The Ethics of Prison Design

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/02/17/arts/design/prison-architecture-and-the-question-of-ethics.html?referrer=

Huntsville Prison cell
Huntsville, Texas
kbtx.com

Hello Everyone:

Over the course of writing this blog, yours truly has never been one to shy away from any subject.  Admittedly most of the topics we have talked about are pretty run of the mill for a blog dedicated to architecture, historic preservation, urban planning and design. However today's subject, prison architecture and ethics, is really different for blogger.  A recent article by New York Times architecture critic Michael Kimmelman titled, "Prison Architecture and the Question of  Ethics," really caught blogger's eye.  The article was written in response to New York State's recent ban on solitary confinement for inmates 21 years-old and younger and the rejection of a petition by American Institute of Architecture "...to censure members who design solitary-confinement cells and death chambers."  Obviously, solitary-confinement cells and death chambers are not designed and built by themselves, yet the question of whether or not it is ethical for an architect to accept a commission to design such a place is one fraught with individual beliefs.

Sing Sing Prison
Ossining, New York
nytimes.com

Former AIA president Helene Combs Dreiling told Mr. Kimmelman in reference to the petition's rejection, "It's just not something we want to determine as a collective."  Ms. Dreiling assemble a special panel to review the merits of the petition.  She added, "Members with deeply embedded beliefs will avoid designing those buildings types and leave to their colleagues...Architects self-select depending on where they feel they can contribute best."  Like medicine and law, architecture is a learned profession.  You need a license, "...giving architects a monopoly over their practices, in return for a minimal promise that buildings won't fall down."  Raphael Sperry, the architect who championed the petition drive, believes the public deserves more than a minimal promise that buildings will not fall down.

San Quentin State Prison
San Quentin, California
sanquentinnews.com

Michael Kimmelman met with Mr. Sperry to discuss the AIA's decision.  Mr. Sperry believes that "architects have a basic responsibility to act in the public interest." Citing the organization's code of ethic and professional conduct, "Members should uphold human rights in all their professional endeavors."  A toothless template.  His group, Architects/Designers/Planner for Social Responsibility would like the AIA to enact a rule similar to the American Medical Association's, which absolutely forbids doctors from participating in executions or torture.

Solitary confinement, which can take on different form, and ethically couched in enforcement, posed a quandary for both gentlemen.  Conversely, death chambers are built for one specific purpose.  The point Mr. Sperry is trying to get across is a rule prohibiting members from participating in executions, it would simply reinforce the industry's position on human rights.  Yet, blogger cannot help but wonder why such a rule would be necessary.  The AIA maintains, "it doesn't regulate buildings types.  It also said the rule would be hard to enforce."  Blogger would like to add this question, Are not architects free to turn down commissions based on principle?

J. Levy Dabadie Correctional Center (closed July 2012)
Pineville, Louisiana
doc.la.gov

Hoping to get more clarity on the subject, Mr. Kimmelman spoke with Ms. Dreiling, who offered a very general response.  "The code has to do with the way architects practice, treat each other, perform in the eyes of our clients...It isn't about what architects build." When prodded on the issue of architects designing and building death chambers, Ms. Dreiling responded, "...If we begin to stipulate the types of projects our members can and cannot do, it opens a can of worms."  Blogger can only imagine what projects would be permissible and whose standard would be used in determining what projects an architect can or cannot take on.

Draper Correctional Facility
Elmore, Alabama
doc.state.al.us

Michael Kimmelman shares blogger's curiosity over what projects would be permissible-a nuclear power plant, perhaps?  Raphael Sperry is quick to point out that there is a difference between death chambers and nuclear plants.  "International human-rights treaties don't explicitly prohibit abortion or nuclear power, as they do execution and torture.  The United Nations and other international human-rights organizations consider the death penalty a violation of human rights."  Of course, this begs the question from Mr. Sperry, "Is there there nothing so odious that the A.I.A. wouldn't step in?  What about concentration camps?"  Lovely, a Holocaust reference.  It would be interesting to read a thoughtful article on the profession's response to the Holocaust.  However, yours truly digresses.  The takeaway, architecture is not for the timid.  If you are timid, you just end up burying yourself.

Leavenworth Federal Penitentiary
Leavenworth, Kansas
cr.nps.gov

Raphael Sperry argued, "If architects want more respect,..., they need to take a stand." This can be said of any professional.  The practice of architecture is standing in a very fascinating moment, where the echoes of the past are still being heard.  Michael Kimmelman uses the example of the Bauhaus, "...looking to improve design for the masses, emerged from a culture in which the widening gulf between rich and poor was sundering civil society."  In contemporary times, prison design is a social cause for architects specializing in criminal justice and have a real concern for humane design.  There is a plethora of research suggesting that the right kinds of design can reduce violence inside prisons and recidivism. It is the task of the architect to ensure that prisons do not devolve into our nightmare visions-a dungeon built in the name of vengeance-rather, a place that promotes "rehabilitation and peace."  This may sound like some idealist's vision of prison but good, responsible design can promote rehabilitation and reduce violence within the prison walls.

However, designing a death chamber is a completely different thing.  They require a type of design that desensitizes the prisoner.  Architects can refuse to design them but that does not mean they will not get built, any more than doctors and pharmaceutical companies refusing to be accomplices in executions has prevented anymore for taking place.  According to Helene Combs Dreiling, "Many, if not most, architects enter this profession because it is a calling.  They believe they can make the world a better place, they believe they can enhance the lives of people on a daily basis, where they live, work and play."  Lovely, if somewhat idealistic, sentiment.  Thus, Michael Kimmelman asks the reader, "So is it really to much to ask that the organization representing architects take a stand against projects whose sole purpose is to the reverse?"