Just design: Healthy prisons and the architecture of hope
| Author | Yvonne Jewkes |
| DOI | 10.1177/0004865818766768 |
| Published date | 01 September 2018 |
| Date | 01 September 2018 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
Just design: Healthy prisons
and the architecture of hope
Yvonne Jewkes
School of Social Policy, Sociology and Social Research, University
of Kent, Canterbury, UK; Social and Political Sciences, University
of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
Abstract
This article develops the notion that institutional places and spaces are layered with mean-
ing and that their architecture and design have a profound psychological and physiological
influence on those who live and work within them. Mindful of the intrinsic link between
‘beauty’ and ‘being just’, the article explores the potential ‘healing’ or rehabilitative role of
penal aesthetics. As many countries modernise their prison estates, replacing older facilities
that are no longer fit-for-purpose with new, more ‘efficient’ establishments, this article
discusses examples of international best (and less good) practice in penal and hospital
settings. It reflects on what those who commission and design new prisons might learn
from pioneering design initiatives in healthcare environments and asks whether the philos-
ophies underpinning the ‘architecture of hope’ that Maggie’s Cancer Care Centres exem-
plify could be incorporated into prisons of the future. The article was originally presented
as a public lecture in the annual John V Barry memorial lecture series at the University of
Melbourne on 24 November 2016.
Keywords
Prisons, architecture, design, political, economy, Maggie’s Centres
Introduction: Behavioural atrophy in traditional hospitals
and prisons
Prison buildings share many similarities with hospitals. Both tend to be large in scale,
densely occupied and are accessible every day, though with tempora l and spatial
restrictions imposed, to numerous visitors, both professional and ordinary members
Corresponding author:
Yvonne Jewkes, School of Social Policy, Sociology and Social Research, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK.
Email: y.jewkes@kent.ac.uk
Australian & New Zealand
Journal of Criminology
2018, Vol. 51(3) 319–338
!The Author(s) 2018
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0004865818766768
journals.sagepub.com/home/anj
of the public. Both operate around the clock, need to be lit constantly and must
ensure that electrical devices, including security alarms and cameras, are active at
all times, making them environmental ‘toxic hogs’ (Jewkes & Moran, 2015; Stohr &
Wozniak, 2014, p. 198). But aside from the practicalities of the building types, pris-
ons and hospitals both convey clear messages about the individuals within and how
they are expected to behave. In neither setting do most occupants usually have con-
trol over egress, and in both, they are infantilised by the fact that th ey must depend
on staff for almost everything that is vital to their existence, which frequently results
in ‘behavioural atrophy’ (cf. Goffman, 1961; Spivack, 1984, p. 31). Being in either
hospital or prison can involve physical and psychological crowding and isolat ion
(sometimes simultaneously) and sensory deprivation and overload (also simulta-
neously). So severe can be the effects of these stressors that serving a long-term
custodial sentence has not only been shown to accelerate the ageing process but
has been analogously compared to being diagnosed with a chronic or terminal illness
(Jewkes, 2005).
But although prisons and hospitals traditionally have shared an ethos of disci-
pline and surveillance that dehumanises their occupants and instils feelings of fear
and vulnerability, there has in very recent times evolved a different approach to
designing and building healthcare institutions – described by the architectural the-
orist behind ‘Maggie’s’, a growing non-clinical, cancer care centre network, as an
‘architecture of hope’ (Jencks, 2015). As the UK and Australia expand and ‘mod-
ernise’ their custodial estates, this article discusses some of the philosophies behind
Maggie’s Centres to consider the extent to which those who commission, plan and
design new prisons could learn from architectural innovation in health settings.
Drawing on ongoing international research into the role of prison architects and
the effects of custodial design, the article also reflects on the role played by
prison architects in the production and reproduction of punitive philosophies
and practices.
In what follows, I will draw both on my observations and extended interactions with
architects I have worked with, while advising bodies including the UK Ministry of
Justice, the New Zealand Department of Corrections, Victoria Corrections in
Australia and the Irish Prison Service (IPS), and on an analysis of architect practices’
websites. I also draw on extended interviews with 14 architectural professionals who
have designed prisons in England and Wales, Scotland, Ireland, Norway, Denmark,
Australia and New Zealand. Of these 14 participants, 7 were interviewed statically
(usually at their offices) in a semi-structured format, and the other 7 were each inter-
viewed on two occasions –once static and semi-structured – and then again in a more
unstructured way in walked interviews around one of the prisons they had designed.
These interviews took place between 2014 and 2016. Six of the 14 have followed up with
further communications either in person or by telephone and email. Given the commer-
cial sensitivity of their work, I have anonymised participants. Of the 14 prison architects
interviewed, 13 were male and one female. It is beyond the scope of this article to
comment on this gender imbalance, but it may be worthy of further investigation. By
contrast, the majority of prison landscape gardeners I have met, who are not included in
this sample, have been women.
320 Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology 51(3)
To continue reading
Request your trial