Academy of Architecture for Justice

 View Only

San Diego Superior Courts

Quick Links

Who we are

The Academy of Architecture for Justice (AAJ) promotes and fosters the exchange of information and knowledge between members, professional organizations, and the public for high-quality planning, design, and delivery of justice architecture.

Speaker Interview: Towards Guidelines for Segregated Housing

By Richard C. Eimer AIA posted 10-29-2014 06:13 PM

  

Raphael Sperry, Architect and President for Architects / Designers / Planners for Social Responsibility, will be speaking at the AIA AAJ Conference this year for the topic titled Towards Guidelines for Segregated Housing.  Raphael told me emphatically to bring my pencil sharpened for this session as it will be an interactive workshop where the attendees will break into groups to brainstorm ideas about the future of solitary confinement. I had a chance to ask Raphael a few questions about the presentation and he provided me with excellent and very informative feedback.

What are some mental health issues that can arise in segregated housing? What environmental conditions can cause such issues?

People in solitary have many different kinds of mental illness – depression, rage, hallucinations, psychosis, etc. It’s probably rare for someone to experience an extended time in solitary without developing some mental illness, often severe. You can tell how problematic this is because while solitary confinement is applied to about 4% of people in prison, it accounts for almost half (50%) of prison suicides.

These mental health problems arise from the lack of social contact and environmental stimulation in solitary confinement. Humans evolved as social animals dependent on environmental cues for our well-being and survival; without anything outside of the self as a point of reference the psyche starts to lose its center and ultimately can unravel completely.


What is the current status of solitary confinement within the sphere of human rights?

Solitary confinement is regarded as an unacceptable practice by human rights monitoring groups including the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch. These groups refer specifically to common practices in the US – often called “segregation” rather than “solitary confinement” – that confine people to cells for 22-23 hours a day. The UN Special Rapporteur has said that solitary confinement should never be used on juveniles, the mentally ill, or pregnant women; and not for more than 15 days for healthy adults. In many US jurisdictions time spent in solitary is measured in years, and solitary confinement for juveniles is widespread – clear human rights violations.

One should note that Human Rights standards prohibiting “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment” are different form US Constitutional standards prohibiting “cruel and unusual punishment.” A cruel practice that is common (or “usual”) in the US may not be Unconstitutional even though it is a clear Human Rights violation. US Courts generally only enforce the US Constitution; other government and civil society entities are needed to protect Human Rights – these could include executive branch agencies; legislatures; AIA; or private architecture firms, to name just a few potential actors.


What is the current operating process of solitary confinement in most prisons today?


It’s often a regimen of 22 or 23 hours of in-cell time (sometimes with a cell-mate), one hour of out-of-cell, solo recreation (sometimes with a partner or small group), and showers limited to a couple of times per week. Many items are brought to the cell to remove out-of-cell time and reduce contact with other people: meals, books, medicine, etc. Restrictions on communication usually include a ban on contact visits and can include a virtual ban on phone calls as well.

What changes have you seen and/or do you foresee for segregated housing in future corrections facilities? What alternative solutions are being implemented or proposed to handle maximum security inmates who would otherwise be placed in segregated housing?

Progress is being made when jurisdictions greatly reduce or eliminate use of solitary confinement altogether. For example, Mississippi, Colorado, and Maine have all closed segregation units. In general, these closures have led to a reduction of violence system-wide. Unfortunately, this progress usually only happens as a result of a lawsuit; people shouldn’t have to wait for a lawsuit to end abusive practices, promote human rights, and create a safer environment for everyone inside a prison or jail.

It’s widely accepted that solitary confinement is needed to handle violent prisoners and/or interrupt gang communications, but prison systems that have closed their solitary units have seen violence decrease. California, the state with the most notorious prison gang problem, also has the most notorious system of solitary confinement; twenty years of using isolation hasn’t solved gang problems. I believe that prison behavior flows from the top down: if managers and staff demonstrate nonviolent ways to solve problems and practice real accountability for people on their side who break the rules, then you can expect better behavior from prisoners and be justified in discipline.


As architects and planners and designers, what features and innovations can be put in place to contribute to rehabilitation and reduce recidivism?

As a human rights advocate, I think that when people in prison are treated with respect for their dignity as human beings and with a goal of rehabilitation (as required by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other human rights standards) we can expect a reduction in recidivism. Of course, the communities where people are released frequently obstruct the goals of rehabilitation and reduced recidivism, and one thing architects can do is advocate for and (when the projects come around) design more and better affordable housing, schools, medical clinics, community centers, parks and public spaces, etc. in our most distressed neighborhoods. That is probably the most effective way our profession can promote public safety and reduce crime.

When designing prisons and jails, trends towards more punitive features that might hamper rehabilitation and thereby promote recidivism should be looked at and critiqued (when necessary) from a human rights perspective. Don’t forget that the AIA Code of Ethics requires us to “uphold human rights in all our professional endeavors”!


Thanks for your time Raphael! I look forward to the presentation Thursday afternoon, November 6.

0 comments
7 views