Academy of Architecture for Justice

  • 1.  "Moral Responsibility" of Justice Architects

    Posted 10-11-2012 11:54 PM

    In the opening plenary session on Wednesday, Professor George Baird challenged Justice Architects to take "moral responsibility" for their projects. This raised the question during the Q & A session about what it means, as an Architect, to take moral responsibility for one's designs. In Thursday morning's Corrections session, "Long Term Solitary Confinement in the U.S.: Design and Implications," this topic was introduced once again in the context of a proposal being made to amend the AIA code of ethics to ban the inclusion of specific program features in correctional facilities that may cause inmate psychological distress, such as spaces intended for long-term solitary confinement.
    What does it mean for Justice Architects to "take moral responsibility" for the projects they design? Is the previous question a proper question for Justice Architects to consider? If not, what is? Does taking responsibility require that Justice Architects become active participants in policy discussions?



    -------------------------------------------
    Erin Costino
    Student
    NewSchool of Architecture and Design
    San Diego CA
    -------------------------------------------


  • 2.  RE:"Moral Responsibility" of Justice Architects

    Posted 10-15-2012 02:06 PM

    This is such a complex issue, not one that can be addressed with absolutes.  Certainly, as architects, our goal is always to improve the human condition as it relates to our designs.  Prisons are a necessary building type, although one that is often misunderstood by many. 

    As far as I know, our government does not design for solitary confinement any longer- a practice that went out with the old penitentiary designs when psychologists thought self reflection would lead to rehabilitation.  Prisons and jails typically provide safety cells for temporary housing of distressed inmates who are in imminent danger to themselves.  Typical maximum-security housing consists of single or double cells for inmates who are a danger to others or are in danger from others.  However, a dayroom is required in new designs to allow inmates to get out of their cells for at least an hour per day- and often for much longer.

    It is also important to understand that prisons and jails create unique challenges that are influenced by so many external factors outside the control of the designer, and will require fundamental changes in society before any real evolution can occur. 

    First, there are the building codes.  Without getting into too much detail, fire and life safety requirements force architects to design with concrete, masonry, and fireproofed steel.  Interior environments have very specific requirements which define the type of glazing and limit window dimensions.  These codes really define what is possible right from the start.

    Second, there is human error.  The custody officers are not perfect, and designs have to account for mistakes by staff.  Unions also influence how much officers and inmates are allowed to interact.  Want to force changes, you'll have to battle some of the most powerful unions in the county- something that is outside the architect's control.

    Third is the litigious nature of our society.  This is the big one.  Inmates sometimes commit suicide while in the care of the state.  These lawsuits cost taxpayers millions of dollars, and result in the removal of any amenities which could aide in suicide.  Also, if one inmate kills another inmate, or an officer, this will result in a lawsuit.  Often, inmates are placed in isolation for their own protection.  Again, this is all outside of the architect's control.  The system is broken, and until there are fundamental changes, all we can do is warehouse inmates.

    Open the doors and let the prisoners go?  No way!  There are some really bad people in prison that were already horrific souls before they got to prison, and I don't want them out on the street with my children.  For example, I happened to brush shoulders with Ed Kemper (the "Co-ed killer"-a mass murderer) on a visit to a local prison recently.  I was surprised he was in general population, but one of the guards assured me that he was one of the better-behaved prisoners there.  The men in the Administrative Segregation unit were real monsters by comparison.

    Do we need change?  Absolutely!  The evolution of the justice system is a pet project of mine, and I believe the real changes starts with better funding for law enforcement.  We also need more alternatives to incarceration so that only violent offenders are imprisoned.  However, many prisons are out-of-date, unsafe, and dangerous.  They need to be replaced.  The idea that we need to stop building prisons is a bit naïve.  If we don't build newer institutions that we continue subject inmates to poor environments which don't meet requirements of recent litigation and ultimately will cost taxpayers more money.  So, let's start to work on those external factors.  It will take time.  And while we wait for change, you should not blame architects who design prisons.  We should not question their "moral responsibility" when they are only improving conditions.  



    -------------------------------------------
    Lorenzo Lopez AIA
    Vice President, Senior Planner
    Nacht & Lewis Architects
    Sacramento CA
    -------------------------------------------






    Original Message


  • 3.  RE:"Moral Responsibility" of Justice Architects

    Posted 10-17-2012 02:31 PM

    I'm glad that Prof. Baird and our research scholar Erin Costino have raised such an important topic! I'm also glad to see that Lorenzo supports changes such as expanded use of alternatives to incarceration - an area where I strongly agree. However, as a representative of ADPSR, I have to respectfully disagree with some of Lorenzo Lopez's comments.

     

    First of all, horrific abuse of people by solitary confinement is a real problem in prisons, including many facilities in the United States.  Lorenzo says "our government does not design for solitary confinement any longer [since the 19th century]," but in fact the United States has around 70,000 - 80,000 people in isolation, some for years and even decades. I agree that the treatment that prisoners receive is not up to architects-- people can be abused in a house just as easily as a prison. But architects have enabled the most prevalent form of torture in the United States today by constructing dozens of supermax facilities specifically for long-term isolation. Were these buildings not provided by architects, those people would be in more humane conditions - or at least free of that particular form of torture. It's worth noting that about six U.S. states (and many foreign countries) do not use solitary isolation at all, showing that it's perfectly possible to manage a prison population without resorting to torture.  We at ADPSR believe that justice architects have the opportunity and the responsibility to encourage our clients to reach this "zero torture" standard, which really should be the minimum.

     

    But I would like to be clear that ADPSR and I are not blaming architects as Lorenzo implies. It is only in the past twelve months that human rights organizations and the U.N. have announced that isolation for more than 15 days constitutes torture. Prior to this determination, architects were not reliably informed about the human rights consequences of these buildings. Today, that view is no longer acceptable, and our profession should take responsibility for our actions from this point forward.  That is all that ADPSR is asking for with our proposed ethics amendment - there is no retroactivity.

     

    In the broader sphere I'd also like to challenge Mr. Lopez's implied assertion that everyone in jail belongs there, and that it's OK to "warehouse inmates" while we wait for someone to fix a broken system. William Nagel was the formost scholar on prison architecture in the mid twentieth century. I know many AAJ members still respect his work, as do I. His seminal book, The New Red Barn illustrates the 1970s consensus that prisons and jails were costly, ineffective, and should be reduced in use to a bare minimum.  It was written when the U.S. had a prison population of 300,000; today it is 2.3 million, yet Americans are not 7 times as criminally inclined as we were a few decades ago. The "tough-on-crime" legislative frenzy (three strikes, mandatory minimums, etc.) and subsequent prison building boom have done nothing to change what was learned back in the 1970s, and which evidence-based practice is now relearning: prisons are still costly and ineffective ways to deal with the problem of crime.  Certainly there must be consequences for law-breaking, but there must also be reasonable criminal laws and sentences, and judged by international standards our country is wildly off the rails. While politicians still pander, the majority of corrections and criminal justice experts will admit privately that our current legal system is deeply unfair and unsustainable simply because of its size. Outdated prisons do not need to be replaced; outdated laws do.  Outdated prisons should be closed and the remaining population housed in more recenlty built prisons - every state has enough space, as the majority of beds in the country are under 30 years old.

     

    Certainly as Lorenzo notes, litigation and entrenched political interests (including private prison companies and companies that contract with prison systems, as well as the guard unions he mentions) make change difficult.  This is one reason why ADPSR previously suggested a "prison design boycott," a call that was actually foreshadowed by Nagel's call for a five-year moratorium on prison construction in 1972. Architects have only modest political influence compared to other players, but by recognizing the unique importance of our professional activity and tying it to a strong ethical stance we can achieve more change than Lorenzo appears to believe possible. I guess I'm saying that we should not wait for someone else to fix the broken system (who would that be anyway?) when we can show leadership and take action ourselves. We do hope for AAJ's support in taking this approach on the issue of torture discussed above.

     

    Lastly, let's remember that all people, even those convicted of horrific crimes, are entitled to basic human dignity. If Lorenzo had looked into the statistics, he might not have been surprised by the well-behaved man convicted for murder. In fact, people convicted of murder, when released, have the lowest recidivism rate among all serious crimes. Most of those of who misbehave in prison - and 25-50% of those in isolation - have mental illness. I agree with Lorenzo that public safety is important and that those who break the law and hurt others must be held accountable, especially those guilty of the worst crimes. However, this does not justify torture, and this does not describe the current operation of our justice system either.  



    -------------------------------------------
    Raphael Sperry, AIA
    Soros Justice Fellow
    San Francisco, CA

    -------------------------------------------





  • 4.  RE:"Moral Responsibility" of Justice Architects

    Posted 10-22-2012 02:17 PM
    Per some comments I have received, I wanted to also clarify ADPSR's proposed ethics amendment. It would prohibit the design of spaces intended for execution or long-term solitary confinement. This means execution chambers and supermax housing. It would not apply to conventional maximum security housing where spaces such as dayrooms and regular outdoor yards are provided for prisoners to have regular social contact with others.

    -------------------------------------------
    Raphael Sperry, AIA
    Soros Justice Fellow
    San Francisco, CA

    -------------------------------------------