Summary: How Prison Architecture Affects Inmates
Matthew Ross
Professor Fader
Incarceration 412Z
Final Scholarly Paper
12/16/2013
Prisoners By Design How Prison Architecture Affects Inmates Every prisoner incarcerated shares one characteristic: they know they are being watched. Most prisons, to some extent or another, are deliberately blueprinted to function as a surveillance tool in order to keep an eye on prisoners. However, what impact does a prisons planned architectural attributes have on the prisoners themselves? Moreover, how do these purposeful schemes affect the prison as a whole? Particularly, what are its relationship to secure and safe prison environments? There are many goals of prison architecture, ranging from rehabilitation, deterrence, or …show more content…
One in particular is Ramos v. Lamm. During, this case the judge ruled that the building design of a Colorado state prison was unconstitutional under the eighth amendment (Ramos v Lamm, 1980). During this ruling, the court referred to the case of Battle v. Anderson for precedent. The appellate court ruled that prisoners are entitled to be confined to an environment that does not result in their degeneration or threaten their mental or physical being (Ramos v Lamm, 1980). Therefore, the cell houses within the prison at issue, were unconstitutional because it contributed to prison violence (Ramos v Lamm, 1980).. The layout of the prison contributed to violence because it created “blind areas” where violence, threats, and other illegal activities were occurring due to lack of supervision and detection by prison guards (Ramos v Lamm, 1980). So, the architectural design of the prison was not allowing for a secure and safe environment and was ruled unconstitutional. Another case that also brought into question the eighth amendment of cruel and unusual punishment was Rhodes v Chapman. In this case, the court ruled that the architectural design of a maximum security sate prison in Ohio, was unconstitutional. They ruled that “double celling” or housing two people together in a one room cell (Typically 32 sq ft.) violated the constitution because it didn’t allow for the proper amount of personal space (Rhodes v Chapman, 1981). Moreover, the lack of personal space provided by the “double celling” in truly single celled rooms, increases the opportunity for violence resulting in unsafe and unsecured prison environments (Rhodes v Chapman, 1981). Lastly, the supreme court decision in Wilkinson v Austin, relates to prison architecture and safety. The case calls into question the architectural design of “Supermax” facilities within high security prisons, which leads to highly restrictive conditions
Professor Fader
Incarceration 412Z
Final Scholarly Paper
12/16/2013
Prisoners By Design How Prison Architecture Affects Inmates Every prisoner incarcerated shares one characteristic: they know they are being watched. Most prisons, to some extent or another, are deliberately blueprinted to function as a surveillance tool in order to keep an eye on prisoners. However, what impact does a prisons planned architectural attributes have on the prisoners themselves? Moreover, how do these purposeful schemes affect the prison as a whole? Particularly, what are its relationship to secure and safe prison environments? There are many goals of prison architecture, ranging from rehabilitation, deterrence, or …show more content…
One in particular is Ramos v. Lamm. During, this case the judge ruled that the building design of a Colorado state prison was unconstitutional under the eighth amendment (Ramos v Lamm, 1980). During this ruling, the court referred to the case of Battle v. Anderson for precedent. The appellate court ruled that prisoners are entitled to be confined to an environment that does not result in their degeneration or threaten their mental or physical being (Ramos v Lamm, 1980). Therefore, the cell houses within the prison at issue, were unconstitutional because it contributed to prison violence (Ramos v Lamm, 1980).. The layout of the prison contributed to violence because it created “blind areas” where violence, threats, and other illegal activities were occurring due to lack of supervision and detection by prison guards (Ramos v Lamm, 1980). So, the architectural design of the prison was not allowing for a secure and safe environment and was ruled unconstitutional. Another case that also brought into question the eighth amendment of cruel and unusual punishment was Rhodes v Chapman. In this case, the court ruled that the architectural design of a maximum security sate prison in Ohio, was unconstitutional. They ruled that “double celling” or housing two people together in a one room cell (Typically 32 sq ft.) violated the constitution because it didn’t allow for the proper amount of personal space (Rhodes v Chapman, 1981). Moreover, the lack of personal space provided by the “double celling” in truly single celled rooms, increases the opportunity for violence resulting in unsafe and unsecured prison environments (Rhodes v Chapman, 1981). Lastly, the supreme court decision in Wilkinson v Austin, relates to prison architecture and safety. The case calls into question the architectural design of “Supermax” facilities within high security prisons, which leads to highly restrictive conditions