foundational factor. The “delinquency” effect produced by the prison becomes the problem of delinquency to which the prison must give an appropriate answer. This is the criminological turning of the carceral circle.’13
9 Catucci, Stefano. 2018. “The Prison Beyond Its Theory Between Michel Foucault’S Militancy And Thought”.
In Prison Architecture And Humans, 1st ed., 336. cappelan damm akademisk.
10 Conley in:Pollock, J. (ed.) (2005) Prisons: today and tomorrow. 2nd edition.Sudbury: Jones & Bartlett Publishers, Inc. as quoted in Fikfak, Alenka & Kosanović, Saja & Crnic, Mia & Perovic, Vasa. (2016). The contemporary model of prison architecture: Spatial response to the re-socialization programme. Spatium. 1. 27-34. 10.2298/SPAT1534027F.
11 Catucci, Stefano. 2018. “The Prison Beyond Its Theory Between Michel Foucault’S Militancy And Thought”.
In Prison Architecture And Humans, 1st ed., 336. cappelan damm akademisk.
12 Fridhow, Inger. 2018. “Penal Ideology and Prison Architecture “. In Prison Architecture And Humans, 1st ed., 269. cappelan damm akademisk.
13 Catucci, Stefano. 2018. “The Prison Beyond Its Theory Between Michel Foucault’S Militancy And Thought”.
In Prison Architecture And Humans, 1st ed., 336. cappelan damm akademisk.
Figure3: 1787 design for the Panopticon. Plate 1 in J. Bentham, Management of the Poor, Dublin 1796 edited in Steadman, Philip. (2007). The Contradictions of Jeremy Bentham’s Panopticon Penitentiary. Journal of Bentham Studies. 9. 10.14324/111.2045-757X.030.
Jeremy Bentham has proposed an ideological prison design with the economic and safety aspects and using solidarity and confinement as the main source for rehabilitation. His idea was to create a more humane prison while being economic for the governments. Bentham’s design, panopticon prison, is a round building with prison cells on the outer wall and cells had big openings looking towards the inner courtyard with the watchtower in the middle. Prisoners are kept under control by the agonizing power relations dictated by the possibility of constant surveillance. The pressure of constant risk of monitoring for better behaviour of prisoners was an economic solution using fewer guards to watch the prisoners. Although Bentham’s exact design has never been built, some panopticons have been built around the world and some are still in use. More importantly, most prison designs in Europe have been influenced by Bentham’s design of the central watchtower for surveillance and use a single point to demonstrate power. Total isolation for prisoners has been used in prisons influenced by the panopticon. It was not to punish prisoners with deprivation of freedom and social encounter but the ideology of rehabilitation, considering the way to achieve this was with a ‘final reconciliation with god’14 , alone and not distracted.
2.2-FoucaultFoucault’s understanding of punishment is still a key factor to grasp the philosophy of penology thus the architecture of prisons. Foucault was not only a philosopher, but he was also an activist, and part of a foundation named GIP which supports better imprisonment in France. Foucault’s militancy in 20th century France against political incarceration does not always match his philosophy of prisons. ‘When interviewed he specifically mentions that he does not want any relation to be acknowledged between his theoretical work and his actions as a member of the GIP’.15 While his militancy asks questions about prison conditions and prisoner wellbeing his philosophy never questions nor answers the questions, if there is a better prison, but rather investigates the power relations within the society through penal ideologies. Catucci uses this passage to better understand Foucault’s theoretical work:
‘First, the program of a history of the present time; then, the emphasis given to the body’s technology and the idea of the body itself as a point of intersection between power and individuals; moreover, the belief that all institutions, no matter how refined and evolved, reflect a multiplicity of contingent power relationships; and finally, the consequent fragility of every institution, always vulnerable to criticism able to reconstruct its historicity and to recognize its weaknesses.’
Foucault starts his book Discipline and Punishment by saying “That punishment in general and the prison in particular belong to a political technology of the body is a lesson that I have learnt not so much from history as from the present”17 . ‘Foucault believes in modern
14 Fridhow, Inger. 2018. “Penal Ideology and Prison Architecture “. In Prison Architecture And Humans, 1st ed., 269. cappelan damm akademisk.
15 Catucci, Stefano. 2018. “The Prison Beyond Its Theory Between Michel Foucault’S Militancy And Thought”. In Prison Architecture And Humans, 1st ed., 336. cappelan damm akademisk.
17 Foucault, Michel, 1926-1984. Discipline And Punish : the Birth of the Prison. New York :Pantheon Books, 1977.
times prisons are the main technology by which our societies manage marginality. Therefore, we should not abolish prison, or design the best possible prison, but we have to understand prisoners’ needs and to criticize, through historical means, the way in which we handle the problem of marginalized people’18. He uses Bentham’s panopticon to reflect upon the societies understanding of power. He suggests that constant surveillance in panopticon is well reflected in the society and power relations within the institutionalized buildings such as schools, workplaces or hospitals.
Modern societies do not apply a better solution for dealing with criminals yet. Some new theories of justice such as restorative justice are being tested where communication between the offender and the offended is the foundation for the rehabilitation process.19 Nevertheless, imprisonment is the main punishment in modern societies other than fines. This makes it necessary to research and understand the problems in Penology. Catucci describes the problems of the imprisonment as it is ‘intolerable when internment turns into a tool to split our society into groups and to control them, submitting the bodies of the marginalized to harsh constraints. Prison, therefore, is not intolerable when dirty or drooping and tolerable when healthy. Since prison conveys a form of power, its impact always concerns the way in which this power is conceived and exercised’20.This does not necessarily mean the architecture of the prison does not have any effect on prisoners, but that it should be investigated more deeply. It is not the sole materiality created by the architecture but the ideology behind the design of the prison which has an impact for the understanding of power. If investigated accordingly, only then we can start discussing the effects of architecture on prisoners and the effects of penal ideologies on prison architecture. Maybe the solid properties of architecture affect the surrounding society more than the prisoners since the ‘design which enhances dignity and promotes rehabilitation through a normalized aesthetic may not appear sufficiently punitive to the public with an appetite for punishment’21. Since society is a crucial factor to the readaptation process as they need to accept the ex-prisoner for him/her to be reintegrated. Only from this point of view, the effects of the materiality of architecture on ex-prisoner’s reintegration process can be discussed.
‘Contemporary prison architecture, set in a civilized and humane socio-political milieu, can be viewed as a connection between two equally significant, yet contradictive purposes of incarceration’22. The modern understanding for punishment is simple, punishment should not only punish the criminal but also rehabilitate, however the reflection of this ideology on architecture is not as simple, prison design has a complicated definition. Fridhow states;‘the constitutional values of freedom, human dignity and equality, are today central in criminal law
18 Catucci, Stefano. 2018. “The Prison Beyond Its Theory Between Michel Foucault’S Militancy And Thought”. In Prison Architecture And Humans, 1st ed., 336. cappelan damm akademisk.
19 VanBuren, Deanna. 2017. What A World Without Prison Could Look Like. Video. https://www.ted.com/talks/ deanna_van_buren_what_a_world_without_prisons_could_look_like?language=en.
20 Catucci, Stefano. 2018. “The Prison Beyond Its Theory Between Michel Foucault’S Militancy And Thought”. In Prison Architecture And Humans, 1st ed., 336. cappelan damm akademisk.
21 Jewkes, in: Simon et al., 2013)as quated in Fikfak, Alenka & Kosanović, Saja & Crnic, Mia & Perovic, Vasa. (2016). The contemporary model of prison architecture: Spatial response to the re-socialization programme. Spatium. 1. 2734. 10.2298/SPAT1534027F.
22 Hohnen, P. et al. (2012) Punishment and resocialization Roskilde University Digital Archive, http://dspace.ruc. dk/ bitstream/1800/9615/3/FærdigtProjekt.pdf . as cited in Jewkes, in: Simon et al., 2013)as quated in Fikfak, Alenka & Kosanović, Saja & Crnic, Mia & Perovic, Vasa. (2016). The contemporary model of prison architecture: Spatial response to the re-socialization programme. Spatium. 1. 27-34. 10.2298/SPAT1534027F.
and administrative law’23 and maybe we can think today, ideology for prisons lay under this statement. Architecture of a prison should define the place for punishment and rehabilitation process of the prisoner which are two contradictory functions. The former minister of justice of Norway defines this complex situation which architecture carries for prison design in an interview as:
‘I am convinced that architecture has implications for how we succeed in getting offenders back into society. But prison architecture is demanding. It should create a human environment that helps people get back on track, while at the same time securing the safety of other inmates, staff and the surrounding community’
Newly designed and built prisons perhaps does not follow one international ideology for imprisonment but the design certainly needs to be flexible for the future; therefore, architects need to reflect on the current ideologies carefully. Is it really appropriate to design a prison determined to one school of thought? ‘Is not this perpetuating the old mistake of the radial prisons where the use of predetermined conventional layouts later proved too strong a barrier for changes in treatment methods to succeed?’
Ibid^
Fairweather, Leslie. “PRISON ARCHITECTURE IN ENGLAND.” The British Journal of Criminology 1, no. 4 (1961): 339-61.http://www.jstor.org/stable/23635797.
HM Pentonville prison is one the most important milestones in UK for penal ideology and prison architecture. Understanding the architectural ideology of the Pentonville prison lays under the reason and the ideology this prison was built for. Pentonville prison is influenced by the American system and mostly the Eastern State Penitentiary in Philadelphia US.
Early 18th century prisons were damaged institutions in United States. Mostly a prisoner would be left under no surveillance and no control or management where illegal activities would rise, diseases would spread, new societies of criminals would be created. There was a need for a new prison and the ‘aim was to build prisons that were not the informal hostels of earlier years, but expensive and unique types of building designed to punish rather than detain.’26 The foundations of the separate and silent system were laid in United States when the reformers pushed for changes in the prisons with the need of new prisons. These systems intents to minimize the communication of an inmate with the outside world and even with other prisoners. Only difference between silent and separate system is that prisoners are kept in isolation in the separate system where they were allowed in groups without communication in the silent system. One of the first prisons designed with the separate system is the Eastern State Penitentiary which ‘was to be not only one of the largest and most expensive structures in the country at the time but also, in both its architecture and its program, the most influential prison ever built’27. ‘Eastern State, devoid of the severe physical punishments of other contemporary prisons and institutions in the 19th century, but characterized by a high degree of solitude, was accused of mental rather than physical cruelty’.28 Separate system was introduced to increase the life quality of the prisoners and to have a control over the prison population making sure new criminal societies would not emerge within the prison environment. ‘The architecture of the separate and silent systems was constructed around the prevention of moral contagion.’29 Separate system prison management dictates solitary confinement for the prisoners in their individual cell for most of the day. Prisoners were being kept in separation even when they were out of their cell. ‘Prisoners were not to learn each other’s name or to ever see one another’s face.’30 Prisoners were supposed to wear a mask on their face while they were not in their cell for any reason.The new prison system also had a chance to reform the prisoners. The time prisoners spent in solitary confinement was seen as a time when they could think about their wrongdoing, connect with god and make amends which was thought, in that time period, would reform the prisoners and they would be easily re-socialized with the society after serving their sentence ‘but more than a prototype of architecture and a strategy for rehabilitation, Eastern State Penitentiary was a remarkable symbol of the optimism, energy, and good intentions of that period of the 19th century during which Philadelphia and the rest of the country believed that anything was possible in the new republic’.31
26 Evans, R. (1982) The Fabrication of Virtue: English Prison Architecture, 1750–1840. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
27 Johnston, Norman. “The World’s Most Influential Prison: Success or Failure?” The Prison Journal 84, no. 4_suppl (December 2004): 20S-40S. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885504269393.
Ibid^
29 Jewkes, Y. (2007) The evolution of prison architecture. In: Jewkes, Y. and Crewe, B. and Bennett, J., eds. Handbook of Prisons. Willan, Cullompton. ISBN 978-1-84392-185-1
30 Johnston, Norman. “The World’s Most Influential Prison: Success or Failure?” The Prison Journal 84, no. 4_suppl (December 2004): 20S-40S. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885504269393.
Ibid^
This system also had some disadvantages and ‘turned out to be very costly’32 ‘not only to build but also to run’33. Prisoners couldn’t leave their cells to empty their toilet buckets, so each cell had to have plumbing. They were also not allowed to go outside their cells to get food which meant guards had to carry the food for each prisoner. ‘Eastern State Penitentiary also had to restrict the prisoners to in-cell work such as cigar making, shoemaking, and textile production’34 which limits the possibilities of prisoners to make more money for the prison.
English penal ideology has been highly affected by the separate system since the decrease in punishment by transportation and death penalty in 19th century. ‘The experiments in penal treatment pioneered in Pennsylvania and New York came to the attention again of Europeans in the 1820s now seriously searching for a system of penal treatment which would be effective.’35 Like many other European countries, England sent a team to the United States to investigate the new and experimental penal ideologies, the separate and silent systems, at Eastern State Penitentiary in Philadelphia. Crawford, the British representative, ‘reported that the silent system was difficult to enforce and that the prisoners appeared to shake off the effects of unicellular isolation at night by being brought into close association during daytime hours.’36 He states that with the separate system, ‘solitary imprisonment may be rendered powerfully instrumental not only in deterring but also in reclaiming the offender’.37 HM prison service decided to implement this new system.
HM Pentonville prison is the first prison in UK that was designed to accommodate the separate system. Just like the Eastern State Penitentiary Pentonville was merely to ‘punish but, through imposing rigorous management of prisoner’s movements and activities, solitude and silence combined with industrial training, moral education, and religious teaching and exhortation, to reform, improve, and re-educate the convict population’.38 ‘Prisoners were urged to repent and ‘look to God’ so that they would be religiously and morally transformed on leaving the prison.’39 This aim of reformation through separation showed several advantages in Pentonville prison. The power relations of the prison were established easier for the staff of the prison. Riots and unwanted criminal groups were obstructed without difficulty
Ernest. “A Victorian Prison Experiment.” Journal of Social History 2, no. 4 (1969): 357-65 http://www. jstor.org/stable/3786565.
Catherine & Marland, Hilary. (2018). “He Must Die or Go Mad in This Place”: Prisoners, Insanity, and the Pentonville Model Prison Experiment, 1842–52.Bulletin of the History of Medicine. 92. 78-109. 10.1353/bhm.2018.0004.
Jewkes, Y. and Johnston, H. (eds) (2006) Prison Readings: A Critical Introduction to Prison and Imprisonment. Cullompton: Willan Publishing, as cited in Jewkes,Y. (2007) The evolution of prison architecture. In: Jewkes, Y. and Crewe, B. and Bennett, J., eds. Handbook of Prisons. Willan, Cullompton.ISBN 978-1-84392-185-1
‘In Pentonville, the ideal of separation appeared to reach “its fullest expression in the social relations and spatial structures of the model prison,” and to exemplify Michel Foucault’s notion of “disciplinary power,” producing “moral transformation by carefully control-ling time, space and bodies” and the prisoners’ minds.’40
Pentonville prison is designed by Joshua Jebb and construction ‘begun at Pentonville in what North London on April 10 was then 1840’41. Pentonville was a model prison for UK’s both penal ideology and prison architecture. ‘Within six years of the opening of Pentonville in 1842, fifty-four such prisons were built.’42Pentonville Prison is a radial plan prison, and it is the first prison to be built with a radial layout in UK. ‘The introduction of the fully developed radial plan into this country from America, in the middle of the nineteenth century, finally established a standard design eminently suitable for the type of cellular regime then enforced. The building of Pentonville Prison in 1840 on radial principles put an end to centuries of confusion and firmly set the pattern of prison architecture in this country for the next fifty years.’43 Even though it was new in UK, most aspects of Pentonville was used before in different prisons. Evans evaluates the importance of Pentonville with this text:
‘Although each of the components used at Pentonville – the radial plan, the galleries, the cellular compartments, the ventilation and servicing, the observatory and the chapel – can be traced back to earlier prison building and philosophies of discipline, the difference with Pentonville was that Jebb had turned the psychological issue of reformation into an issue of mechanics. It gave early expression to the Victorian obsession with discipline, certainty and systematic uniformity and was thus not only the most advanced prison in existence, but it was also one of the most advanced buildings of the time, and it became the blueprint for the building and renovation of prisons in the latter half of the nineteenth century.’ 44
Pentonville has five radial wings which four of them are cell compartments and the central one is the chapel. ‘Pentonville was originally built to hold five hundred and twenty prisoners in individual cells.’45 The building is designed to accommodate solitary-confinement with singular cells on the sides of wings. Three story high wings with the cells on the sides had a corridor on the ground floor and hanging iron pathways on the upper floors for circulation which made it possible for a single guard to stand in the middle and observe all of the prisoners on the wing. Pentonville had separate outside exercise yards for each prisoner. Prisoners would only be allowed to move around the prison with a cloth on their face and with a guard. Inmates would be taken to exercise on different timeslots to prevent yard to yard communication between prisoners. The church was the only place where all of the prisoners would be together, but they had to wear a cloth again on their way to church and they needed to sit in separate
40 Cox, Catherine & Marland, Hilary. (2018). “He Must Die or Go Mad in This Place”: Prisoners, Insanity, and the Pentonville Model Prison Experiment, 1842–52.Bulletin of the History of Medicine. 92. 78-109. 10.1353/bhm.2018.0004.
41 Teagarden, Ernest. “A Victorian Prison Experiment.” Journal of Social History 2, no. 4 (1969): 357-65 http://www. jstor.org/stable/3786565.
42 Fairweather, Leslie. “PRISON ARCHITECTURE IN ENGLAND.” The British Journal of Criminology 1, no. 4 (1961): 339-61.http://www.jstor.org/stable/23635797.
43 Ibid^
44 Evans, R. (1982) The Fabrication of Virtue: English Prison Architecture, 1750–1840. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
45 Jewkes, Y. (2007) The evolution of prison architecture. In: Jewkes, Y. and Crewe, B. and Bennett, J., eds. Handbook of Prisons. Willan, Cullompton. ISBN 978-1-84392-185-1
Figure5 :THE CHAPEL, ON THE ‘SEPARATE SYSTEM’ IN PENTONVILLE PRISON, DURING DIVENE SERVICE, edited in The Model Prison, the chapelas seen from the pulpit,1856, Franc Cass and Co edited in Evans, Robin. 1982. The Fabrication of Virtue: English Prison Architecture, 1750-1840. Cambridge [Cambridgeshire] ; New York: Cambridge University Press.
The Separation of Soul
compartments. Sitting in separate compartments, only their faces were visible from the outside and they wouldn’t be able to see other prisoners but only the chaplain.
The architecture of Pentonville was precisely designed and extraordinary for its time. Jebb ‘designed every detail of the cell, from the spyhole on the cell door to the water, heating and ventilation systems’46. Evans states ‘no other prison or penitentiary had ever been so meticulously contrived’47. Even tough Pentonville was ahead of its time, it is in the end ‘intended to communicate a sense of loss and deprivation via its stark and austere design’.48 The punishment of deprivation of freedom and separation in Pentonville was harsh and the architecture of the prison itself reflects the cruel punishment that was being executed inside. Jewkes states the powerful statement of the Pentonville’s architecture with the paragraph describing the feeling of the prison from the adjacent road by Morris and Morris:
‘To the traveller down the Caledonian Road, and to the inhabitants of Islington who daily look upon the high walls of Pentonville with its grim blackened cell houses, it is a visible sign of the most severe sanctions the law can impose – the deprivation of liberty and the possibility of death itself, for Pentonville is a ‘hanging prison’. First and foremost, the prison punishes, and there can be little doubt about this, for the physical apparatus of a maximum-security prison is suggestive of little else beyond the curtailment of freedom.’49
There is an uncanny similarity between Pentonville and Jeremy Bentham’s panopticon design with the centralized radial wings in Pentonville and a central watch tower in the panopticon. Semple even states that Jebb’s Pentonville prison was ‘designed along the lines of Jeremy Bentham’s ‘panopticon’’50 prison design. Although the panopticon resembles the Pentonville prison their ideology behind the design is completely different where the central watch tower of panopticon was to create a power relation over the population of criminals through the thought of constant surveillance, Pentonville prison uses the radially distributed wings to optimize the solitary-confinement, prisoner movement and minimize the interaction between inmates. ‘The prison thus inverts the logic of Bentham’s panopticon with its gatehouse and radial wings’51 states Jewkes
HM Pentonville prison has gone under several refurbishments over the years to increase the life quality within the prison and the prison capacity. Originally designed to house five hundred and twenty inmates, Pentonville now hosts over one thousand and two hundred prisoners with its new additional wings and floors.
46
47 Evans, R. (1982) The Fabrication of Virtue: English Prison Architecture, 1750–1840. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
48 Jewkes, Y. (2007) The evolution of prison architecture. In: Jewkes, Y. and Crewe, B. and Bennett, J., eds. Handbook of Prisons. Willan, Cullompton. ISBN 978-1-84392-185-1
49 Morris, P. and Morris, T. (1963) Pentonville: A Sociological Study of an English Prison. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. As cited in Jewkes, Y. (2007) The evolution of prison architecture. In: Jewkes, Y. and Crewe, B. and Bennett, J., eds. Handbook of Prisons. Willan, Cullompton. ISBN 978-1-84392-185-1
50 Semple, J. (1993) Bentham’s Prison: A Study of the Panopticon Penitentiary. Oxford: Clarendon Press. As cited in Jewkes, Y. (2007) The evolution of prison architecture. In: Jewkes, Y. and Crewe, B. and Bennett, J., eds. Handbook of Prisons. Willan, Cullompton. ISBN 978-1-84392-185-1
51 Jewkes, Y. (2007) The evolution of prison architecture. In: Jewkes, Y. and Crewe, B. and Bennett, J., eds. Handbook of Prisons. Willan, Cullompton. ISBN 978-1-84392-185-1
When it comes to effectiveness of penal ideologies Norway is a country one cannot disregard. Changes in the Nordic criminal system for the last 3 decades has proven affective by Norway having one of the lowest recidivism ratios compared to other countries. In Norway, ‘new studies show that the recidivism rate is 20–25%’52
This was not the case in Norway not too long ago. ‘Norway banned capital punishment for civilians in 1902, and life sentences were abolished in 1981. But Norwegian prisons operated much like their American counterparts until 1998.’53 In 1980s and 1990s Norwegian governmental institutions were failing to communicate with the criminal institutions and the conditions of the prisons were failing. Solitary confinement was being used as punishment and the mental health problems of the inmates were rising. Halden prison warden Are Høidal describes the problems Norwegian criminal system faced as:
‘Drug abuse had become a major problem in society overall, and this development was reflected in the prison climate. The use of drugs also increased inside prison walls, organized crime became more common, and several prisons experienced riots and attempted escapes. HIV and AIDS also became a major health concern during this period.’54
‘Policymakers, practitioners, and researchers have echoed the necessity for justice institutions to be fair, humane, and responsive to the needs of those they serve’55. There was need for better system of punishment pushing the criminal system in Norway towards a new path. NCS, Norwegian correctional services, drafted some goals towards this new path. It intends to reduce recidivism by different methods and increase the professionalism and communication between inmates and prison staff.56 There was a need for documenting these efforts. NCS has published a document called White Paper I in 1998 which highlights the aims of Norwegian government to improve the penal ideology, both physically and philosophically for a better criminal system. Within the following decade Norway published an updated document called White Paper II in 2008. ‘This new document also had an additional and explicit focus on reentry work’57 and principle of normalcy.
52 Are Høidal; Normality behind the Walls: Examples from Halden Prison. Federal Sentencing Reporter 1 October 2018; 31 (1): 58–66. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/fsr.2018.31.1.58
53 BENKO, J., 2015. The Radical Humaneness of Norway’s Halden Prison Nytimes.com. Available at: <https://www. nytimes.com/2015/03/29/magazine/the-radical-humaneness-of-norways-halden-prison.html>
54 Are Høidal; Normality behind the Walls: Examples from Halden Prison. Federal Sentencing Reporter 1 October 2018; 31 (1): 58–66. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/fsr.2018.31.1.58
55 Beijersbergen, K. A., Dirkzwager, A. J., van der Laan, P. H., & Nieuwbeerta, P. (2016). A social building? Prison architecture and staff–prisoner relationships. Crime & Delinquency, 62(7), 843–874. as cited in St. John, Victor J. “Placial Justice: Restoring Rehabilitation and Correctional Legitimacy Through Architectural Design.” SAGE Open, (April 2020). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020919503.
56 Are Høidal; Normality behind the Walls: Examples from Halden Prison. Federal Sentencing Reporter 1 October 2018; 31 (1): 58–66. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/fsr.2018.31.1.58
57 Ibid^
Norway has a completely new penal system with the white papers. Some of the principles are adapted from White Paper I and White Paper II, to the prison environment. Normalcy is now the main principle for the Norwegian prisons and being applied in several different ways. Most importantly a convict’s rights are the same as any other citizen of Norway and the only punishment is the taken right of freedom. In Are Høidal’s translation Norwegian law states the normalcy principle as:
‘The person’s existence during the execution of the sentence shall, as far as possible, be the same as existence elsewhere in society. It is the deprivation of liberty that is the punishment. Serving a sentence shall not be more burdensome than necessary, and no one shall be subject to conditions that are perceived as additional punishment.’ 58
Some other implementations are also made under the principle of normalcy. ‘The country employs an import model for prisons, meaning that no prison staff members deliver “medical, educational, employment, clerical or library services. Instead, these are imported from the community”.’59 This aims to create a similar life inside prison with the outside. Prisoners are able to claim their rights and keep their communication with different parts of the society. ‘The principle of normality and the import of members of the community ensure that prisoners do not feel more segregated from society than their imprisonment necessarily requires. They are physically removed from society, but not relationally removed.’60 This system also creates job opportunities for the surrounding community of the prison which helps the society to have a better opinion of the prison and prevents creating the different categories as prisoners and the rest.
Another key factor for the Norwegian penal system is the aim of re-integration. There are no life sentences in Norway and longest sentence that can be applied for a crime is 21 years. Norwegian prisons run with the knowledge that everyone that is convicted will eventually be released since there is no life sentences hence the reintegration process starts on the day one. Prison staff are trained for easing this process of getting ready to readapt to the outside society for the inmates and they are required to be role models. This process is not only limited in the prison area. The penal system helps inmates to get a job with training while they are imprisoned and offers job opportunities after their release. The system helps inmates to find housing and get a new life outside of the prison. ‘It is the goal that all inmates shall have an offer (if relevant to them) of employment, education, suitable housing, some type of income, medical services, addiction treatment services, and/or debt counselling when they leave prison.’61
58 http://www.kriminalomsorgen.no/getfile.php/757345.823. cyaedyurwd/STM200720080037000DDDPDFS.pdf, page 22;as cited in Are Høidal; Normality behind the Walls: Examples from Halden Prison. Federal Sentencing Reporter 1 October 2018; 31 (1): 58–66. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/fsr.2018.31.1.58
59 Emily Labutta, The Prisoner as One of Us: Norwegian Wisdom for American Penal Practice, 31 Emory Int’l L. Rev. 329 (2017). Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/eilr/vol31/iss2/4 60 Ibid^
61 Are Høidal; Normality behind the Walls: Examples from Halden Prison. Federal Sentencing Reporter 1 October 2018; 31 (1): 58–66. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/fsr.2018.31.1.58
Halden prison is the first prison in Norway to be built after the publishing of White PaperI. It carries the proposed principles of the new Norwegian penology into physical realm. Høidal describes Halden as ‘Norway’s most modern prison’62. White Paper I and hence ‘providing the inmates with opportunities for change lies at the very core of the mission statement of Halden Prison.’63 To achieve this aim, the principle of normalcy is at the core of the management and the design of the Halden prison. The principle of normalcy is aimed to be achieved in Halden prison by replicating the ‘structure of Norwegian society within the circular wall that surrounds the facility’64 without compromising security and safety issues.
‘Second largest prison in Norway’65, Halden prison was designed by Erik Møller Architects and the HLM Arkitektur after winning a competition by the department of justice of Norway. ‘Completed in 2010, Halden is a high-security facility that houses 250 of Norway’s toughest criminals.’66 As the design of the prison tries to create a similar life for the inmates which they would have outside of Halden’s 1.4 km long 6-meter-high concrete wall ‘Halden prison consists of several divided buildings, many with a specific use (e.g., education, recreation, workshops), thus requiring external travel between the various units’67 which mimics the daily commutes of the society outside the prison.Halden is located on the urban side of a city called Ostfold, covered with nature and away from the city center.
There are 228 cells within, divided into three units and twenty-four places in a halfway house located directly outside the prison. The prison buildings cover 27,000 square meters of administration offices, workshops, and housing units, as well as several buildings for activities. The total land area within the prison wall is approximately 150,000 square meters. The area between the prison and the forest the so-called free zone, which is also considered a part of the prison, even though it is located outside the wall is also 150,000 square meters.68
A, B and C blocks of the prison complex are living units. Block A being the strictest unit and the pre detention center each unit has 84 cells. Each cell is equipped with furniture that would be similar to life outside of prison, Prisoners can earn their freedom to decorate and personalize their rooms. Each cell and common space have big openings with safety glass and without bars looking towards the nature. ‘The architects state that, “Nature is actively involved as a social rehabilitative factor in the architecture. The opportunity to follow seasonal changes
62 https://www.statsbygg.no/files/prosjekter/haldenFengsel/ 1511_Fengselsmag_bm.pdf, page 2. As cited in Are Høidal; Normality behind the Walls: Examples from Halden Prison. Federal Sentencing Reporter 1 October 2018; 31 (1): 58–66. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/fsr.2018.31.1.58
63 Are Høidal; Normality behind the Walls: Examples from Halden Prison. Federal Sentencing Reporter 1 October 2018; 31 (1): 58–66. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/fsr.2018.31.1.58
64 Are Høidal; Normality behind the Walls: Examples from Halden Prison. Federal Sentencing Reporter 1 October 2018; 31 (1): 58–66. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/fsr.2018.31.1.58
65 Adams, W., 2010. Sentenced to Serving the Good Life in Norway -- Printout -- TIME. [online] Content.time.com. Available at: <https://content.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,2000920,00.html
66 Leung, J., 2014. Halden Prison (Erik Møller Architects & HLM Architects). [online] Design and Violence. Available at:<https://www.moma.org/interactives/exhibitions/2013/designandviolence/halden-prison-erik-moller-architects-hlmarchitects/>
67 Are Høidal; Normality behind the Walls: Examples from Halden Prison. Federal Sentencing Reporter 1 October 2018; 31 (1): 58–66. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/fsr.2018.31.1.58
is the Case
helps to clarify the passage of time for the inmates.’69 Halden prison also has activity rooms where in inmates can spend their time working on their hobby or praying or learning. Prisoners and staff can use these rooms to spend their day ‘At Halden, the overall intended effect of this environment is to fill the whole day with meaningful activities; this is good for both inmates and employees.’70
There are also several open spaces in the nature for inmates to spend the time. Some of the necessary walls for security are covered with artworks to break coldness of a high concrete wall. Høidal describes the effects of the artwork as:
‘The spray-painted image of an inmate in uniform hurling a ball and chain writ large on the prison wall and small on the latrine door by the Norwegian graffiti artist Dolk further distracts from the convict’s body’.71
‘The challenge at Halden is to accomplish all of this without compromising key measures of security. Taken together, the unique way that Halden was designed allows for the maximum potential to limit the harmful effects of time in prison and facilitate an inmate’s progression through the rehabilitative process.’72 Halden has as much as normalcy for inmates within the limits of security. Halden runs on a security system called dynamic security. Where most prisons depend on static security and its surveillance to act when there is a problem, ‘dynamic security focuses on preventing bad intentions from developing in the first place’73. Architecture helps dynamic security in a passive way. ‘Halden’s officers are put in close quarters with the inmates as often as possible; the architects were instructed to make the guard stations tiny and cramped, to encourage officers to spend time in common rooms with the inmates instead.’74
Being in close communication with inmates in a prison which aims to provide security, helps the rehabilitation process of prisoners, comes with its responsibilities. Prison staff in Halden prison were ‘given a much greater responsibility for the rehabilitation of inmates, not just their incarceration. This, in turn, led to a series of necessary changes in the educational requirements for and training of correctional officers’75.Halden prison staff are trained for two to three years before becoming eligible to work in Halden prison while the average training period for a prison staff in UK is 12 weeks.
Architecture of the Halden prison follows the philosophies of the architects composed out of the national penal ideology. It is difficult for a prison architect to design a place that carries out two very opposite functions, detention and rehabilitation. Architects of the Halden prison describe how they tackled the issue of composing controversial functions with architecture as:
69 Leung, J., 2014. Halden Prison (Erik Møller Architects & HLM Architects). [online] Design and Violence. Available at:<https://www.moma.org/interactives/exhibitions/2013/designandviolence/halden-prison-erik-moller-architects-hlmarchitects/>
70 Are Høidal; Normality behind the Walls: Examples from Halden Prison. Federal Sentencing Reporter 1 October 2018; 31 (1): 58–66. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/fsr.2018.31.1.58
Ibid^
Ibid^
73 BENKO, J., 2015. The Radical Humaneness of Norway’s Halden Prison Nytimes.com. Available at: <https://www. nytimes.com/2015/03/29/magazine/the-radical-humaneness-of-norways-halden-prison.html>
Ibid^
75 Abdel-Salam & Sunde (this issue), “Enhancing the Role of Correctional Officers in American Prisons: Lessons Learned from Norway,” 31 Fed. Sent. R. 67 (2018).as cited in Are Høidal; Normality behind the Walls: Examples from Halden Prison. Federal Sentencing Reporter 1 October 2018; 31 (1): 58–66.doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/fsr.2018.31.1.58
The project’s intention and main focus is based on two mutually dependent opposites: hard and soft. The word hard represents the harsh and restrictive prison spaces, which feature themeans of detention and physical barriers, while soft represents the notion of rehabilitation, with communitylike living quarters and co-location of employees and inmates. Accordingly, the administrative functions, the strictest prison units, and the sports field are located close to the main gate on the lower level of the prison grounds; this represents the “hard” element. The “soft” features are located on the upper grounds of the prison, where the original forested landscape in which Halden is located remains nearly untouched. This means that the living quarters, workshops, and visitation house are grouped around the recreational and natural areas on the site. Placing these buildings in an almost countryside-like setting is intended to reinforce the “normality” of the arguably abnormal prison environment and was motivated by the somewhat untraditional motto’76
Halden is in fact an extra ordinary piece of architecture compared to other criminal institutions. It wholly represents the philosophy for punishment of Norway. Halden prison warden, Are Høidal’s, these words clearly explain why it is called world’s most humane prison in several news articles:
‘Prison life can never fully parallel a life of relative freedom outside the walls; this is, after all, the purpose of incarceration. In Halden Prison, however, we have made an exceptional effort to bring these two versions of life as close together as possible.’
Prisons are one of the most ignored pieces of architecture even though it is foundationally important for societies. Prison ‘design has a profound psychological and behavioural influence on prisoners, prison staff, and the communities in which prisons are located.’78 Different penal ideologies and shift of understanding of punishment through time concluded in different prison designs. It is inevitable to think of a necessity to have different designs for prison as a place for harsh punishment and a place for rehabilitation. Architecture of the prison is always parallel to the punishment inside the perimeter wall of the time it is designed for. It is hard to imagine a place for incarceration when the word, incarceration and it is interpretation of punishment is not clear. It changes according to the society, time and location ‘demonstrating that prison architecture may reflect underlying penal philosophies yet must be viewed alongside a multitude of local factors which characterize an individual prison at any given time.’79
Architecture is used in many different ways for incarceration. While 19th century, prisons used the help of architecture for the application of the separate system, contemporary prisons mostly use design to create rehabilitative spaces of a normal life. ‘Architecture is the key to providing prisoners with an everyday life, that is as similar as possible to the one they formerly had in freedom.’80 Architecture of the prison is not only used for the punishment or rehabilitation of the inmates or to express the penology to the society, but it also ‘should create an additional incentive for inmates to be accepting of the fairness of their sentence.’81
It is a difficult job to interpret the architecture of a prison through aesthetics. Jewkes states that; ‘In an ongoing climate of populist punitiveness, enlightened penal experiments, including those which employ aesthetic considerations aimed at making prisoners feel like people again frequently prove too controversial to survive in societies where the prevailing public view is that offenders deserve to be held in anaesthetizing, pain-inducing environments.’82 Even though this might be true for some cases it is not possible to criticize a prison from one perspective. Other than the aesthetic values there are different aspects one must consider when investigating the architecture of a prison. This chapter will focus on some important features that separates Pentonville prison and Halden prison; location compared to the city, layout of the prison complex, external statement and individual compartments.
78 Jewkes, Y. (2013). The aesthetics and anaesthetics of prison architecture. In J. Simon, N. Temple, & R. Tobe (Eds.), Architecture and Justice: Judicial Meanings in the Public Realm (pp. 9-21). (Ashgate Studeis in Architecture). Ashgate Publishing.
79 Jewkes, Y. (2007) The evolution of prison architecture. In: Jewkes, Y. and Crewe, B. and Bennett, J., eds. Handbook of Prisons. Willan, Cullompton. ISBN 978-1-84392-185-1
80 Grönegräs, Max. (2019). International Differences in Prison Architecture. MaRBLe.2.10.26481/marble.2019.v1.741.
81 St. John, Victor J. “Placial Justice: Restoring Rehabilitation and Correctional Legitimacy Through Architectural Design.” SAGE Open, (April 2020). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020919503.
82 Jewkes, Y. (2013). The aesthetics and anaesthetics of prison architecture. In J. Simon, N. Temple, & R. Tobe (Eds.), Architecture and Justice: Judicial Meanings in the Public Realm (pp. 9-21). (Ashgate Studeis in Architecture). Ashgate Publishing.
The location of a prison has always been a complicated topic. Even though it is not generally the architect’s job to decide the site for the prison, success of the penal ideologies and the design of the facility depends on it. The ideally perfect location of the prison has changed many times through history. While most prisons are located outside of the cities today, it is possible to find ancient incarceration facilities in the center of the cities not because the city grew around but it was intended to be in the city. It was not just in the city, prison was a part of the city ‘While the explicit reason for the removal of the prison from towns to more isolated rural areas was to prevent disease, it was none the less a radical move that would have been unthinkable before reforms.’83 Moving prison from city to urban was to ‘acknowledge that it would no longer relate to the external world in so familiar a way’84. Being close to the community creates a feeling of being part of the society which is an important factor for the prisoner’s readaptation process. ‘The harm done by locating jails and prisons far away from an occupant’s crucial social ties, such as family members or legal counsel, is hard to overstate’85. Although there are several advantages for prisons to be located in the city. It is hard to blend the facility with the rest of the city and ‘highly visible prison might be a constant reminder to society of the perils of transgression, but it also arguably generates disproportionate fears about inmate escapes, an influx into the area of ‘undesirables’ visiting prisoners, and ex-inmates settling into the community in which the prison is situated on completion of their sentence’.86
Halden prison in Norway is located on the outskirts of a little town near the border of Sweden. As stated, before Halden prison works with an import model connecting the outside and the inside of the prison together hence preventing the prisoners being excluded from the society. Even though the purpose of the Halden is focused on reintegration of the prisoners back to society, location of the prison is not the best place for all Nordic prisoners to serve as it is on the border and not in close proximity to any major cities. But Norway has relatively small prisons with the total cell capacity being ‘distributed among forty-three prisons in sixty-one locations’87 which helps Norwegian justice system to locate each offender close to their family.
Pentonville on the other hand is located in the center of London. It is located in a residential area. Prisoners weren’t allowed to have interactions with each other not the society at large in Pentonville prison, which means the reason of location is not re-integration of the prisoners but to create a showcase of punishment for the society since the capital punishment executed in the center to set an example for the rest of the society is not happening anymore.
83 Jewkes, Y. (2007) The evolution of prison architecture. In: Jewkes, Y. and Crewe, B. and Bennett, J., eds. Handbook of Prisons. Willan, Cullompton. ISBN 978-1-84392-185-1
84 Evans, R. (1982) The Fabrication of Virtue: English Prison Architecture, 1750–1840. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
85 St. John, Victor J. “Placial Justice: Restoring Rehabilitation and Correctional Legitimacy Through Architectural Design.” SAGE Open, https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020919503.
86 Jewkes, Y. (2013). The aesthetics and anaesthetics of prison architecture. In J. Simon, N. Temple, & R. Tobe (Eds.), Architecture and Justice: Judicial Meanings in the Public Realm (pp. 9-21). (Ashgate Studeis in Architecture). Ashgate Publishing.
87 Are Høidal; Normality behind the Walls: Examples from Halden Prison. Federal Sentencing Reporter 1 October 2018; 31 (1): 58–66. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/fsr.2018.31.1.58
Main architectural decisions lay under the layout of the prisons. Many different layouts have been used for prisons and some of them are more influential in consideration with their penal ideologies. The panopticon is the layout for surveillance, radial plan is for isolation and campus layout for normalcy one might categorize. Layout depends on the functional, security and economic criterias. ‘Whatever may be said about the old nineteenth century radial prisons, they were definite architectural statements about their function and purpose. A new expression indicative of the new methods of treatment is now needed if our penal and correctional institutions are to develop a sound architectural character expressing a boulder and more adventurous approach to this immensely difficult problem.’88
Pentonville is designed as a radial plan prison. It is a strong architectural demonstration for 19th century prison ideology. Pentonville’s radially located wings and individually organized exercise yards helps the management of solitary confinement since it is easier to control the movement of the prisoners and staff circulation. With the radial plan of the Pentonville prisoners were not only subjected to isolation but they had to isolate in ‘long, noisy, open halls.’89 Radial plan is not only functional for the era’s punishment but security aspect of the prison was also inserted in the floor plans as they were ‘indispensable to control the hierarchical disposition of spaces and acted as crucial media to evaluate the power enforced by architecture over the carceral community’.90 Power relation of the prison forced on the prisoners through architecture.
Campus layout which Halden prison is built with, may be the answer for the search of the contemporary prison layout for some countries. ‘The use of small group buildings with associated courts or gardens leading into larger games enclosures and general landscaped areas is not a luxury designed to pamper the criminal.’91 ‘The dynamic form and diversification of volumes mimic the vivid built environment and create analogy with active lifestyle’92. Campus layout of the prison can easily be confused with American Supermax typology. This prison typology is again consisting of small buildings scattered around a big site. There are two important issues that separates Halden from Supermax prisons, one the so called ‘freedom’ of inmates within the facility and the scale of the prison. Halden is designed to host maximum of two hundred and fifty-two prisoners while most supermax prisons hosts more than ten thousand prisoners. Fikfak refers to Jewkes and Moran’s research to underline the importance of scale for prison buildings with this sentence; ‘prisons are healthier, more humane, and more effective when kept to a modest size.’93 The size of the facility effects the relationships of the prison community including the inmates and the staff. ‘These relationships will not develop healthily in huge impersonal blocks of cells where the individual is dwarfed by the overpowering size of the structure. They can only be attempted in buildings which respect the quality of the
88 Fairweather, Leslie. “PRISON ARCHITECTURE IN ENGLAND.” The British Journal of Criminology 1, no. 4 (1961): 339-61.http://www.jstor.org/stable/23635797
89 Ibid^
90 Puddu, Sabrina and G. Meloni. “Uncanny Beauty: Unveiling a prison interior.” (2017).
91 Fairweather, Leslie. “PRISON ARCHITECTURE IN ENGLAND.” The British Journal of Criminology 1, no. 4 (1961): 339-61.http://www.jstor.org/stable/23635797.
92 Fikfak, Alenka & Kosanović, Saja & Crnic, Mia & Perovic, Vasa. (2016). The contemporary model of prison architecture: Spatial response to the re-socialization programme.Spatium. 1. 27-34. 10.2298/SPAT1534027F.
93 Jewkes, Y. and Moran. D. (2014b) Bad design breeds violence in sterile megaprisons, The Conversation, January 31, 2014. http://theconversation.com/bad-design-breeds-violence-insterile-megaprisons-22424 as cited in Fikfak, Alenka & Kosanović, Saja & Crnic, Mia & Perovic, Vasa. (2016). The contemporary model of prison architecture: Spatial response to the re-socialization programme. Spatium. 1. 27-34. 10.2298/SPAT1534027F.
Figure9: The Model Prison, galleried cell block.British Library edited in Evans, Robin. 1982. The Fabrication of Virtue: English Prison Architecture, 1750-1840. Cambridge [Cambridgeshire] ; New York: Cambridge University Press.
FİGURE10: The Model Prison, observatory British Library. Islington Central Library edited in Evans, Robin. 1982. The Fabrication of Virtue: English Prison Architecture, 1750-1840. Cambridge [Cambridgeshire] ; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Is one better?
individual by being attractive, as normal in appearance as possible, and suitable in scale.’94 The vast cell blocks on the Pentonville prison and the small and modest sized, maximum 2 storey high buildings in Halden prison are the perfect examples for the importance of scale. Huge and suppressive size is used in prison, where there is ideally no communication and humane size in a rehabilitative prison depends on relationship for security and functional reasons.
Exterior of a prison tells a story about the life inside. It is not necessarily the same story of what is happening inside the wall, but façade of a prison is an architectural tool to convey the society about the prison and the ideology. Prison facades are used as statements and in some cases in the history, this feature of prison is considered as the most important part of a prison design hence ‘the internal life of prison inmates was almost a secondary consideration to the symbolic meaning transmitted by the external façade to society at large.’95 Prison exteriors became ‘architectural shields’ to mask the true purpose of the prison, making what went on behind the façade appear more terrifying.’96 Pratt defines the exteriority of prisons in 19th century with the affects of separate and silent system with these sentences:
‘as holes were being filled and interior spaces were becoming more enclosed and claustrophobic, the exterior façade of the prison was becoming more expansive and grandiose. Penal policy was taking a more ostentatious, dramatic and communicative turn, and prisons were being built to designs that communicated to the public a clear message about punishment from the ‘carefully scripted’ construction of their exterior architecture.’ 97
Although one might state that exterior statements of prisons in 19th century ‘was too austere, too threatening and too unpleasant’98, they were intentionally designed and had a purpose. Those exteriors ‘incorporated symbolism that had a ‘see and beware’ function, warning the community at large to refrain from committing crimes lest they too should end up within the monstrous institution’s imposing walls’99. Pentonville is an example for such prison exteriority design. ‘The only decorative features on the exterior of Pentonville were the gatehouse and clock tower’100 Remaining facades of the prison is covered with small windows with bars. Orderly placed, small and barred windows on a massive 3 floor high wall creates an overwhelming façade for the prison. An article from 1843 Illustrated New London, criticises the façade of the Pentonville prison:
94 Fairweather, Leslie. “PRISON ARCHITECTURE IN ENGLAND.” The British Journal of Criminology 1, no. 4 (1961): 339-61.http://www.jstor.org/stable/23635797
95 Markus, T.A. (1994) ‘Can history be a guide to the design of prisons?’, in I. Spens (ed.) Architecture of Incarceration. London: Academy Editions. As cited in Jewkes, Y. (2007) The evolution of prison architecture. In: Jewkes, Y. and Crewe, B. and Bennett, J., eds. Handbook of Prisons. Willan, Cullompton. ISBN 978-1-84392-185-1
96 Evans, R. (1982) The Fabrication of Virtue: English Prison Architecture, 1750–1840. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
97 Pratt, J. (2002) Punishment and Civilisation: Penal Tolerance and Intolerance in ModernSociety. London: Sage. As cited in Jewkes, Y. (2007) The evolution of prison architecture. In: Jewkes, Y. and Crewe, B. and Bennett, J., eds. Handbook of Prisons. Willan, Cullompton. ISBN 978-1-84392-185-1
98 Jewkes, Y. (2007) The evolution of prison architecture. In: Jewkes, Y. and Crewe, B. and Bennett, J., eds. Handbook of Prisons. Willan, Cullompton. ISBN 978-1-84392-185-1
99 Jewkes, Y. (2013). The aesthetics and anaesthetics of prison architecture. In J. Simon, N. Temple, & R. Tobe (Eds.), Architecture and Justice: Judicial Meanings in the Public Realm (pp. 9-21). (Ashgate Studeis in Architecture). Ashgate Publishing.
100 Jewkes, Y. (2007) The evolution of prison architecture. In: Jewkes, Y. and Crewe, B. and Bennett, J., eds. Handbook of Prisons. Willan, Cullompton. ISBN 978-1-84392-185-1
SCALE OF THE 2 FLOOR HIGH BUILDINGS IN HALDEN EVENOTE 7-28
(Above)Figure13: Pentonville cell with hammock and loom edited in Gennaro, Giuseppe di. 1976. Prison Architecture. An International Survey Of Representative Closed Institutions And Analysis Of Current Trends In Prison Design. Prep. By Giuseppe Di Gennaro [U. A.]. London: Architectural Pr. (Below)Figure14. Pentonville’s cell. Drawing from Joshua Jebb, Report of the surveyor general of prisons on the Construction, Ventilations, and Details of Pentonville Prison, London : Printed by W. Clowes and sons for H.M. Stationery Off, 1844. Wellcome Library no. n 88255625. edited in Puddu, Sabrina and G. Meloni. “Uncanny Beauty: Unveiling a prison interior.” (2017).
Is one better?
‘The exterior is less repulsive than that of many edifices of the kind; but what we have principally to hope, for the benefit of society, is, that the interior may be little and as seldom tenanted, so that it may be set up less as a symbol of punishment, than as a sign of the diminution of crime.’ 101
Pentonville’s decorated gateway and walls present a barrier between the outside and the inside society. As the aim of the prison is to create a space for prisoners to isolate, the walls of the prison act as an architectural tool to divide the city and prisoner community, ‘creating a city beyond the city’102
On the other hand, some contemporary prisons like Halden interpret the appearance of a prison differently. Halden prison is covered with a six-meter-high concrete wall and the exterior that is visible to the society is just that perimeter wall, which is hidden in nature unless you get close enough to the facility. Halden hides itself in nature. A reporter describes the road and what we can call the exteriority of the prison as:
‘Norway’s newest prison was marked by a modest sign that read, simply, HALDEN FENGSEL. There were no signs warning against picking up hitchhikers, no visible fences. Only the 25-foot-tall floodlights rising along the edges hinted that something other than grazing cows lay ahead… Smooth, featureless concrete rose on the horizon like the wall of a dam as I approached; nearly four times as tall as a man, it snaked along the crests of the hills, its top curled toward me as if under pressure. This was the outer wall of Halden Fengsel, which is often called the world’s most humane maximumsecurity prison. I walked up the quiet driveway to the entrance and presented myself to a camera at the main door. There were no coils of razor wire in sight, no lethal electric fences, no towers manned by snipers nothing’ 103
It is simple and plain, it is ‘normal’. It is intended to look like a regular facility, not attracting attention and demonstrating the life behind the wall is simple and ‘normal’. When thought about the exterior of each building and their meaning for the inmates, architects use of different materials as they categorize ‘hard and soft’ for different meanings is influenced by the idea that ‘the prison appearance should give two equally important messages: first, that those who reside inside are there for their punishment and correction; second, that they are human beings who deserve ‘one more chance’.’104
101 Illustrated London News, 1843. Pentonville Prison. pp.4-5.
102 Wilkinson, Tom. 2021. “Typology: Prison - Architectural Review”. Architectural Review. https://www.architecturalreview.com/essays/typology/typology-prison.
103 BENKO, J., 2015. The Radical Humaneness of Norway’s Halden Prison Nytimes.com. Available at: <https://www. nytimes.com/2015/03/29/magazine/the-radical-humaneness-of-norways-halden-prison.html>
104 Fikfak, Alenka & Kosanović, Saja & Crnic, Mia & Perovic, Vasa. (2016). The contemporary model of prison architecture: Spatial response to the re-socialization programme. Spatium. 1. 27-34. 10.2298/SPAT1534027F.
Cells are the most important part of a prison for prisoner’s reintegration process since inmates spend most of their time in their cells. Their design intends, such as functioning as a separation unit or being a living unit for the prisoners may be the most important issue of the cell. Of course, there are some safety considerations trying to mitigate the possible ways of self-harm and try to protect the prisoner but the life quality in the cell depends on the design. A cell, which is designed to be used as a place where the incarcerated left inside alone with no care, might do more harm than good.
Pentonville has a revolutionary prison cell design for its time. Sir Joshua Jebb designed Pentonville based on his British colleague John Haviland’s Eastern state penitentiary and his design submission for Pentonville prison. ‘An essay in the illustrated news London published in 1843 right after Pentonville opened describes Jebb’s cell design as;
‘The ceiling is arched, and the light is admitted by a window (a fixture), filled with strong glass, of similar form, in the hack wall, and crossed by a wrought-iron bar, in the direction of its length, so to divide it into two portions, of about 5 inches each. The engraving shows the interior of a cell; on the left is a stone water-closet pan, with a cast-iron top, acting on a hinge let into the wall. Next is a metal basin, supplied with water, to prevent the waste of which, the quantity is limited to one cubic foot, or about 6 gallons; the service-pipe from the water-trough being beat in the form of a trap, to prevent any transmission of sound plates above the door of the cell, which communicate with an immense shaft ...’ 105
The reason behind why Pentonville prison cells can be considered extraordinary for their time, is not only due to their carefully scripted interiors but also owing to ‘the use of cutting-edge heating and plumbing’106. While well-ventilated cells made the application of separate system possible it also increased the life quality for prisoners. Light is another driving criteria in Jebb’s design. The only window of the cell looking outside was located higher than a person’s eyesight. The aim of the window is enabling sunlight in the cell without letting the prisoner communicating with outside.
Halden prison’s cell design carries the ideology of Halden prison as a whole. The cells are designed to be as normal as possible. Normalcy was the main principle in design rather than security with the belief that the dynamic security system (see chapter 4-Normal is the Case)would be able to foresee what would happen in a prisoner’s cell. The cell is equipped with modern furniture and a flatscreen tv. ‘The prisoners in Halden have even got their own bathrooms with tiles on the walls.’107 Prisoners have their own key for their cells as a normalcy policy even though the locks can be overridden by the staff for security. Cells have long, high windows enabling the inmate to watch outside aiming to help the prisoner’s resocialization process with the view of passage of time. There are no bars on the openings, but the windows are covered with safety glass.
105 Illustrated London News, 1843. Pentonville Prison. pp.4-5.
106 BENKO, J., 2015. The Radical Humaneness of Norway’s Halden Prison Nytimes.com. Available at: <https://www. nytimes.com/2015/03/29/magazine/the-radical-humaneness-of-norways-halden-prison.html>
107 K., J., 2018. Humanity Rather than Materialism – A Short Essay About the Prison Environment. In: E. Fransson, F. Giofrè and B. Johnsen, ed., Prison architecture and Humans, 1st ed. Cappelen Damm Akademisk.
Figure16: Sign on a prison wall for no communication edited in Gennaro, Giuseppe di. 1976. Prison Architecture. An International Survey Of Representative Closed Institutions And Analysis Of Current Trends In Prison Design. Prep. By Giuseppe Di Gennaro [U. A.]. London: Architectural Pr.
‘Prison buildings must be considered as architecture in their own right. It is the job of the architect to design buildings thoroughly suitable for the new educational and correctional training of offenders and at the same time produce a satisfying piece of architecture’.108 We cannot and should not put all responsibility on architects while we still use the buildings, designed to carry ideologies which societies already left behind. ‘We may no longer subject prison inmates to the treadwheel or prevent them from communicating with each other but the disciplinary power underpinning nineteenth and early twentieth century institutions, is retained within the architectural logic of prisons and continues to influence penal design, despite being abandoned in penal policy and practice almost a century ago.’109
We cannot deny the effect of the prison design on prisoners and the obvious relation between architecture and penology, but we should not forget that architecture is a tool in the penal system. It is a tool to help the application of ideologies but should never be the purpose. The location of the building is important, but not more than the ideology applied within the walls. Scale of a prison has an important role on inmates but not more than human contact. Was it really impossible to apply separate system in a different prison design or could Halden prison and Norwegian criminal system could achieved the same success of lowering the recidivism rates with a different prison design such as Pentonville? My research suggests that it is possible. It will definitely be harder to achieve but not impossible. The architecture used as a tool in prison design eases the application of the ideology inside but if we want to help the inmates for their time served and reduce the reincarceration ratio, architecture alone cannot help. This is why maybe we can define Pentonville as an architectural success but a penal failure, while the success of the Halden is mostly the ideology with the help of architecture. An ex-prisoner served in Halden prison interprets the connection between architecture and the ideology of the prison as
‘I hope they understand that the way that they treat us inmates – all over the world is far more helpful than an artist smartening up the walls and choosing the colours to be used in prisons……Location, colour and furniture are no substitute for the need of humans to feel that they belong, to be accepted, to be recognized and possibly even forgiven.’110
‘Whether aesthetic considerations in their environment are significant matters of concern to prisoners is a moot point, although plenty of prisoner autobiographies suggest that architecture and design are intrinsically related to the pain and harms inflicted by incarceration.’111
108 Fairweather, Leslie. “PRISON ARCHITECTURE IN ENGLAND.” The British Journal of Criminology 1, no. 4 (1961): 339-61.http://www.jstor.org/stable/23635797
109 Jewkes, Y. (2013). The aesthetics and anaesthetics of prison architecture. In J. Simon, N. Temple, & R. Tobe (Eds.), Architecture and Justice: Judicial Meanings in the Public Realm (pp. 9-21). (Ashgate Studeis in Architecture). Ashgate Publishing.
110 K., J., 2018. Humanity Rather than Materialism – A Short Essay About the Prison Environment. In: E. Fransson, F. Giofrè and B. Johnsen, ed., Prison architecture and Humans, 1st ed. Cappelen Damm Akademisk.
111 Jewkes, Y & Moran, D 2014, ‘Should Prison Architecture be Brutal, Bland or Beautiful?’, Scottish Justice Matters, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 8-11. http://scottishjusticematters.com/wp-content/uploads/SJM_2_1_PrisonArchitectureLo-Res.pdf
Adams, W., 2010. Sentenced to Serving the Good Life in Norway -- Printout -- TIME. [online] Content.time.com. Available at: http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2000920,00.html
Are Høidal; Normality behind the Walls: Examples from Halden Prison. Federal Sentencing Reporter 1 October 2018; 31 (1): 58–66. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/fsr.2018.31.1.58
BENKO, J., 2015. The Radical Humaneness of Norway’s Halden Prison (Published 2015). [online] Nytimes.com. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/29/magazine/the-radical-humaneness-of-norways-haldenprison.html
Bennett, Oliver. 2015. “How Designers Could Be Building Better UK Prisons”. The Independent. https://www. independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/architecture/how-build-better-prisons-newdesigns-and-new-looktheir-purpose-a6764021.html,.
Bentham, Jeremy. 2011. The Panopticon Writings. London: Verso. Bert, J. (2012). “It is the prisons themselves that put up a resistance.” Discipline and Punish by Michel Foucault. Revue du MAUSS, 2(2), 161-172. https://doi.org/1t0.3917/rdm.040.0161 Brodie, Allan, Jane Croom, and James O Davies. 2002. English Prisons, An Architectural History. Swindon: English Heritage.
BUDDS, DIANA. 2017. “Redesigning New York’S Most Notorious Jail”. Fast Company. https://www. fastcompany.com/90133062/redesigning-new-yorks-most-notorious-prison.
Catucci, Stefano. 2018. “The Prison Beyond Its Theory Between Michel Foucault’S Militancy And Thought”. In Prison Architecture And Humans, 1st ed., 336. cappelan damm akademisk. Collins, Philip Arthur William. 1964. Dickens And Crime. 1st ed. London: Macmillan. Cox, Catherine & Marland, Hilary. (2018). “He Must Die or Go Mad in This Place”: Prisoners, Insanity, and the Pentonville Model Prison Experiment, 1842–52. Bulletin of the History of Medicine. 92. 78-109. 10.1353/ bhm.2018.0004.
Denny, Meagan (2016) “Norway’s Prison System: Investigating Recidivism and Reintegration,”Bridges: A Journal of Student Research: Vol. 10 : Iss. 10 , Article 2. Elmer Barnes, Harry. 1972. The Story Of Punishment. Montclair, N.J.: Patterson Smith. Emily Labutta, The Prisoner as One of Us: Norwegian Wisdom for American Penal Practice, 31 Emory Int’l L. Rev. 329 (2017). Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/eilr/vol31/iss2/4 Evans, Robin. 1982. The Fabrication of Virtue: English Prison Architecture, 1750-1840. Cambridge [Cambridgeshire] ; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Fairweather, Leslie. “PRISON ARCHITECTURE IN ENGLAND.” The British Journal of Criminology 1, no. 4 (1961): 339-61.
Fikfak, Alenka, Saja Kosanović, Mia Crnic, and Vasa Perovic. 2016. “The Contemporary Model of Prison Architecture: Spatial Response to the Re-Socialization Programme.” Spatium 1 (February): 27–34. https:// doi.org/10.2298/SPAT1534027F
Foucault, Michel, 1926-1984. Discipline And Punish : the Birth of the Prison. New York :Pantheon Books, 1977. Fransson, E., Giofrè, F., & Johnsen, B. (2018). Prison Architecture as a Field of Study: A Multidisciplinary Contribution. In Fransson, F. Giofrè & B. Johnsen (Eds.), Prison, Architecture and Humans (pp. 19-27). Cappelen Damm Akademisk.
Fridhow, Inger. 2018. “Penal Ideology and Prison Architecture “. In Prison Architecture And Humans, 1st ed., 269. cappelan damm akademisk.
Gennaro, Giuseppe di. 1976. Prison Architecture. An International Survey Of Representative Closed Institutions And Analysis Of Current Trends In Prison Design. Prep. By Giuseppe Di Gennaro [U. A.]. London: Architectural Pr. Giofrè, Francesca. 2018. Prisons and Architecture. The Italian FrameworkIn .Prison Architecture And Humans, 1st ed., cappelan damm akademisk.
Grönegräs, Max. 2019. “International Differences in Prison Architecture.” MaRBLe 2 (October). https://doi. org/10.26481/marble.2019.v1.741.
Halden Prison Magazine. 2019, Hancock, Philip, and Yvonne Jewkes. 2011. “Architectures of Incarceration: The Spatial Pains of Imprisonment.” Punishment & Society 13 (December): 611–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474511422171. “How Architecture And Design Matter For Prison Services: A Rapid Review Of The Literature.” (2018).2020). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020919503.
Illustrated London News, 1843. Pentonville Prison. pp.4-5.
Jewkes, Y & Moran, D 2014, ‘Should Prison Architecture be Brutal, Bland or Beautiful?’, Scottish Justice Matters, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 8-11. http://scottishjusticematters.com/wp-content/uploads/SJM_2_1_ PrisonArchitectureLo-Res.pdf
Jewkes, Y. (2013). The aesthetics and anaesthetics of prison architecture. In J. Simon, N. Temple, & R. Tobe (Eds.), Architecture and Justice: Judicial Meanings in the Public Realm (pp. 9-21). (Ashgate Studeis in Architecture). Ashgate Publishing. Jewkes, Yvonne, and Dominique Moran. 2021. “Bad Design Breeds Violence In Sterile Megaprisons”. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/bad-design-breeds-violence-in-sterile-megaprisons-22424.
Jewkes, Yvvone. 2007. “The Evolution Of Prison Architecture”. In Handbook On Prisons, 1st ed. Willan Publishing. https://books-library.net/files/books-library.online-02270115Zk9S2.pdf.
Johnsen, Berit. 2018. “Movement in the Prison Landscape: Leisure Activities - Inside, Outside and In-Between.” In .Prison Architecture And Humans, 1st ed., cappelan damm akademisk. Johnston, Norman. “The World’s Most Influential Prison: Success or Failure?” The Prison Journal 84, no. 4_suppl (December 2004): 20S-40S. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885504269393.
K., J., 2018. Humanity Rather than Materialism – A Short Essay About the Prison Environment. In: E. Fransson, F. Giofrè and B. Johnsen, ed., Prison architecture and Humans, 1st ed. Cappelen Damm Akademisk. Leung, J., 2014. Halden Prison (Erik Møller Architects & HLM Architects). [online] Design and Violence. Available at: <https://www.moma.org/interactives/exhibitions/2013/designandviolence/halden-prison-erikmoller-architects-hlm-architects/>
Matteucci, Kayla. 2014. “Pentonville Model Prison | The NYC Criminal”. Nyccriminal.Ace.Fordham.Edu. https:// nyccriminal.ace.fordham.edu/?p=606.
McManus, David. 2019. “Halden Prison, Norway Building - E-Architect”. E-Architect. https://www.e-architect. com/norway/halden-prison.
Molden, a., 2012. Prison Architecture Classification by objectives. In: Advanced Research in Scientific Areas 2012. Cluj-Napoca.
Moran, D., Jewkes, Y., & Turner, J. (2016). Prison design and carceral space. In Y. Jewkes, B. Crewe, & J. Bennett (Eds.), Handbook on prisons (pp. 114-130). Routledge. https://www.routledge.com/Handbook-on-Prisons2nd-Edition/Jewkes-Crewe-Bennett/p/book/9780415745666
N.P.K.M., MODISI. 1989. “Architecture,Incarceration and Penal Ideology A Model Prison -For Houston”. Master, Rice University.
Olivier Milhaud et David Scheer, « Advocacy for a Critical Analysis of Prison Architecture », Champ pénal/Penal field [En ligne], 20 | 2020, mis en ligne le 05 novembre 2020, consulté le 12 avril 2021. URL : http://journals. openedition.org/champpenal/11966 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/champpenal.11966
Puddu, Sabrina and G. Meloni. “Uncanny Beauty: Unveiling a prison interior.” (2017).
Samson, Lindsay. 2019. “Can The Architecture Of A Prison Contribute To The Rehabilitation Of Its Inmates? Design Indaba”. Design Indaba. https://www.designindaba.com/articles/creative-work/can-architectureprison-contribute-rehabilitation-its-inmates
Slade, Rachael. 2018. “Is There Such A Thing As “Good” Prison Design?”. Architectural Digest. https://www. architecturaldigest.com/story/is-there-such-a-thing-as-good-prison-design
St. John, Victor J. “Placial Justice: Restoring Rehabilitation and Correctional Legitimacy Through Architectural Design.” SAGE Open, (April Teagarden, Ernest. “A Victorian Prison Experiment.” Journal of Social History 2, no. 4 (1969): 357-65. Van Buren, Deanna. 2017. What A World Without Prison Could Look Like. Video. https://www.ted.com/talks/ deanna_van_buren_what_a_world_without_prisons_could_look_like?language=en.
Vinnitskaya, Irina. 2011. “Halden Prison / Erik Møller Arkitekter + HLM Arkitektur - The Most Humane Prison In The World”. Archdaily. https://www.archdaily.com/154665/halden-prison-erik-moller-arkitekter-the-mosthumane-prison-in-the-world
Wigglesworth, S. (2018), Unlocking Pentonville: Architectural Liberation in Self-Initiated Projects. Archit. Design, 88: 40-47. https://doi.org/10.1002/ad.2299
Wilkinson, Tom. 2021. “Typology: Prison - Architectural Review”. Architectural Review. https://www. architectural-review.com/essays/typology/typology-prison.
Woodruff, Lynne. 2021. “The Evolution Of Prison Design And The Direct Supervision Model”. Lexipol. https:// www.lexipol.com/resources/blog/the-evolution-of-prison-design-and-the-rise-of-the-direct-supervisionmodel/.
Steadman, Philip. (2007). The Contradictions of Jeremy Bentham’s Panopticon Penitentiary. Journal of Bentham Studies. 9. 10.14324/111.2045-757X.030.
(Above)Figure17: Panopticon rotunda, Isle of Pines,1932,I.P.C. edited in Evans, Robin. 1982. The Fabrication of Virtue: English Prison Architecture, 1750-1840. Cambridge [Cambridgeshire] ; New York: Cambridge University Press. (Below)Figure18: Stateville Correctional Center panopticon view from rotunda, edited in Gennaro, Giuseppe di. 1976. Prison Architecture. An International Survey Of Representative Closed Institutions And Analysis Of Current Trends In Prison Design. Prep. By Giuseppe Di Gennaro [U. A.]. London: Architectural Pr.
(Above)Figure21: The Model Prison, thermo-venlilation plant, ductwork and extract shaft, edited in Evans, Robin. 1982.
Figure23: The Model Prison, cell, tap, basin and lavatory edited in Evans, Robin. 1982. The Fabrication of Virtue: English Prison Architecture, 1750-1840. Cambridge [Cambridgeshire] ; New York: Cambridge University Press.
