Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Efforts to reduce the correction population have taken many forms across the United States, with the redesign of correctional edifices being met with mixed support from stakeholders. Building from the advances of the new-generation facility design, this piece outlines how the “next” generation of facility design can serve as one of many strategies to reduce the United States’s heavy reliance on the carceral system. Specifically, the redesign of facilities should include considerations of placial justice. That is, how the architectural construction of a correctional facility can promote the experience and perception of just and fair treatment for inmates and staff alike. This article proposes the tenants of an open, transparent, and inclusive (OTI) design to enhance placial justice in correctional buildings and with it increase correctional legitimacy and fortify the rehabilitative function of the institution. Discussions also include how the redesign of correctional facilities fit within the larger discourse on correctional humanism.

Keywords

crime criminology social sciences correctional institutions prison studies criminology and criminal justice sociology public administration and public policy political science

The use of jail and prison is the most common form of punishment used globally, with the United States leading the world in the use of imprisonment. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the American incarceration rate is 830 per 100,000 persons (Kaeble & Cowhig, 2016). Embedded in American jails and prisons are narratives of inmate and officer victimization (Arnold et al., 2007; Hogan et al., 2017), deprivations of basic human rights and freedoms (Lahm, 2016; Sykes, 1958), experience of officer burnout (Finney et al., 2013; Griffin et al., 2010) and turnover (Byrd et al., 2000; Castle & Martin, 2006), and an institution constantly under heavy scrutiny by the public. Arguably, the reliance on correctional institutions in the United States has done more harm than good economically to tax payers (Wagner & Rabuy, 2017), and to the lives and families of alleged offenders who are detained in jail and the convicted offenders held in prison (Evans et al., 2019; Knopf, 2018; Naser & Visher, 2006; St. John, 2019). In response, there are movements across the nation calling for the removal of said facilities, as well as calls to fortify the rehabilitative function of institutional corrections. In support of the latter, subsequent sections will introduce (a) the importance of the stakeholder and occupants’ perception that jails and prisons are legitimate spaces of rehabilitation, (b) a conceptual framework for improving the legitimacy of the rehabilitative function in correctional facilities through open, transparent, and inclusive (OTI) designs, and (c) a discussion on placial justice and what this means for strengthening the legitimacy of jails and prisons in America.

A Legitimately Rehabilitative Facility

Policymakers, practitioners, and researchers have echoed the necessity for justice institutions to be fair, humane, and responsive to the needs of those they serve (Beijersbergen et al., 2016; Sparks & Bottoms, 1995). Doing so leads to several benefits, not the least of which is enhanced legitimacy, citizens’ belief that authorities should be obeyed and respected (Tankebe, 2013). When individuals encountering the justice system believe in its authority, they are more likely to cooperate even when cooperation goes against their own desired outcomes (Bottoms & Tankebe, 2012). This is especially important in situations where authority figures are outnumbered, where these dynamics take place in an enclosed environment, and where the same people are encountered consistently over the course of many months. Therefore, a clear messaging and understanding that jails and prisons also serve a rehabilitative function must remain as steadfast as the messaging that these facilities are used to serve a punitive and deterrent function.

Noted philosopher Michel Foucault once wrote that the issue with prison is not whether the institution is “too harsh or too aseptic, too primitive or too efficient, but its very materiality as an instrument and vector of power” (Foucault, 2012). Jails and prisons play an important role within the criminal justice system, not just as a destination of last resort, but as the apex of state control and starkest example how a government views its citizens. This is especially true of jails, as the number of citizens cycling in and out is greater than that of prisons (Kaeble et al., 2015), they have greater proximity to public view, and a larger number of nonincarcerated individuals entering and exiting these facilities.

Jurisdictions that house inmates in cramped, grimy conditions are rightfully interpreted to care less for their fair treatment (Sloan, 2012). If citizens believe that government loses sight of their humanity in the face of any conviction—even for relatively minor infractions like missing a traffic court date—it becomes easier to believe that officials disregard them in general. In fact, research supports that one’s view of correctional contact can significantly alter the view a person has of the entire criminal justice system (Franke et al., 2010), for good perhaps, but especially for ill. This cynicism is exacerbated when racial minorities are overrepresented in correctional facilities and less likely to receive rehabilitative support (St. John, 2019). While there are several pathways to achieving greater legitimacy, even among violators of the law—procedural and distributive justice, for example—placial justice is an area that is often underconsidered, and underutilized.

The growing support for a more rehabilitative set of conditions are present in “New generation” jails, which have incorporated some innovative designs to address overcrowding, security concerns, and to foster more positive relationships between inmates and officers (Applegate & Paoline, 2007). Although security is empirically linked to problems of overcrowding (Hanna, 2016; R. Smith, 2015; Van Ginneken et al., 2017), poor surveillance, and the absence of a healthy officer–inmate relationships (Johnsen et al., 2011), there are several other factors that can increase the safety for the occupants in a facility and uphold a rehabilitative environment. Designing jails and prisons to increase prosocial behavior and overall safety requires the consideration of factors behind the facility’s structure, to include important features of its location, aesthetics, and maintenance.

An OTI Facility

One means of addressing recurrent issues around jail and prison security, order, and conditions is to revisit overall architectural design. In 2017, this study sought to find ways to bring “welcomeness” to essential government structures, correctional buildings included (Blount-Hill et al., 2017). Of course, architects have been exploring ways to influence individual psychology through built places for decades, amounting to a rich source of literature on affective architecture. Moreover, criminal justice thinkers have explored ways to provide security and order through architecture for nearly as long (Bentham, 1791). However, there are little-to-no theoretical frameworks for how to use affective architecture to increase perceptions of justice, fairness, and positivity in criminal justice buildings. Building on the OTI framework for designing more welcoming police buildings (Blount-Hill et al., 2017), this article proposes a means to intertwine OTI with correctional facilities.

Correctional facilities present a slightly different context in which individual perceptions are influenced because, unlike police buildings, the clear majority of those who spend time in corrections are detained or convicted persons. It is because the state forces people to occupy these spaces that the U.S. Supreme Court has read into the Eighth Amendment a responsibility to ensure humane conditions in jail and prison (Haney, 1997). This difference transforms concerns about the civilian experience with facilities from a matter of maximizing customer service to the weightier issue of placial justice.

An OTI facility design allows for the construction of a jail and prison which will improve occupant attitudes and behaviors in addition to softening the image and tense relationships between some communities and criminal justice agencies. Correctional facilities vary in purpose, from the momentary detention of suspects (e.g., Central Booking or Rikers Island) to longer-term imprisonment (e.g., Northern State Correctional Facility), and, therefore, the application of OTI design will vary not only by prison and jail, but also by the population being served in said facility. Nevertheless, utilizing the overall principles of OTI, correctional architects and facilities managers can create jail and prison environments that facilitate, rather than degrade, respect for the rehabilitative ideology, as well as law and the justice system.

Location Matters

Often, the initial perception one has of a space is not centered just on the building itself but considers the location in which it is placed. The harm done by locating jails and prisons far away from an occupants’ crucial social ties, such as family members or legal counsel, is hard to overstate. As early as the 1970s, researchers identified that lack of visitations and contact from lawyers was a top complaint from incarcerated clients (Wilkerson, 1972). In 2013, researchers found that, aside from inmate characteristics, visitation time, visitation experience, visitation patterns, and visitor type play significant roles in reducing misconduct in prison as well as recidivism when released (Cochran & Mears, 2013). In addition, research has identified a clear link between the degredatopm of social interactions and self-physical harm (Liebling, 2002).

In some locations, regardless of the distance from the community, the reachability of a facility inhibits interaction with the community. For instance, the absence of public transportation to a facility contributes to the difficulty of intimate others being present to provide social support (Clark, 2001). Still, the location of some facilities outside of populated places will mean that loved ones must travel some distance to see their incarcerated relatives. To resolve the problem of a building’s physical location, reachability may be addressed through greater supplemental use of technology to allow for social interactions (e.g., video calls). Visitation assists in the prosocial development of incarcerated persons. Specifically, inmates who receive visitations are 30% less likely to recidivate, and increased frequency of visitations are associated with lower odds of reengaging in criminal activity (Bales & Mears, 2008). It appears, then, that a prime concern for incarcerated people in whether a space is considered just or not, is whether they can continue their relationships with intimate others, even if with some restrictions.

Structure

Certainly, the building itself is of central importance in generating positive feelings for those occupying a space. Welcomeness must be designed into the basic structure of a facility, its subsequent decor, and its later maintenance. As for basic structure, applying OTI principles to jail and prison design requires a consideration of functionality, accessibility, navigability, security, and a social facility.

Facilities must be built with room for all the essential components of corrections—holding cells or office space (Mays & Winfree, 2014; St. John, 2018). For facilities holding individuals for longer-term sentences, the functional parts of the facility will need to include a myriad of additional features, such as a kitchen, visitation room, or space for emergency gear (St. John, 2018). While these are very much operational considerations, efficiency of operations and the ability to meet job expectations are critical areas in determining how individuals view government. For instance, the demise of Eastern State Penitentiary is plagued with narratives that highlight the ways in which essential components, such as poor plumbing, heating, upkeep, and ventilation, managed to create both inhumane conditions for occupants and financial burdens that spiraled out of control (Johnston, 2000; Johnston, 2004; Teeters, 1949).

Jails and prisons should also be sufficiently accessible and navigable. By way of example, basic structural features should include ramps, railings, and other fixtures to make it accessible to those with disabilities. While the American Disabilities Act protects the rights of disabled occupants or persons who frequent correctional facilities, the quality of services allotted to persons who are disabled remains questioned (Krienert et al., 2003; Schlanger, 2017). Moreover, when entering a facility, the capability of navigating the facility adds to feelings of inclusivity. Facilities that are difficult to navigate may foster feelings of being lost or frustrated (Shah, 2014) particularly for new staff, detainees, or visitors. This is usually solved with the use of signs or color-coded taping along the floors or walls. Limited ease of navigation is the hallmark of navigational security measures, that is, to protect the identity of occupants (Shah, 2014) and items, but the intimidation inherent in such designs can be mitigated by ensuring that travel is restricted to those who know the facility well or those escorted by persons who know it well.

Security

Within all correctional facilities, safety is of the utmost importance (Farbstein & Wener, 1982), and a facility built using OTI would be no different. The structure should be equipped with necessary security components. A feeling of safety is the foundation of satisfaction and associated with an administration’s commitment to enforce safe conditions (O’Toole, 2002). Thus, the public (including people in custody) must be made to feel safe when entering a facility to have the perception that the agency running them is competent. Jail and prison administrators will reap the most benefit from establishing lasting legitimacy among their incarcerated populations, yet, if a person in custody questions his or her safety, the person in custody is less likely to believe officials are competent enough to deserve respect and deference. Therefore, safety and security, in addition to being mandated by constitutional requirements related to respect for human dignity, become important ways to manage positive relations between officers and people who are detained. In some instances, an incarcerated persons perception that a facility is not safe or that correctional officers do not care about their safety are linked to violent outcomes (Listwan et al., 2014; Steiner et al., 2017).

Social Facility

At the crux of OTI design is the promotion of a social facility within architectural structures (i.e., creating places that allow for greater interaction among people in custody, officers, and visitors). Positive detainee–officer and detainee–visitor interactions have been especially linked to the safety of both parties, with studies demonstrating significantly lower rates of inmate-on-staff violence (Beijersbergen et al., 2016). In a 1996 study, Miles Harer, of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and Darrel Steffensmeier, of Pennsylvania State University, showed that the odds of violent incidents decreased as prison facilities provided more opportunities to be social (Harer & Steffensmeier, 1996). The Netherlands provide a useful example. There, officers’ quarters are relatively small and cramped spaces, which, in turn, encourage officers to spend more time outside of their own designated areas and among people in custody (Baldursson, 2000). Under these circumstances, officers better perceive issues before they arise and can more effectively de-escalate conflicts as they arise (Johnsen et al., 2011). Social facility allows officers to establish good relations with incarcerated persons due, in part, to the structure forcing proximity to one another. These relationships become particularly important when individuals are in custody for longer periods of time. New-generation facilities have been designed in a manner that obliges officers and people in custody to interact with one another, and these have been found to positively influence inmate–officer relationships. The “direct care” style of management requires a tailored and personal relationship with people in custody to effectively keep people in order (Browne et al., 2015; Williams et al., 1999). According to Wener et al. (1987) with direct supervision, correctional officers are placed in a proximity with inmates that fosters communication and negotiation, allowing them the ability to identify and de-escalate potential crime events before they occur. One further, important note on social facility: Opportunities to socialize among staff and among people in custod are just as important as those between the two groups. Social interaction between staff members providing an escape from the often-tense relations with the inmate population. Research also highlights additional benefits of new-generation jails to include better workgroup cohesion, job satisfaction, and communication among correctional officers (Applegate & Paoline, 2007).

Security and Social Facility

Striking a balance between maintaining a safe and secure facility, and one that is social is best understood from the position that the two concepts go hand in hand, and that one cannot exist without the other. Fostering an environment that is antisocial, such as the heavy reliance on segregation and separation (a commonly used strategy to curb violence), creates more violence and psychological harm among the incarcerated population (Cochran et al., 2018; Haney, 2018; Labrecque, 2018; Steiner & Cain, 2016). It is to no surprise that research shows that the likelihood of correctional officers being threatened or assaulted is much lower for officers who managed visitations between people in custody and administrative posts and higher for correctional officers placed in housing units or intake (Ellison, 2017). Visitation is best understood here as an example on how the social and secure facility is possible, a setting where persons are engaged in meaningful interactions and away from idle or unstructured free time that leads to unsafe conditions.

Visual Justice

Jails and prisons are not typically known as paragons of aesthetic quality. OTI design places emphasis on the necessity of beautification for any criminal justice facility where the public are expected to have consistent interface with justice officials. Qualities such as facility attractiveness are not only linked to a person’s willingness to remain there, but also send implicit, subconscious messages about how an agency values the individuals it detainees or imprisons and its respect for itself and its dignity. Moreover, visual justice shows that calls for punitive actions are impacted by the optical content people repeatedly observe (Granot et al., 2014). Clammer (2019) goes as far to argue that people have a right to occupy environments that are aesthetically pleasing. Following these thoughts, one must wonder how the repeat visualization of a built correctional facility may be altered to contribute to feelings of rehabilitation for the occupant. Ideally, that is a scenario where correctional officers, incarcerated persons, visitors, and the like internalize that the correctional institution is a physical place for rehabilitation.

Understandably, correction administrators may bristle at the thought that jails and prisons are to be made “comfortable” or “attractive” for individuals being punished for often serious crimes (K. B. Smith, 2004). Still, it would seem all can agree that, if there are any spaces in the facility where incarcerated persons should feel comfortable being, these include rooms designated for programmatic services (St. John et al., 2019). The therapeutic environment of counseling interventions (Glebova et al., 2012), the calming environment of vocational workstations, and stimulating, distraction-free classroom (Sommer & Becker, 1974) is critical to the success of the service and elements of aestheticism should be considered in these areas.

Although there are limited studies that address the external or internal beauty of a correctional facility, or criminal justice facilities at the least (Shah, 2014), there is a myriad of evidence that certain built environments are perceived more attractive than others. Something as simple as a building’s shape can influence how attractive it is seen, with rounded edges being perceived as more attractive to the laymen than the angular and sharp edges more popular with architects. Interior design also evokes affect (Sommer, 1972; Gifford, 1988), and color is a great example of this. For instance, a review of color psychology outlines that wearers of the color black were perceived as aggressive and wearers of red evoked intimidation in others and a sense of dominance in the wearer. Other studies have shown that the use of red in places may diminish verbal reasoning, memory functioning, attention, and language development (Elliot & Maier, 2014).

No discussion of placial justice could be complete without contemplating the need for an aesthetic that emphasizes a correctional agency’s neutrality. Neutrality surrounds the symbolic power dynamic that a facility communicates to its occupants (Blount-Hill et al., 2017). As the application of affective architecture to institutional corrections is still developing, some debate exists as to whether trying to portray a balanced and neutral relationship is a desirable quality in a correctional facility. Unlike other justice buildings, by the time an individual encounters jail or prison as an inmate, the time for impartiality and the presumption of innocence is over (Baughman, 2011). Nevertheless, to the extent that aesthetic features promote the sense that the task of penal punishment is being carried out in an objective and disinterested manner, this perception should create an additional incentive for inmates to be accepting of the fairness of their sentence.

Maintenance

Naturally, the benefits of OTI-based location, construction, and decor are short-lived if the facility’s condition is not maintained. In OTI parlance, maintenance consists of sustaining consistent comfortability, operability, and attention to capacity. In a study on prison legitimacy, researchers found that living conditions within a facility significantly impact the perceptions inmates have of fair treatment there (Brunton-Smith & McCarthy, 2016). Quality of life studies suggest that, as persons view their environment as less than adequate, higher rates of violent behaviors and negative emotional states follow (Byrne & Hummer, 2007).

While the quality of life within a correctional institution will never be identical to life as a person who isn’t incarcerated, simple steps can be taken to provide a reasonable living environment, including proper attention to air ventilation (Greifinger, 2007), temperature (Atlas, 1984), levels of natural light (Edwards & Torcellini, 2002), and greenery (Söderlund & Newman, 2017), among others. Moreover, facilities must continue to be in good operating condition. Reliable plumbing, electrical and mechanical systems are important for curbing needless frustration on the part of the incarcerated person and sustaining positive morale among officers. Inoperable plumbing, by way of example, can directly affect the day-to-day existence of all occupants, inmate, and officer alike. In addition, if situations like this persist, this symbolizes general disorder and presages the types of responses “broken windows” theory cautions against (Wilson & Kelling, 1982).

Finally, strictly adhering to capacity limitations is essential. Keeping jails and prisons from crowding helps reduce rates of inmate-officer violence and property damage. The mental and physical health of facility personnel and detainees are negatively influenced by overcrowding, with consequences ranging from high levels of stress, high blood pressure (Schaeffer et al., 1988), and even death (V. C. Cox et al., 1984; McCain et al., 1980). This does not account for the additional health concerns associated with these consequences, such as high stress association with stroke, cancer, and a compromised immune system (Schneiderman & Baum, 2018), nor does it factor in that unwanted contact and loss of control (common experiences for people in custody) that cause environmental stress (Baum et al., 1981). Another factor associated with capacity is how many individuals are placed in a cell or unit together, carving out a need to manage not only the capacity of the facility but also the social density in areas as well (Paulus & McCain, 1983; Steiner & Wooldredge, 2009; Tartaro, 2002). Intertwined with literature on crowding are themes highlighting the salience of privacy and ownership (Farbstein & Wener, 1982). Newman (1972) introduced four types of space: private space, semi-private space, semi-public space, and public space. An ideal facility should allow for easy surveillance by staff, while simultaneously giving inmates a sense of ownership and privacy, a sentiment aligned with Sommer (1971). Perceptions of ownership and privacy decrease some of the unwanted outcomes of overcrowding, such as assault (Lahm, 2009). This is especially important for the rehabilitation and safety of all occupants. Sommer (1971) specifically pinpoints space, overcrowding, privacy, and the lack of sensory stimulation as the major architectural components that harm incarcerated individuals and goes on to call for research that explores facility location, size, and layout. He further argues that these components should not be confused as optimal conditions of confinement, but rather viewed as the minimum conditions taken under consideration when incarcerating persons. As important, the proper staff to inmate ratio is necessary for facility safety, with improper staff-to-inmate ratio placing occupants at higher odds of physical harm (Lahm, 2009; Tartaro & Levy, 2007).

Discussion

Implementation and Evaluation

As with any concept newly introduced to the correctional facility setting, a clear-cut plan on incorporating the framework into the daily operations of a facility is necessary. To suggest a change without a discussion on how concepts may be implemented leaves room for disconnect between research, practice, and policy. However, given the exploratory nature and limitation in the application of the OTI framework, it is encouraged that policy makers, researchers, and stakeholders also consider an iterative and tailored approach on how an OTI design may be best implemented and tailored to the needs of a given jurisdiction.

Complementary to any intervention, policy, or practice is the evaluation of said intervention, policy, or practice. The overall goal of OTI is to foster both perceptions of legitimacy, as well as support a facility that is rehabilitative in function. Building on this logic, outcomes associated with OTI should include improvement in institutional safety, rehabilitation, and legitimacy. Table 1 provides a basic matrix on what the implementation of the OTI design may look like in a correctional setting and the outcomes that may be evaluated.

Table 1.

Basic Matrix of Implementing an Open, Transparent, and Inclusive Design in an Institutional Correction Setting.

Concepts to consider	Implementation	Outcomes for an evaluation
Consider OTI when locating a facility	Locate the facility close to the community.Ensure the facility is reachable to residents.	Increase in Facility Safety:Inmate on inmate victimization metricsInmate on staff victimization metricsStaff on inmate victimization metricsComplaint behavior metricsIncrease in Rehabilitation:Recidivism metricsEducation metricsTherapeutic progression metricsVocational achievement metricsLegitimacy:Perception that the facilities design creates a rehabilitative settingPerception that the facilities design is necessary for rehabilitationPerception that the facility is rehabilitativeNote. Perceptions should include that of the correctional officer, incarcerated person, and the public
Consider OTI in designing the architecture of a facility	Ensure that the facility is functionally designed. The facility should be accessible to the public.Make it navigable for visitors and employees.Facilities should safely facilitate social interaction among employees and between staff and the public.
Consider OTI in the aesthetics of a facility	Endeavor to make the building’s décor attractive in particular areas in which you want occupants to frequent (e.g., the school area).A facility’s decoration should convey neutrality and fairness, as well as the intentionality of making the public feel welcome (particularly in visiting rooms and other areas they frequent).
Consider OTI in the maintenance of a facility	The building must be maintained and operable. The facility should be kept comfortable for human habitation.Facility administrators must be ever-considerate of not pushing beyond a building’s capacity.

Note. OTI = open, transparent, and inclusive.

Placial Justice

As aforementioned, the manipulation of a specific place so that it cultivates fairness is placial justice or place-based justice (St. John & Blount-Hill, 2019). Placial justice is the mechanism that links the OTI design and the expected outcomes of safety, legitimacy, and rehabilitation in a correctional facility. The creation of a facility that revitalizes and embodies the ideological perspectives that correctional facilities also serve a rehabilitative function for the incarcerated, and that the persons who are convicted of crimes or may be simply awaiting their day in court—presumed innocent—should be treated humanely, are central pieces to positive change. Specifically, a change in the behaviors and perceptions of a facility’s occupants, and a change in the public’s view on the legitimacy and rehabilitative nature of a jail or prison. Although new-generation jails are being equipped to address the important matters of safety, relationship building, and overcrowding, there are far more advancements that can be made in the creation of an optimally functioning facility. A facility that is safe, humane, rehabilitative, and perceived as such by occupants and the public is a facility that exhibits placial justice and a more credible claim to legitimacy.

A Welcoming Jail and Prison?

The language of welcoming is salient in the messaging that correctional facilities are (a) spaces where the correctional officers and administrators who come to work should be able to enjoy working at, (b) spaces where the public come to visit their loved ones or clients, and (c) spaces where the incarcerated population behind bars view their environment that is welcoming in its approach to managing and rehabilitating said individuals. This messaging or labeling of correctional edifices as welcoming is not about a facility being a seductive place for offenders but rehabilitative in construction and operation. The use of an OTI design for the creation of a welcoming facility is essential for fostering a setting that upholds the rehabilitative function.

Moreover, this article would be remiss not to acknowledge that discourse on whether correctional facilities can ever be rehabilitative remain opposed and understudied. Researchers provide key arguments against the integration of correctional edifices within the community, as well as the growing shift toward carceral humanism–arguments such as (a) the expected social changes within the facilities being unrealistic, (b) the investment into building new or physically updating facilities being supportive of the growth of mass incarceration, and (c) the focus on correctional edifices as a reform effort being secondary to other efforts, like improving correctional staff training or culture change within facilities (Kurti & Shanahan, 2018). Similar discourse on whether architectural changes are proper investments for reforming the correctional system also extends to youth facilities as well (A. Cox, 2019).

In response, the author suggests that researchers, policy makers, and community stakeholders continue to explore the various ways to best support the wide range of people who are currently incarcerated (e.g., from the person facing a life sentence in prison to the individual detained in jail). In part, correctional reform will require multiple strategies at once and rehabilitation may look different based on the type of crime (e.g., violent or nonviolent), the severity of the crime (e.g., serial murder or petty theft), and an individual’s custody status (e.g., detained or sentenced). Therefore, changes in architecture may not be the best resolve for all, but it can assist in fostering the rehabilitative functions that are necessary to curtail offending while incarcerated and after incarceration, especially for individuals who are a higher risk of reoffending. Finally, the author is supportive of the best alternatives to ending mass incarceration, but until a system is in place that removes the reliance on correctional facilities as a response to all offenders (including persons convicted of serial murder, sexual crimes, and various acts that aren’t met with the same level of reform advocacy or support), there will remain a need to invest time and resources to ensure that the physical environments of correctional facilities support all persons incarcerated, their families, and staff who work with them.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Victor J. St. John

References

Applegate

B. K.

Paoline

E. A.

(2007). Jail officers’ perceptions of the work environment in traditional versus new generation facilities. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 31(2), 64–80.

Arnold

Liebling

Tait

(2007). Prison officers and prison culture. In Jewkes

(Ed.), Handbook on prisons (pp. 471–495). Willan.

Atlas

(1984). Violence in prison: Environmental influences. Environment and Behavior, 16(3), 275–306.

Baldursson

(2000). Prisoners, prisons and punishment in small societies. Journal of Scandinavian Studies in Criminology and Crime Prevention, 1(1), 6–15.

Bales

W. D.

Mears

D. P.

(2008). Inmate social ties and the transition to society: Does visitation reduce recidivism? Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 45(3), 287–321.

Baughman

S. B.

(2011). Restoring the presumption of innocence. Ohio State Law Journal, 72, 723–776.

Baum

Singer

J. E.

Baum

C. S.

(1981). Stress and the environment. Journal of Social Issues, 37(1), 4–35.

Beijersbergen

K. A.

Dirkzwager

A. J.

van der Laan

P. H.

Nieuwbeerta

(2016). A social building? Prison architecture and staff–prisoner relationships. Crime & Delinquency, 62(7), 843–874.

Bentham

(1791). Panopticon or the inspection house (Vol. 2). T. Payne.

10.

Blount-Hill

St. John

Ryan

(2017). Psychology of space: Enhancing legitimacy through open, transparent, and inclusive facilities for police and the public. Police Chief Magazine. International Association of Chiefs of Police. https://www.policechiefmagazine.org/psychology-space-enhancing-legitimacy/

11.

Bottoms

Tankebe

(2012). Beyond procedural justice: A dialogic approach to legitimacy in criminal justice. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 102, 119–170.

12.

Browne

Hastings

Kall

DiZerega

(2015). Keeping vulnerable populations safe under PREA: Alternative strategies to the use of segregation in prisons and jails. Vera Institute for Justice.

13.

Brunton-Smith

McCarthy

D. J.

(2016). Prison legitimacy and procedural fairness: A multilevel examination of prisoners in England and Wales. Justice Quarterly, 33(6), 1029–1054.

14.

Byrd

T. G.

Cochran

J. K.

Silverman

I. J.

Blount

W. R.

(2000). Behind bars: An assessment of the effects of job satisfaction, job-related stress, and anxiety on jail employees’ inclinations to quit. Journal of Crime and Justice, 23(2), 69–93.

15.

Byrne

J. M.

Hummer

(2007). Myths and realities of prison violence: A review of the evidence. Victims and Offenders, 2(1), 77–90.

16.

Castle

T. L.

Martin

J. S.

(2006). Occupational hazard: Predictors of stress among jail correctional officers. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 31(1), 65–80.

17.

Clammer

(2019). Visual justice: The right to beauty? In Clammer

(Ed.), Cultural rights and justice (pp. 87–108). Palgrave Macmillan.

18.

Clark

T. A.

(2001). The relationship between inmate visitation and behavior: Implications for African American families. Journal of African American Studies, 6(1), 43–58.

19.

Cochran

J. C.

Mears

D. P.

(2013). Social isolation and inmate behavior: A conceptual framework for theorizing prison visitation and guiding and assessing research. Journal of Criminal Justice, 41(4), 252–261.

20.

Cochran

J. C.

Toman

E. L.

Mears

D. P.

Bales

W. D.

(2018). Solitary confinement as punishment: Examining in-prison sanctioning disparities. Justice Quarterly, 35(3), 381–411.

21.

Cox

(2019). Challenging the logics of reformism and humanism in juvenile justice rhetoric. Critical Criminology, 27, 543–558.

22.

Cox

V. C.

Paulus

P. B.

McCain

(1984). Prison crowding research: The relevance for prison housing standards and a general approach regarding crowding phenomena. American Psychologist, 39(10), 1148–1160.

23.

Edwards

Torcellini

(2002). Literature review of the effects of natural light on building occupants (No. NREL/TP-550-30769). National Renewable Energy Lab.

24.

Elliot

A. J.

Maier

M. A.

(2014). Color psychology: Effects of perceiving color on psychological functioning in humans. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 95–120.

25.

Ellison

J. M.

(2017). An opportunity model of victimization risk for jail inmates and correctional officers [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Nebraska Omaha.

26.

Evans

D. N.

Szkola

St. John

(2019). Going back to college? criminal stigma in higher education admissions in Northeastern US. Critical Criminology, 27(2), 291–304.

27.

Farbstein

Wener

R. E.

(1982). Evaluation of correctional environments. Environment and Behavior, 14(6), 671–694.

28.

Finney

Stergiopoulos

Hensel

Bonato

Dewa

C. S.

(2013). Organizational stressors associated with job stress and burnout in correctional officers: A systematic review. BMC Public Health, 13(1), Article 82.

29.

Foucault

(2012). Discipline & punish: The birth of the prison. Vintage.

30.

Franke

Bierie

MacKenzie

D. L.

(2010). Legitimacy in corrections. Criminology & Public Policy, 9(1), 89–117.

31.

Gifford

(1988). Light, decor, arousal, comfort and communication. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 8(3), 177–189.

32.

Glebova

Foster

S. L.

Cunningham

P. B.

Brennan

P. A.

Whitmore

(2012). Examining therapist comfort in delivering family therapy in home and community settings: Development and evaluation of the Therapist Comfort Scale. Psychotherapy, 49(1), 52–61.

33.

Granot

Balcetis

Schneider

K. E.

Tyler

T. R.

(2014). Justice is not blind: Visual attention exaggerates effects of group identification on legal punishment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(6), 2196–2208.

34.

Greifinger

(Ed.) (2007). Public health behind bars: From prisons to communities. Springer Science & Business Media.

35.

Griffin

M. L.

Hogan

N. L.

Lambert

E. G.

Tucker-Gail

K. A.

Baker

D. N.

(2010). Job involvement, job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment and the burnout of correctional staff. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37(2), 239–255.

36.

Haney

(1997). Psychology and the limits to prison pain: Confronting the coming crisis in Eighth Amendment law. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 3(4), 499–588.

37.

Haney

(2018). Restricting the use of solitary confinement. Annual Review of Criminology, 1, 285–310.

38.

Hanna

(2016). Human cattle: Prison overpopulation and the political economy of mass incarceration. Themis: Research Journal of Justice Studies and Forensic Science, 4(1), Article 3.

39.

Harer

M. D.

Steffensmeier

D. J.

(1996). Race and prison violence. Criminology, 34(3), 323–355.

40.

Hogan

N. L.

Lambert

E. G.

Kim

Mendenhall

Cheeseman

Griffin

(2017). Research note: Career stage and job satisfaction among southern correctional officers. Criminal Justice Studies, 30(4), 421–432.

41.

Johnsen

Granheim

P. K.

Helgesen

(2011). Exceptional prison conditions and the quality of prison life: Prison size and prison culture in Norwegian closed prisons. European Journal of Criminology, 8(6), 515–529.

42.

Johnston

N. B.

(2000). Forms of constraint: A history of prison architecture. University of Illinois Press.

43.

Johnston

N. B.

(2004). The world’s most influential prison: Success or failure? The Prison Journal, 84(Suppl 4), 20S–40S.

44.

Kaeble

Cowhig

(2016). Correctional populations in the United States, 2016. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cpus16.pdf

45.

Kaeble

Glaze

Tsoutis

Minton

(2015). Correctional populations in the United States, 2014. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cpus14.pdf

46.

Knopf

(2018). Children of incarcerated citizens: Change system to reduce trauma. The Brown University Child and Adolescent Behavior Letter, 34(11), 3–4.

47.

Krienert

J. L.

Henderson

M. L.

Vandiver

D. M.

(2003). Inmates with physical disabilities: Establishing a knowledge base. Southwest Journal of Criminal Justice, 1(1), 13–23.

48.

Kurti

Shanahan

(2018). Rebranding mass incarceration: The Lippman commission and carceral devolution in New York City. Social Justice, 45, 25–49.

49.

Labrecque

R. M.

(2018). Specialized or segregated housing units: Implementing the principles of risk, needs, and responsivity. In Dodson

K. D.

(Ed.), Routledge handbook on offenders with special needs (pp. 69–83). Routledge.

50.

Lahm

K. F.

(2009). Inmate assaults on prison staff: A multilevel examination of an overlooked form of prison violence. The Prison Journal, 89(2), 131–150.

51.

Lahm

K. F.

(2016). Official incidents of inmate-on-inmate misconduct at a women’s prison: Using importation and deprivation theories to compare perpetrators to victims. Criminal Justice Studies, 29(3), 214–231.

52.

Liebling

(2002). Suicides in prison. Routledge.

53.

Listwan

S. J.

Daigle

L. E.

Hartman

J. L.

Guastaferro

W. P.

(2014). Poly-victimization risk in prison: The influence of individual and institutional factors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29(13), 2458–2481.

54.

Mays

G. L.

Winfree

L. T.

Jr. (2014). Essentials of corrections. Cengage Learning.

55.

McCain

Cox

V. C.

Paulus

P. B.

(1980). The effect of prison crowding on inmate behavior. National Institute of Justice.

56.

Naser

R. L.

Visher

C. A.

(2006). Family members’ experiences with incarceration and reentry. Western Criminology Review, 7(2), 20–31.

57.

Newman

(1972). Defensible space. Macmillan.

58.

O’Toole

(2002). The relationship between employees’ perceptions of safety and organizational culture. Journal of Safety Research, 33(2), 231–243.

59.

Paulus

P. B.

McCain

(1983). Crowding in jails. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 4(2), 89–107.

60.

St. John

V. J

. (2018). Prison designs. In Worley

V. B.

Worley

R. M.

(Eds.), Lockdown nation: An encyclopedia of controversies and trends in American prisons (pp. 18–20). ABC-CLIO.

61.

St. John

V. J

. (2019). Probation and race in the 1980s: A quantitative examination of felonious rearrests and minority threat theory. Race and Social Problems, 11, 243–252.

62.

St. John

V. J.

Blount-Hill

K. L

. (2019). Place, space, race, and life after incarceration. Harvard Journal of African American Public Policy, 2019, 46–54.

63.

St. John

V. J.

Blount-Hill

K. L.

Evans

Ayers

Allard

. (2019). Architecture and correctional services: A facilities approach to treatment. The Prison Journal, 99, 748–770.

64.

Schaeffer

M. A.

Baum

Paulus

P. B.

Gaes

G. G.

(1988). Architecturally mediated effects of social density in prison. Environment and Behavior, 20(1), 3–20.

65.

Schlanger

(2017). Prisoners with disabilities. In Luna

(Ed.), Reforming criminal justice: Punishment, incarceration, and release (pp. 295–323). Academy for Justice.

66.

Schneiderman

Baum

(2018). Acute and chronic stress and the immune system. In Schneiderman, L., Mccabe, P., & Baum, A. (Eds.), Stress and disease processes: Perspectives in behavioral medicine (pp. 1–26). Routledge.

67.

Shah

(2014). Expanding the community: An exploratory analysis of an American parole office’s location and its impact on parolees. British Journal of Criminology, 55(2), 321–340.

68.

Sloan

(2012). “You can see your face in my floor”: Examining the function of cleanliness in an adult male prison. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 51(4), 400–410.

69.

Smith

K. B.

(2004). The politics of punishment: Evaluating political explanations of incarceration rates. Journal of Politics, 66(3), 925–938.

70.

Smith

(2015). Prison conditions: Overcrowding, disease, violence, and abuse. Simon and Schuster.

71.

Söderlund

Newman

(2017). Improving mental health in prisons through biophilic design. The Prison Journal, 97(6), 750–772.

72.

Sommer

(1971). The social psychology of the cell environment. The Prison Journal, 51(1), 15–21.

73.

Sommer

(1972). Design awareness. Rinehart.

74.

Sommer

Becker

(1974). Learning outside the classroom. The School Review, 82(4), 601–607.

75.

Sparks

J. R.

Bottoms

A. E.

(1995). Legitimacy and order in prisons. British Journal of Sociology, 46, 45–62.

76.

Steiner

Cain

C. M.

(2016). The relationship between inmate misconduct, institutional violence, and administrative segregation: A systematic review of the evidence. In Restrictive housing in the US: Issues, challenges, and future directions (pp. 165–197). U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

77.

Steiner

Ellison

J. M.

Butler

H. D.

Cain

C. M.

(2017). The impact of inmate and prison characteristics on prisoner victimization. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 18(1), 17–36.

78.

Steiner

Wooldredge

(2009). Rethinking the link between institutional crowding and inmate misconduct. The Prison Journal, 89(2), 205–233.

79.

Sykes

(1958). The pains of imprisonment. In Sykes

(Ed.), The society of captives: A study of a maximum-security prison (pp. 63–78). Princeton University Press.

80.

Tankebe

(2013). Viewing things differently: The dimensions of public perceptions of police legitimacy. Criminology, 51(1), 103–135.

81.

Tartaro

(2002). The impact of density on jail violence. Journal of Criminal Justice, 30(6), 499–510.

82.

Tartaro

Levy

M. P.

(2007). Density, inmate assaults, and direct supervision jails. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 18(4), 395–417.

83.

Teeters

N. K.

(1949). The early days of the eastern state penitentiary at Philadelphia. Pennsylvania History, 16(4), 261–302.

84.

Van Ginneken

E. F.

Sutherland

Molleman

. (2017). An ecological analysis of prison overcrowding and suicide rates in England and Wales, 2000–2014. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 50, 76–82.

85.

Wagner

Rabuy

(2017). Following the money of mass incarceration. Prison Policy Initiative. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/money.html

86.

Wener

Frazier

Farbstein

(1987). Building better jails. Psychology Today, 21(6), 40–49.

87.

Wilkerson

(1972). Public defenders as their clients see them. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 1, 141–145.

88.

Williams

J. L.

Rodeheaver

D. G.

Huggins

D. W.

(1999). A comparative evaluation of a new generation jail. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 23(2), 223–246.

89.

Wilson

J. Q.

Kelling

G. L.

(1982). Broken windows. Atlantic Monthly, 249(3), 29–38.

Placial Justice: Restoring Rehabilitation and Correctional Legitimacy Through Architectural Design

Abstract

Keywords

A Legitimately Rehabilitative Facility

An OTI Facility

Location Matters

Structure

Security

Social Facility

Security and Social Facility

Visual Justice

Maintenance

Discussion

Implementation and Evaluation

Placial Justice

A Welcoming Jail and Prison?

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

References