Minor Essay - Prison Generations PDF

Preview

Summary

Prison Generations ...

Description

Minor Essay

1

Minor Essay: Describe the three generations of prison design and management, including an address of the architectural features and operating practices seen in first, second, and third generation prisons. Explain the historical impetus and philosophical justification for each generation of prison. Discuss the experiences of staff and prisoners as a consequence of each prison generation’s design and management

Minor Essay

2

Prior to the 18th century, prisons as they are known today ceased to exist. Rather than a place of punishment, prisons were originally a holding place prior to the offender enduring their actual punishment. This was generally corporal in nature involving things such as banishment or a public beheading. By the 18th century, prisons had evolved developing into a form of punishment, a concealed approach was adopted rather than making it a public spectacle and this came to be known as the first generation of prisons. As designs and management structures changed through the ages, a further two prominent stages of prison design were established known as second generation prisons and third generation prisons. This essay will first individually outline the three generations of prison design and management, addressing architectural features and operating practices and it will explain how the progress of historical impetus started for each generation. Next, the essay will describe the philosophical justification on how the inmates were considered at that moment in time and will focus on the consequences experienced by prison staff and inmates due to the advancements.

The design of the first generation of prisons was constructed in a way to keep offenders in an isolated and segregated state, this was known as linear designed prisons. The exterior of the prison consisted of bulky, tall walls composed of brick and concrete (Wener, 2006). The interior contained concrete floors and walls with no windows, long corridors, metal furniture and appliances that were screwed to the floor, this design was built as a means of preventing prisoners from escaping, destroying prison property and keeping staff protected from possible harm (Zupan & Menke, 1991). The physical arrangement mirrors a wagon wheel design, wings were branched out from the main pod located in the middle where the officers were based, and the prisoners lived in confined dorm like cells on the “wings” of the

Minor Essay

3

wheel. The wagon wheel model was conceived with the intention of segregation, control and security, where officers were adequately regulating the movements and behaviours of the inmates with minimum interaction and intermittent supervisory style daily.

First generation prisons were religiously inspired with the aim of reforming delinquent individuals by the notion of absolution through discipline and seclusion (Hirsch, 1987). This type of prison was no solution, rather an unsociable isolation, ultimately contributing to the psychological and physical stress of the prisoners due to the negative surroundings of the institution (Mickunas, 1990), leading to outbursts and violence. By essence we are social beings and it is a fundamental aspect that we communicate and interact with other individuals, it is also important to be active and in an environment as such physical stress can take a toll causing lethargy, fragility and brittle muscles.

Staff and inmate behaviours are equally affected by the prison surroundings, the way penitentiaries are designed can make prisoners more likely to take their own life, for instance the elements such as concrete used to construct the institute. Another example is the deficiency of visual stimulation within the cells can generate a great deal of boredom, precipitating prisoners to pursue narcotics which may be difficult to attain leading to additional stress (Nelson et al., 1983). During this period in time, these circumstances were in place due to the way prisoners were perceived, they were thought-out to be innately hazardous and threatening. As a result, they could not congregate with one another due to the possibility of rebellion against the staff, trading weapons or exchanging brutal and vicious ideas. The first generation of prisons were developed on the conception that a minimal

Minor Essay

4

number of offenders were going to be incarcerated for a lengthy duration, however by the 1970s it became apparent that the prison population was rapidly increasing with offenders receiving lessened sentences. The urgency for an alternative architectural design and management became in dire need, thus the second generation of prisons were developed.

When the second generation of prisons were developed, podular designs were introduced and replaced the conventional linear design. During this phase prisoners were divided into smaller, controllable groups and were contained in single pod-like units. These units were surrounded by a common area which was enveloped by a centralised glass protected “control room”, allowing officers to electronically observe every inmate movement and interaction with CCTV and electronically operated doors at any given moment (Nelson et al., 1983). This prison design was used as a means of controlling and regulating inmate behaviour, according to Levison (1978) this was generally known as an “electric zoo”, due to the application of present-day technology undoubtedly increased and the observing from a distance approach with the lack of officer interaction with the prisoners.

This mindset of control was constructed on the allegation that prisoners were innately dangerous and erratic, at a greater extent than first generation prisons. Similar to first generation prisons, this institute was built on the grounds that bad things are destined to transpire and negative behaviour from prisoners is continually anticipated. Interior designs were even adopted to diminish the predicted harm and violation by prisoners, all fixtures and furnishings were relatively vandal-proof and relatively clinical such as aluminium toilets, steel beds and chairs bolted to the floor with no fabric.

Minor Essay

5

This generation of prisons is exceedingly controlled, there is extensive psychological damage on both staff and inmates with the perpetuation of negative characteristics of first generation prisons. This design permits for a secure environment due to the technology and minimal interaction, for prisoners it generates a dehumanising sterile environment to be spending your time. Data has determined that when inmates are treated like animals, there is a probable likelihood they will behave that way, therefore architecturally composing an institute preparing for them to snap and cause an uproar is setting a mediocre standard. Adequate prison designs can impact offender outcomes by allowing positive connections to prosper between officers and inmates, providing the opportunity to engage in a wide range of activities, as well as satisfactory working and living standard demonstrated in third generation prisons.

The third generation of prisons are recognised as the direct supervision model, established to enforce a gentler approach on the prisoners with the conclusion that they are already enduring the punishment by being incarcerated and do not require additional punishment. Third generation prison designs progressed from the podular design by integrating an immense amount of open space for inmates, where they were housed in practical living units in single cells, with direct supervision. This humane approach was constructed to decrease the stress levels of the prisoners in relation to noise, overcrowding, confinement and lack of privacy, by respecting the moral and legal rights of the prisoners. In this prison, inmates are directly supervised around the clock by officers educated in unit management and interpersonal skills, this is exceedingly crucial for the reformation of the prisons as it boosts staff and offender interaction on a personal level, as well as promotes social skills which are extremely effective upon release.

Minor Essay

6

The significant adjustments to this generation of prisons is based on the direct supervision, the use of stress reducing furnishings with the slightest use of metal bars and doors, communal areas, all used in an attempt to resemble life on the outside. When prisons are designed this way, it seeks to normalise their everyday life while incarcerated and goes on to influence the inmates positively once released, as Conley (1992) states this phase of prison design was capable of developing offenders to become better people.

The three generations of prisons are comparable in some manners and completely opposing in others. First and second-generation prisons were concerned with punishment rather than reforming prisoners, whereas third generation prisons were focused on reformation of the offenders, with the endeavour of assisting them merge into society by constructing normalised surroundings. It has become apparent that our surroundings influence our behaviour, a prison can be designed in a particular way which can influence the decisions individuals are going to make, comprising of the prison location, the kinds of fixtures and materials used and the architectural design. All of these characteristics go on to influence behaviour and need to be taken into consideration when designing and building a prison.

Minor Essay

7 References

Hirch, A. (1987). From pillory to penitentiary: The rise of criminal incarceration in early Massachusetts. Police, Prison, and Punishment: Major Historical Interpretation, 344 434. Levison, R.B. & Gerard, R. (1978). Functional units: A different correctional approach. In G.C. Killinger & P.F. Cromwell (Eds), Introduction to Corrections: Selected Readings, 168-182. Mickunas, A. (1990). “Philosophical issues related to prison reform. Are Prisons Any Better? Twenty Years of Correctional Reform, 77-90. Nelson, W.R., O’Toole, M., Krauth, B., Whitmore, C.G. (1983). New Generation Jails. National Criminal Justice Reference Service. Retrieved from: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/103205NCJRS.pdf Wener, R. (2006). Effectiveness of the direct supervision system of correctional design and management. Criminal Justice and Behaviour, 33, 392-410. dio:10.1177/0093854806186202. Zupan, L.L., & Menke, B.A. (19910. The New Generation Jail: An Overview. In J.A. Thompson and G.L. Mays (eds), American Jails: Public policy issues (p.p. 180-194). Chicago: Nelson-Hall....