Journal of Criminal Law and CriminologyVolume 53Issue 3 September Article 3

Fall 1962

Correctional Philosophy and ArchitectureHoward B. Gill

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc

Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Criminology and CriminalJustice Commons

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted forinclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons.

Recommended CitationHoward B. Gill, Correctional Philosophy and Architecture, 53 J. Crim. L. Criminology & Police Sci. 312 (1962)

CORRECTIONAL PHILOSOPHY AND ARCHITECTURE*

HOWARD B. GILL

The author is Director of the Institute of Correctional Administration of American University. Hewas formerly Professorial Lecturer in Correctional Administration in the Department of Sociologyof the University of Wisconsin. In addition, he has served as General Superintendent of Prisons inthe District of Columbia, Assistant to the Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and Superintend-ent of the State Prison Colony in Noifolk, Massachusetts. Mr. Gill also has been a consultant onprisons to various administrative agencies, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the Republic ofPanama and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. He is the author of a textbook on Prisons, volume 5of the Attorney General's Survey (1940), and has written numerous monographs and articles in thefield of penology.

In the following article, Mr. Gill discusses the influence of correctional philosophy upon correctionalarchitecture, and describes the decisive influence of correctional architecture upon correctionalpolicies. What is the effect upon future correctional policies of current prison construction? And whatkinds of prison architecture will best serve future needs? Mr. Gill points out that to answer the latterquestion we must first determine what correctional philosophy should be followed. Tracing thehistory of penal philosophy in the United States, he describes the present as a transitional state inwhich several philosophies are current. He then outlines the important elements of the philosophywhich he considers will dominate future correctional theory, and discusses its architectural and otherimplcations.-EnToR.

"A philosopher is a man who would be in jail if he were a politician."Mort Sahl

"With ready-made opinions one cannot judge of crime. Its philosophy is a little more complicatedthan people think. It is acknowledged that neither convict prisons, nor the hulks, nor any system ofhard labor ever cured a criminal."

Fyodor Dostoyevsky

The Handbook of Correctional Institution Designand Construction published by the Federal Bureauof Prisons states, "No other single factor has soretarded the development and success of rehabili-tative programs as has the lag in correctionalarchitecture."' On the other hand, Austin Mac-Cormick has said, "modem penology can beconducted in a barn."2 Unfortunately practicallyno penal programs in the United States are con-ducted in barns. More often such programs arebeing undertaken in what I have called massive,medieval, monastic, monolithic, monumental,monkey-cage monstrosities. Such structures with-out doubt reflect a philosophy now 100 years outof date, but they still dominate the over-all climateof many of our prisons and hence the penal phi-

* This paper was presented at the Conference onCorrectional Architecture of the American Institute ofArchitects in Washington, D. C., in March, 1961.1 U. S. BUREAU OF PRISoNS, HANDBOOK OF CORREC-TIONAL DESIGN AND CONsTRucTIoN 2 (1949).

2 Personal comment to author.

losophy which struggles to emerge in spite of them.It is this conflict which has resulted in a schizo-phrenic type of split personality in the currentpenal philosophy of the United States. How didwe get this way? And what can we do about it?

HISTORICAL TRtENDs IN UNITED STATESPENAL PnnosoPirY

Penal Philosophy-1787

Modem penal philosophy had its beginning inthe United States when a small band of Quakersand Free-thinkers met at the home of BenjaminFranklin in 1787 and listened to a paper by Dr.Benjamin Rush, father of American psychiatry.Dr. Rush called for a new program for the treat-ment of criminals. In his paper he proposed theestablishment of a prison which would include inits program (a) classification of prisoners forhousing, (b) a rational system of prison labor, (c)indeterminate periods of punishment, and (d)individualized treatment of convicts according to

CORRECTIONAL PHILOSOPHY AND ARCHITECTURE

whether crimes arose from passion, habit, ortemptation.3

While the principal recommendation made byDr. Rush, namely the treatment of offenders notaccording to the crimes committed but ratheraccording to the problems underlying the crimes,was not put into effect until approximately 150years later, the more obvious recommendationthat "doing time" should replace capital andcorporal punishment was in 1790 written intoAmerican penal philosophy for all time. And itwas written in the remodeling of the WalnutStreet Jail in Philadelphia by architect-builderswho sought to carry out the philosophy of theseearly prison reformers. Indeed among the bestevidences we possess today of what this phi-losophy meant in practice are the plans of thisand other early American prisons as they havecome down to us. Thus did architects and archi-tecture begin to mould and fashion penal phi-losophy.

However, within 30 years the faint-hearted,beset by the problems which still plague ustoday-overcrowding, idleness, political in-fluence, poor personnel, and the unsuitability ofprison structure-, were ready to throw the wholething overboard and return to the simpler andswifter methods of dealing with criminals whichhad previously prevailed. The penitentiary pro-gram was saved in 1820 by a stalwart prisonwarden and two architects.

Penal Philosophy-Circa 1830

The warden was Elam Lynds, who establishedthe famous Auburn System of prison discipline atthe State prison in Auburn, New York, and whowas aided and abetted by his architect-builderJohn Cray. The other architect was John Haviland,who helped dream up and establish the Pennsyl-vania System at Eastern Penitentiary, Phila-delphia. The penal philosophy behind these twosystems was that offenders not only should "dotime" as penance for their misdeeds, but also thatthey should do time under a strict discipline ofnon-communication in surroundings which were"fearsome and forbidding."

Elam Lynds expressed the core of his philosophywhen he "contended that reformation of thecriminal could not possibly be effected, until the

3 GILL, PRISONS 1 (U.S. Attorney General's Survey,vol. 5, 1940).

spirit of the criminal was broken."'4 And this hissystem proceeded to do in ways which persistedlong after Lynds had passed from the scene.

In both the Auburn and the Pennsylvaniasystems, prison architecture played a leading role.In the Auburn System, prisoners were housed in"inside cells" and worked together in congregatework-shops under the silent rule. In the Pennsyl-vania System, prisoners were housed in "outsidecells" where they worked and lived in solitaryconfinement. Thus within 40 years of the inaugura-tion of a new penal philosophy in America, archi-tects and architecture began to play a lead role indetermining and in implementing that philosophy.In spite of many succeeding developments andmodifications, this penal philosophy persisted forover 100 years and still continues to play a part incurrent penal thought.

What did this "prison discipline" (or penalphilosophy) stand for? How has it been modifiedover the years? To what extent does it persist to-day? What will take its place? To answer thesequestions will be the purpose of this paper.

"Prison Discipline"--1830-1930

Modified though it was by the introduction ofreligion, education, industrial training, medicalcare, recreation, and parole, as late as 1925 thisprison discipline represented a harsh, cruel, andfutile philosophy, as Barnes and Teeters havepointed out 5 Its chief tenets were hard andpunitivelabor, deprivation of all but the bare essentials ofexistence, monotony of the most debilitating sort,uniformity, degradation, corporal punishment,non-communication with normal society, nointerpersonal relations with non-criminals, sub-servience to petty rules, no responsibility, isolationand self-absorption, mass living and movement,reform by exhortation. If this seems like a prettygrim description, one has only to recall the cich~sof these years, some of which are still current, torealize to what extent these were the bases forthe accepted penal philosophy in the UnitedStates from 1830-1930. Typical of such dich~s aresuch catch phrases as, "We treat all prisonersalike," "No fraternization," "Do your own time,""No prisoner is going to tell me how to run myprison." The very housing of offenders in cage-like

4 BARNES & TEETERS, Nxw HORIZONS IN CRIM-NOLOGY 532 (rev. ed. 1945).

6 Id., ch. 26, The Cruelty and Futility of the ModernPrison, at 582--639.

1962]

HOWARD B. GILL

structures is itself an aspect of this penal phi-losophy.

Such a penal philosophy denied every essentialneed in the human personality including love,independence and interdependence, imaginationand truth, achievement, identity, intimacy and theneed to belong, creativity and integration. Indeedthis philosophy we now know emphasized everypathology in the human personality-rejection,doubt, guilt, inferiority, diffusion, self-absorption,apathy, and despair. Not only did it avoid develop-ing normal personalities, it actually producedpathological personalities. Men came out of prisonworse than when they entered.

Such was the prison discipline of Elam Lyndsand his successors for 100 years.

The Beginnings of a Modern Penal Philosophy

In 1916 a movement started at old AuburnPrison in New York by Thomas Mott Osbornbrought the first rift in this armor. He dared toshow the world that prisoners knew more aboutwhat was going on in prisons than the guards did,and moreover that the contribution of prisonerswas essential to the effective management ofprisons. He was crucified for such heresy, but hebroke the back of the old guard. Moreover bybringing groups of prisoners into discussion withstaff members regarding prisoners' problems, heanticipated a movement which is of prime im-portance in today's penal philosophy.

Almost at the same time (1916-1918) at SingSing, New York, Dr. Bernard Glueck began theindividual study of prisoners. He was followed byDr. W. T. Root at Western Penitentiary, Pitts-burgh. Then came the organization of such studiesby W. J. Ellis and others in New Jersey under asystem which we know as "Classification." Massa-chusetts adopted the system in 1930, and theFederal Bureau of Prisons in 1934. This system ofClassification destroyed once and for all anotherbasic tenet of the old prison discipline, namely,"All prisoners should be treated alike," for oncegiven case histories of offenders, treatment mustbe individualized.

MODERN PENAL PMLOSOPHY-ATRANSITION STATE

These then were the beginnings of a new penalphilosophy-a philosophy which we are stilltrying to translate into programs, personnel, andarchitecture. Slowly these two basic concepts are

changing the character of prison discipline. I say"slowly changing" because we must recognize thepresent as a transition state which contains muchof both old and new, if we are to plan for thefuture, especially in the construction of penalinstitutions which will persist long after we aregone.

What are the characteristics of this transitionstate? And what is the penal philosophy which willemerge from it?

The outstanding characteristics of any transitionstate are anxiety and confusion. Penal philosophyis today in a state of anxiety and confusion. Thereis one thing for which we must give the Old Guardcredit-they knew what they meant by prisondiscipline. They had a penal philosophy which wasdefinite and easy to understand. I have outlined itsharsh concepts. Any prison employee who did notabide by it was guilty of a serious breach of theprison discipline, and was treated accordingly. Iam not so sure that we have as yet substituted apenal philosophy as well recognized as the oldprison discipline. We have a number of conflictingphilosophies at present.

The Custodial Prison

One penal philosophy still in vogue is foundedin the past and attempts to carry on the philosophyof Elam Lynds. It has regard for only one basicconcept, security, and beyond that only grudginglymodifies the harsh terms of penal servitude. Theseare still "Custodial Prisons." They are fighting alosing battle.

The Progressive Prison

Another group has superimposed upon the olddiscipline a philosophy of treatment which sub-stitutes programs of medical care, industrialtraining, education, religion, social work, andrecreation for the monotony of hard labor and thedeprivation and degradation of the old prison.Radios and rodeos, entertainment and collegecourses, some vocational training, bright andshining hospitals, eager social and religiousworkers, libraries7-all these abound. The demandis always for more and more such services-largerappropriations and larger staffs. The result iscalled "rehabilitation," but unfortunately therecidivism rate remains fairly constant at 60-65per cent. Some of the toughest prison wardens inAmerica are running "Sweet Jails." These are theso-called "Progressive Prisons."

[Vol. 53

CORRECTIONAL PHILOSOPHY AND ARCHITECTURE

The Progressive Prison holds the center of thestage today, and it presents a very attractive kindof humanitarianism in the treatment of offenders.It represents a natural swing of the pendulumaway from the harsh cruelty of the old penology,and it somehow fills the vacuum caused by thedecline in prison industries due to the oppositionof free labor and capital to the sale of prisonproducts on the open market. It is one of thecharacteristics of the transition state, but it isnot the ultimate answer to the problems of cor-rections and should be examined critically byboth penologists and their architects.

While the Progressive Prison presents a finefacade, it does not go to the heart of the cor-rectional problem-criminality. It is not thepurpose of the prison to become a great medicalclinic, a substitute for public education, a profit-making industrial factory, or a recreational andsocial center for convicts. The success of a prisonis not to be measured by its medical, surgical, orpsychiatric services, by the number of schoolgraduates it may produce, by the amount andvalue of its prison products, or by the number anddiversity of its recreational and social activities.Neither will the establishment of "programs" forindividual prisoners avail simply by outlining alist of activities for such prisoners which havelittle or nothing to do with their criminal problems.

The Professional Prison

A third, small but growing, group of prisonworkers are recognizing the need for a moreprecise professional approach in penal philosophy.It is to some of the intimations of this philosophythat I want to call your attention, because thismay be the penal philosophy which the institutionswe are building today will be called upon to serve.I have called this a professional penal philosophyas distinguished from the custodial or the pro-gressive penal philosophy.

A PROFESSIONAL PENAL PHILosoPHY FOR THEFutuRn

As I see it, this professional penal philosophy isbuilt around five simple concepts:

(1) That security must be assured in order thatit may be assumed-and kept in its proper place.

(2) That prisoners are classified primarily intofour groups-New, Intractable, Tractable, andDefective.

(3) That for Tractable (or treatable) prisoners

the first concern is problem-solving before programs,and the second concern is the acculturation ofsuch prisoners to the society to which they willreturn. (For the New and the Intractable and theDefective, there are other concerns, but since thisconference is devoted to the needs of the tractableor treatable prisoner, we shall not consider theseat this time.)

(4) That correctional staffs will operate in fiveareas: 1-Executive, 2-Administrative, includingfiscal and clerical, 3-Professional, 4-Security,and 5-Treatment.

(5) That prison architecture must meet all fourof these concepts.

The Philosophy of Security

I shall mention only seven basic points relatingto the philosophy of security. There are more, butthese will illustrate the trend.

(1) Security is the primary business of theprison; but not its ultimate goal. Having assuredsecurity, it may then be assumed and the mainbusiness of the prison-reform-got on with.

(2) Security deals with three basic elements-escape, contraband, and disorder. Hence max-imum, medium, and minimum risks deal notonly with escape, but also with contraband anddisorder. Equal in importance to the escape riskare the dope pedlar, the addict, the "alkie," the"kite" artist, the disturber, the agitator, theconniver, the politician, the stool pigeon, thewolf, and the punk. Hence open-mesh fences,while sometimes sufficient to prevent escape, arenot adequate protection against the introductionof contraband or adequate for control of dis-turbances. The so-called bad psychological effectof walls on prisoners is a myth of ProgressivePenology. Wire fences are characteristic of concen-tration camps; walls are characteristic of gardensand privacy. It is not necessary that walls beobnoxious; it is essential that they be adequate.

(3) Maximum, medium, and minimum referexclusively to security and should not be confusedwith treatment classifications. The acting-outprisoner or the escape artist may be the mosthopeful prospect for reform because he has char-acter-bad character maybe, but characternevertheless. The moron who does not have brainsenough to escape has the least potential for reform.He may be rated minimum in security but certainlyneither best nor better for treatment. Hence thecorrelation of maximum, medium, and minimum

1962]

HOWARD B. GILL

with bad, better, best is a myth-but unfortunatelya very popular one in many texts and with somearchitects. 6 The hopeful, treatable prisoner maybe a maximum, a medium, or a minimum securityrisk, similarly with the intractable or defectiveprisoner. The new prisoner is automatically amaximum security risk.

(4) Security is a speciality just as case-work fortreatment is a specialty and should be so regardedin the administration of prison guards, methods,equipment, and architecture. It should not beconfused with or combined with treatment.Security is best served when a special corps ofprison guards is trained in security policies andpractice as the police of the prison community.They will man the gates, the walls, and the towers,patrol and search the grounds and buildings, andbe responsible for the initial reception, the finaldischarge, and the transportation of prisoners.They will not fraternize with prisoners, but at alltimes be firm, stern, and authoritarian. They willbe interested in treatment only as a general policyof the institution.

(5) The place of the security force should berecognized as primary, and neither incidental tonor dominating the operation of the prison. Itshould be a division co-ordinate with the adminis-trative, the professional, and the treatmentdivisions of the organization.

(6) The security force can operate mosteffectively from a control center outside theprison enclosure, with auxiliary stations at stra-tegic points within the prison proper. Such controlcenter will house the arsenal, the central telephoneswitchboard, the central key board, all emergencyutilities, inspection of all mail and all persons orpackages entering or leaving the prison, offices andtraining facilities for the guard force, all plansaffecting escapes, contraband, or disorder, andquarters for the stand-by guard force.

(7) "Divide and rule" is a sound securityprinciple and supplements the small group prin-ciple of treatment. It is applicable in securityplanning, especially to housing prisoners in asmany and as small groups as possible and toproviding recreation for prisoners in as manydifferent and separate areas as possible.

Specifically how these seven principles may beapplied to- prison architecture is subject-matterfor a whole text in itself and cannot be included inthis paper.

6 CONTEMPORARY CORRECTION 277-96 (Tappan ed.1951).

The Philosophy of Prisoner Types

With regard to prisoner personnel, once havingdetermined security, it is good philosophy not todeal with prisoners according to the crimes whichthey have committed or the activities which theinstitution offers, however various these may be.If it may be assumed that all new prisoners willbe put in a class by themselves for observation,our first concern then will be whether a prisoneris amenable to treatment or not, that is whetherhe is tractable (wanting and capable of treatment),intractable (not wanting treatment), or defective(limited or incapable of treatment).

Obviously a prisoner who wants treatment andis capable of responding to it will require a differentsort of staff, program, and architecture than thosewho do not want or are extremely limited orincapable of treatment. The tractable prisonermay be 17 or 70, but he will ordinarily cooperatewith the staff, respond to mutual trust, and becapable of living under fairly normal conditionsin his daily activities. Such prisoners representperhaps half of the offenders in our state andfederal prisons today.

In contrast, those prisoners who want to "dotheir own time," who either do not desire tochange or are not capable of change, requireanother type of handling. Some are hostile,hardened, professional thugs, hoodlums, racketeers,swindlers, sex deviates, who will not cooperatewith the prison staffs, who cannot be trusted, andwho cannot be kept confined except under ab-normal measures of restraint. These are the intract-ables or the untreatable. They may not be dis-turbers or escape risks. They may just want tobe left alone. They are sometimes described as"good prisoners."

However, the philosophy governing the livesof such prisoners is rule by fear, force, and depriva-tion. Therefore, within the bounds of decency,this is the philosophy which must be met withfear, force, and deprivation. One fights fire withfire. Perhaps this is what Elam Lynds had inmind when in accord with the light of his day hecalled for "breaking the spirit of the criminal."Today we call it shock therapy.

Other prisoners are mentally ill or so low-gradeas to be defective. To mix either intractables ordefectives with tractable prisoners is obviouslypoor penal philosophy. Yet most of our stateprisons have been built on this kind of hodge-podge intermingling.

It seems only sound philosophy to suppose then

[Vol. 53

CORRECTIONAL PHILOSOPHY AND ARCHITECTURE

at least four types of prisons for these four typesof prisoners: the new, the intractable, the trac-table, and the defective offender. In other words,a professional penal philosophy proposes to beselective in its treatment. It frankly proposes to"take the best apples out of the barrel first"-andif some rotten ones get left on the scrap heap, thatis just too bad.

Architectural Considerations re Prisoner Types.If we accept as basic these four types of prisoners,we shall postulate four distinct types of penalinstitutions. A reception center or section for newprisoners, very simple custodial type of institutionfor the intractables, a normal type of institutionwith treatment facilities for the tractables, and aspecialized partly custodial, partly hospital, andpartly educational type of institution for thedefectives.

Since each of these four types will contain amongthem maximum, medium, and minimum risks,provisions for all three types of risk must be madein each institution.

The reception center will contain facilities fororientation, diagnosis, classification, and planning.It may be expedient in the average state to planthe reception center in conjunction with theinstitution for the intractables. Since all newprisoners should be kept under maximum securityand since a large percentage of the intractableswill also require maximum security, the two groupsmay be housed in the different sections of the sameinstitution. This will also make available to theintractables the advantages of the professionalstaff assigned to new prisoners if and when theydesire. The door should always be left open.

Since "treatment" is not yet possible with theintractables, the barest minimum of facilities fordecent confinement is sufficient-both archi-tecturally and otherwise. This does not imply theuse of monkey-cages or mass living. On the con-trary it calls for simple, secure living quarters,including dining facilities in small groups for easeof control, and sufficient work and recreationalfacilities for diverse small groups to keep prisonershealthy.

However, since most states have inherited anumber of penal institutions which may be classedas custodial and will probably not abandon them,the problem here involves chiefly how such insti-

tutions may be remodelled to serve as receptioncenters and as places for confinement of the intrac-

table according to professional penal philosophy.

This is beyond the scope of the present inquiryand will not be pursued further.

The type of institution for tractable prisonersrepresented by a professional penal philosophy iscalled the community prison-sometimes thetherapeutic community. It may be noted in manyof the newer state correctional institutions suchas in California, Connecticut, District of Columbia,Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, and Wisconsinand in some countries in Europe. This type ofinstitution will be considered further underTreatment of Prisoners.

The Philosophy of Treatment

As a result of the establishment of the Classifica-tion System and its Classification Board, theProgressive Prison has developed treatment forall prisoners-intractable, tractable, and de-fective-around a single concept, namely "pro-grams." Such programs are usually only a re-flection of the facilities for medical care, industries,education, recreation, religion, and social workavailable in each particular institution. As hasbeen forcefully pointed out by such authorities asDr. Ralph Brancale of New Jersey, such "pro-grams" have frequently little or no relationship toprisoners' problems.7

It is the philosophy of the Professional Prison,first, that problem-solzing must precede programs,and in fact problem-solving must determine theprogram for the most part; and, second, that onlythose programs are justified which help solveproblems and/or which will acculturate prisonersto the society to which they will return. Now thisis revolutionary philosophy for it will change theentire nature of correctional institutions fortractable prisoners.

Programs are institution-oriented. Problem-solving is client-oriented, to borrow a phrase fromour friends in social psychology; in psychiatry, itis sometimes called sector-therapy. At once wesense a complete shift in emphasis. Under "pro-grams," all prisoners receive the "full treatment,"i.e., they go through a system which is ideally socomplex that it has fallen of its own weight. Thezeal of our system has eaten us up. Under "prob-lem-solving" the prisoner with a $50 problemgets $50 worth of treatment. Most prisoners arenot $50,000 cases, yet the Classification Systemproposes to give every prisoner the time andattention of at least that amount of professionalservice. It has proved tremendously expensive in

7 Id. at 193.

1962]

HOWARD B. GILL

personnel and facilities, so much so as to becomeutterly unrealistic.

On the face of it, the philosophy of problem-solving looks equally elaborate, for it will requireall the professional skills now employed in theClassification System. But it will have thesedifferences: (1) it will enable the same professionalstaff to cover a much larger clientele, and (2) itwill go to the heart of each problem instead ofskirting all around it in a vague, indefinite manner.One is "bird-shot penology"; the other is "bull'seye penology."

Architectural Considerations re Treatment. Archi-tecturally, the effect should be to reduce thedemand for elaborate medical, industrial, educa-tional, recreational, and other facilities whichhave become so popular under program philosophy.While problem-solving has many facets, the goalof this penal philosophy is to reach and solve asquickly as possible the significant problems relatedto criminality, leaving other areas of activity tothose best suited to deal with them. This penalphilosophy assumes the position that crimeis a symptom of a maladjustment-situational,medical, psychological, anti-social, or custodial-and that the job of the prison is to resolve thespecific maladjustment as far as possible, andonly that. This philosophy applies the scientificprinciple of parsimony; it does as little as isnecessary to achieve its goal-the reduction ofcriminality. The effect on prison planning shouldbe obvious.

Yet this professional philosophy will not neglectmedical care, industry, education, recreation, orreligion. It proposes that prisons should seek toacculturate prisoners to the society to which theywill return, and in so doing it will take the bombastout of progressive penology by trimming theseactivities down to normal. Except for problem-solving related to criminality, there is no reasonwhy prisoners should be given more elaboratehospital care, or greater vocational, and educa-tional, and recreational advantages than theaverage citizen. However, the most startlingresult of the philosophy of acculturation will beseen in its effect on the daily living conditions andthe participation in them by tractable prisoners.

To return tractable prisoners to a society inwhich men live in small family groups, in ordinarydwellings, under normal conditions affecting theirbasic needs of nourishment, work, play, and otherhuman relationships, we need to accustom themto the advantages of such living by confining themunder similar conditions. This is the concept of the

community prison-sometimes called the thera-peutic community. It is as far removed frommonkey-cage cells or mass living as black is fromwhite. It calls for a complete reorientation of ourthinking about prison architecture. Imagine whatthis would do to a 500-man cell block, or a dining-room seating 1000 inmates, or a single recreationyard where the same 1000 prisoners mill aroundin aimless confusion or stupidly watch a fewperformers, or to the prison rule that deniesprisoners the opportunity to participate in anyresponsibility for the activities which make uptheir daily life. But before tackling prison archi-tecture, we shall need to examine the effect of thisnew philosophy on staff personnel.

The Philosophy of Staff Personnel

The philosophy I am proposing for staff person-nel is based on a five-fold classification: Executive,administrative, professional, security, and treat-ment. (See Chart 1. The executive group willinclude the warden and his immediate associates,or deputy wardens, and the heads of departments.The warden runs the front office and with hisstaff sets the policies; the associate warden runsthe office "inside" and directs the operation of theprison routine carrying out the policies adopted.The administrative group will comprise the fiscal,clerical, personnel administration, purchasing,store-keeping, and routine maintenance functionsof the institution. The professional group wilUinclude the physician, psychiatrist, psychologists,dentist, nurses, teachers, vocational, avocationaland recreational instructors, librarian, industriesmanager and all his technical personnel, chaplains,social workers, and other specialists. The securityforce will include those primarily responsible forthe prevention of escape, the introduction ofcontraband, and the control of disturbances-i.e.,the police force of the prison community. Thetreatment staff will include all those guards whoare in personal contact with the prisoners eitherin the living quarters or at work or play, and theirsupervisors.

These are not startlingly new concepts of stafforganization, but may I point out certain principlesof organization which differ from current custodialor progressive philosophy.

It is now the general practice in progressiveprisons to have two deputies; one in charge ofsecurity and one in charge of treatment. Thedeputy in charge of security controls the entireguard force, handles the general operationalroutine of the prison, and is in authority over

[Vol. 53

CORRECTIONAL PHILOSOPHY AND ARCHITECTURE

CHART I

IN A CORRECTIONAL AGENCY*

TOWERS PATROLS BARRACKS SHOPSGATES TRANSPORTATION999999 jAT~999

prisoners. The deputy in charge of treatment hascharge of certain professional activities includingclassification, education and training, religiousservices, and recreation, but usually medical careand industries are left under the direct control ofthe warden. The deputy for treatment and hisstaff have advisory powers only. Hence we seethe unfortunate situation where the deputy fortreatment has responsibility for treatment but nopower to make it effective. This has been thecause of one of the most serious conflicts in pro-gressive prisons-the conflict between custodyand treatment. It is my philosophy that thisconflict can be resolved and security and treatmentgiven their proper setting by observing threechanges in current practice:

(1) The Deputy in Charge of Security will beresponsible only for the three basic problems of

* Reprinted by permission. @ Howard B. Gill, 1960.Reproduction permitted on application to Institute ofCorrectional Administration, Washington, D. C.

escape, contraband, and disorder and will limitthe contact with prisoners of his guard force tothese functions. He is no longer in charge of thegeneral operation of the prison or its over-allroutine.

(2) The Deputy in Charge of Treatment will beresponsible for the daily operation of the prisonand for carrying out the recommendations of theprofessional staff in the contact with prisoners ofhis guard force.

(3) The entire professional staff will derive itsauthority directly from the warden and haveadvisory powers only. Similarly with the adminis-trative staff.

The Philosophy of Prison Architecture

Finally we come to prison architecture. (SeeChart II.) What effect will this professional penalphilosophy in security, prisoner personnel, treat-ment, and staff personnel have on prison archi-tecture?

rk ESETILS1962]

HOWARD B. GILL

CHART I

TYPES OF PRISON STRUCTURE*

Originel Agbeor 1816-1826 Easlara P alleAtiary 1819-189a

4

Taoloplica (Fleam) 1898

7 M

W irl*Le$1 WacC

l(Terra Hacla)

Dormitory (Lartal)

Maximum Security Prisons for Int,regards prisons for the intractable, texistence in federal and state pris,enough maximum security facilities rfor all intractable prisoners for some tiThe Federal Bureau of Prisons alone hmately 5000 such cells, which is 20their total population, a figure set bthorities as sufficient for intractabsystem.9 Even in states where some reexisting prisons may be necessary,suffice to care for the intractables wit]construction.

Let me illustrate. Under the directioCommissioners of Correction who kn

* Reprinted by permission. @ HowardReproduction permitted on application toCorrectional Administration, Washington

8BARN s & TEETERS, NEW HORIZONNOLOGY 498 (2d ed. 1952).

Sladord Wabern 1335-1935

5Q6*"allow Sqvere - (704-1940 PaopicaomaStrvll) 191? -1918

1940 'Sky"lijM" 'Sapa-Serily Ftd.Sar.1P (949

1916 -1926 Conmsaaily (Norfolk) 1227-34

racables. As nothing about corrections, the Commonwealth ofhere are in Massachusetts within the past ten years replacedn systems the old Charlestown prison with a new "Super-

now to care security Prison" of the sky-light type9 at Southme to come. Walpole, Massachusetts. It is known as thehas approxi- "concrete horror" and is condemned most roundlyper cent of by the officers employed to run it, for reasons whichy some au- we need not detail here. In 1878 a new stateles in any prison was opened in Massachusetts at Concord,modeling of but was taken over for a reformatory. It hasthis should always been a state prison and still is. In facthout further when riots recently occurred at Walpole, the worst

prisoners were transferred to Concord for safe-keep-

n of political ing. Had Massachusetts remodelled the Concordew little or institution for its intractable prisoners and used the

$10,000,000 spent on the Walpole prison to con-B. Gill, 1960. struct additional facilities for tractable prisoners,o Institute of professional penology would have been advanced

9 U. S. BUREAU OF PRISONS, op. cit. supra note 1, at44-59.

Is .r C.a-s IN Cz -

[VCol. 53

CORRECTIONAL PHILOSOPHY AND ARCHITECTURE

and the future served. As it is, $10,000,000 hasbeen spent extravagantly on an institution whichis almost as out-of-date as the disgrace at Charles-town which it replaced.

In addition to the anachronism at Walpole, onehas only to mention the state prisons at Green-haven, New York, Graterford, Pennsylvania,Jackson, Michigan, or Stateville, Illinois' 0 tounderstand why a re-examination of prison archi-tecture is needed. Other examples of more recentconstruction of this unfortunate type of prisonmay be found in a pamphlet entitled RecentPrison Construction 1950-1960 just issued by theFederal Bureau of Prisons1

Prison administrators, federal or state, and theirarchitects who propose to add more cellularfacilities of the maximum security type may beliable to the charge of extravagant and unnecessaryexpenditure of public funds, and may find oncompletion of such facilities that they are alreadyfrom 60 to 100 years out of date. Moreover theywill enjoy the dubious distinction of having wishedon posterity for many years to come additionalmonolithic monstrosities in penal architecture.This is worse than the "lag" referred to bythe federal handbook on construction alreadyquoted since it will be positive action of a sortwhich will perpetuate a past no one wishes toimpose on future generations. The time has cometo call a halt to this type of prison construction.

Institutions for the Defective Delinquent. Institu-tions for the defective fall into a class whichcombines many aspects of the prison, the hospital,and the training school following the best practicesin all three. The Medical Center of the FederalBureau of Prisons at Springfield, Missouri,12 theMedical Facility at Vacaville, California, theInstitution for Defective Delinquents, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania,3 and the John HowardPavillion of St. Elizabeths Hospital, Washington,D. C., are notable examples. We shall not discussthese here.

Correctional Institutions for Tractable Prisoners.When we consider the type of correctional institu-tion which will fit the needs of tractable offendersand which will be in line with the professionalpenal philosophy outlined herewith, we are con-

10 Id. at 32, 64, 65, 67, 69.tU. S. BUREAU OF PRISONS, REcENT PRISON

CoNsTRucnoN 1950-1960 (1961).1 U. S. BUREAU OF PRISONS, op. cit. supra note 1, at

14.13 U. S. BUREAU or PRISONS, op. cit. supra note 11, at

48.

fronted with a variety of excellent examples in theUnited States. Several institutions for women maybe mentioned including State Industrial Home forWomen, Muncy, Pennsylvania (1913), the FederalInstitution for Women at Alderson, West Virginia(1927), and a somewhat similar federal institutionoriginally built for women at Seagoville, Texas(1940). (Once a "give-a-way" institution as faras the men were concerned, the Seagoville insti-tution for a time became synonymous with thelatest philosophy of prison building for tractablemale prisoners.) Massachusetts built such aninstitution for men at Norfolk (1927-1934). NewJersey opened one at Annandale in 1929; Missouriat Algoa Farms (1932), and California at Chino(1941)."1

More recently (1950-1960) institutions for themore hopeful type of prisoner (tractable) havebeen opened or are under construction at Corona,California, Enfield, Connecticut, Lorton, D.C.,Ionia, Michigan, Moberley, Missouri, and FoxLake, Wisconsin. These institutions have promiseof providing the facilities for a penal philosophywhich fits the second half of the 20th Century.

There are too many details involved in suchinstitution plans and programs to present here.However, some outstanding characteristics maybe found in common in all of them.

(1) The over-all atmosphere which is conveyedby personnel, program, and architecture is one ofnormal living under normal conditions wheremutual trust and respect, cooperation and willing-ness have replaced the old prison discipline.However, the new prison discipline as a way oflife distinguished from mere obedience to rules andregulations has still to be defined and made dear.This will come in due time.

(2) The small group principle is reflected inhousing, dining, recreation, and all importantactivities. The "institution family" attempts toapproximate the family unit in outside societywhich is the norm.

(3) Prisoners are expected to participate withthe staff in the duties and responsibilities ofrunning the institution, with the staff always incontrol. This joint undertaking provides theeveryday atmosphere of a society built on sounddemocratic principles. Advisory committees andcouncils made up of prisoners who work with staff

14 U. S. BUREAU OF PaRSONS, op. cit. supra note 1, at97, 99, 103, 118, 119, 130, 133.

15 U. S. BUREAU OF PRISONS, op. cit. supra note 11, at18, 21, 22, 35, 38, 53.

1962]

HOWARD B. GILL

members do much to develop and enrich prisonlife, and build social responsibility.

(4) Security, while primary, is not the dominantor the ultimate goal.

(5) There still exists some confusion as to therelationship of security and treatment, as to theauthority and obligations of the professionalstaff, and as to whether "programs" or problem-solving is paramount. One thing is outstanding,acculturation to normal, responsible living hastaken over.

(6) Evidence of the emphasis on both accultura-tion and problem-solving is shown in the archi-tecture. Housing units contain individual roomsin simple one or two story buildings with seldommore than 50 prisoners to a unit. Group recreationis provided for each unit. Multiple dining-roomsfollow out the small group principle. Groupmeetings and discussions are provided for. Alarge variety of contacts with the normal worldoutside brings the "good life" into the institution.Facilities for individual counseling on the part ofboth guards-in-contact and front-office profes-

sionals are included in the over-all plan. Super-vising each group are "guards-in-contact" whowork closely with the professional staff to carryout their recommendations for treatment.

(7) From Europe, word comes that the phi-losophy of normalcy has been extended to establishsome institutions where the prisoners "live in"but "work out" in the community."8 Others permitconjugal visits both in the institution and outside.' 7

Such correctional institutions for tractableprisoners are called therapeutic communities orcommunity prisons. These experiments today aresignificant; they will form the penal philosophy oftomorrow. For to paraphrase Truman Kelley:

"Philosophers are never dismayed; for inmarkings near about, they discern the contoursof the land and glimpse the portals of thefuture."

1 Prisoners in German Institution Employed byPrivate Employers, 24 Fed. Prob. 80 (Dec. 1960). Seealso U. N. DFP'T or EcoNoMIc AND SOcIAL AYrAIRs,PRISON LABOUR (ST/SO'A/SD/5) (1955).

17 Morris, Worldwide Concern With Crime, 24 Fed.Prob. 21, 27 (Dec. 1960).

(Vol. 53