









































isparchitecture.com

 Should Architects refrain from 
designing prisons for long-term 
Solitary Confinement? 
– An Open Letter to the 
Architecture Profession

Tom Spector, AIA, with Craig Borkenhagen, Mark Davis, Carrie 
Foster, Jacob Gann, Tou Lee Her, Aaron Klossner, Evan Murta, 
Ryan Rankin, Maria Cristina Rodriguez Santos, Connor Tas-
cott,Sarah Turner, and Spencer Williams

In a profile in the November, 2012 issue of  the 
magazine Architect, activist-architect Raphael 
Sperry, a founder of  the group Architects Planners 
& Designers for Social Responsibility (APDSR) 
discussed his petition to amend the AIA’s Code 
of  Ethics and Professional Conduct to include a 

figure 1: 

pelican bay state 
prison Prison



AP . vol 4 . No 1 . 2019

82

sp
ec

to
r

 e
t.

 a
l.

prohibition on  “the design of  (prison) spaces intended for long-term 
solitary isolation and execution.”1  This issue is both serious and timely. It 
deserves contemplative attention before any action is taken. The purpose 
of  this letter is to provide the the architecture profession a condensed 
analysis of  the possible justification for taking the action Mr. Sperry 
advocates. After review and consideration, we are persuaded that Mr. 
Sperry’s proposal does merit action by the AIA. 

     Far from the prison system’s causing architects to perpetuate injustice, 
the design of  incarceration facilities is a building type showing real 
creativity and concern for prisoner rehabilitation. The article in Architect 
mentions several firms engaged in such work but many others can be 
found to impress the observer with the variety and vitality of  this specialty.2  
Thus, while certainly not without its structural deficiencies, charges that 
the American justice system is incorrigible and that it can only corrupt 
architects’ best intentions do not withstand scrutiny and should not form 
the basis for any AIA calls to action.

     The proposal promoted by APDSR, however, is more targeted than 
this. Specifically, Mr. Sperry is asking AIA members to foreswear designing 
facilities for long-term solitary confinement and for the administration 
of  the death penalty on the concept that these punishments amount to 
human torture, and that architects cannot make themselves part of  any 
torture apparatus. Approval of  the Sperry proposal, then, depends on 
two important assertions: that long-term solitary confinement is torture, 
and that architects, by virtue of  their professional roles, have a special 
responsibility in this situation to oppose policy enacted by democratically 
elected state and federal governments. To maintain the focus and brevity 
of  this document, the controversies surrounding the death penalty will not 
be addressed. We will only take up the case against solitary confinement.

     Prison design for long-term solitary confinement—also called 
disciplinary segregation—in the United States can be traced back to the 
Philadelphia Prison of  1829. Though much studied and even emulated in 
Europe at the time, the practice fell into disrepute in the early twentieth 
century. It was only revived in the late twentieth century during the great 
rise in imprisonment and consequent boom in prison construction. In 
the U. S., more than 80,000 inmates live in some form of  disciplinary 
isolation.3  Approximately 25,000 of  these are housed in what has come to 
be known as “supermax” prisons.4  Though conditions differ from prison 
to prison, a widely accepted definition of  solitary confinement is “the 
physical and social isolation of  individuals who are confined to their cells 
for 22 to 24 hours a day.”5  Typically, prisoners do not enter long-term 



83

isparchitecture.com

solitary confinement from initial sentencing. They 
are placed in solitary as a quick fix to end a variety 
of  disruptions they cause within the prison system.  
Even teenagers are regularly placed in solitary for 
extended periods.6 

     Humans are fundamentally social beings. Much of  
our sense of  reality, of  emotional stability and sense 
of  self  derives from fairly constant interactions with 
other people. Thus, it comes as little surprise that, 
deprived of  this crucial source of  reality, people 
who are already displaying adjustment difficulties 
would quickly become even more unhinged from 
reality in disciplinary segregation. The permanent 
psychological impact of  solitary confinement 
is well-documented.7   Even those who enter 
disciplinary segregation with an apparently strong 
and stable sense of  self  will begin to experience 
a constellation of  psychiatric problems in a short 
period of  time. Isolation panic and delirium are but 
two manifestations of  “confinement psychosis,” a 
medical condition typified by “psychotic reaction 
characterised frequently by hallucinations and 
delusions, produced by prolonged physical isolation 
and inactivity in completely segregated areas”8  

Symptoms of  psychological distress can begin in 
only a few days. A report to the United Nations 
proposed 15 days “as the limit between solitary 
confinement and prolonged solitary confinement.”9 

Stuart Grassian found in his interviews of  49 inmates 
of  the Pelican Bay “Supermax” prison in Northern 
California that “seventeen were actively psychotic…
in urgent need of  hospital treatment, and twenty-
three others suffered serious psychopathological 
reactions to solitary,”10  Surely, we feel compelled 
to conclude, a disciplinary system which results in 
most of  its prisoners suffering severe psychological 
trauma is indistinguishable from torture.

     We are far from alone in this conclusion. The 
Inter American Court of  Human Rights has 
similarly stated in several cases that prolonged 



AP . vol 4 . No 1 . 2019

84

sp
ec

to
r

 e
t.

 a
l.

solitary confinement, in itself, may violate Article 5 of  the American 
Convention on Human Rights: “prolonged isolation and deprivation of  
communication are in themselves cruel and inhuman treatment, harmful 
to the psychological and moral integrity of  the person, and a violation of  
the right of  any detainee to respect for his inherent dignity as a human 
being. Such treatment, therefore, violates Article 5 of  the Convention...” 
The UN Human Rights Committee has objected to “... the practice of  
solitary confinement which affected the physical and mental health of  
persons deprived of  freedom and which amounted to a cruel, inhuman 
and degrading treatment.” Perhaps the most comprehensive statement 
against solitary confinement was expressed by The Istanbul Statement on 
the Use and Effects of  Solitary Confinement, adopted on December 9, 
2007 at the International Psychological Trauma Symposium, Istanbul. 

    It has been convincingly documented on numerous occasions that solitary 
confinement may cause serious psychological and sometimes physiological ill 
effects. Research suggests that between one third and as many as 90 per cent of  
prisoners experience adverse symptoms in solitary confinement. A long list of  
symptoms ranging from insomnia and confusion to hallucinations and psychosis 
has been documented. Negative health effects can occur after only a few days in 
solitary confinement, and the health risks rise with each additional day spent 
in such conditions. Individuals may react to solitary confinement differently. 
Still, a significant number of  individuals will experience serious health problems 
regardless of  the specific conditions, regardless of  time and place, and regardless of  
pre-existing personal factors. The central harmful feature of  solitary confinement 
is that it reduces meaningful social contact to a level of  social and psychological 
stimulus that many will experience as insufficient to sustain health and well 
being.11 

    Despite the United States’ ratification in 1994 of  the Convention 
against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or 
Punishment passed by the United Nations in December 1984,12  the U. 
S. Supreme Court has steadfastly refused to engage the issue of  solitary 
confinement as torture. In cases involving solitary confinement, it has 
in modern times repeatedly reasserted the state’s interests over those of  
prisoners and the right of  the prison administration to institute whatever 
punishment deemed necessary, including solitary.13  Thus, its use is still 
sanctioned by the high court making its torturous features a continuing 
issue here.14  

     The frequent use of  disciplinary segregation, its predictable effects on 
inmates’ psychological states, and its resulting identification with torture 
poses a dilemma for professionals whose work engages the American 



85

isparchitecture.com

penal system. Medical professionals, who are 
charged with safeguarding individuals’ well-being, 
are wholly unable and unwilling to certify who is 
and who is not able to withstand the psychological 
stresses of  solitary confinement. Though in some 
cases, such medical intervention might be a blessing, 
singling out individuals as too psychologically 
fragile for solitary implicitly certifies the rest as 
fit to withstand its rigors—and this is simply 
antithetical to physicians’ ethics.15  As a result, such 
decisions are left for prison administration solely. 
Similarly with architects. The AIA Code of  Ethics’ 
Ethical Standard 1.4 specifies that “members 
should uphold human rights in all their professional 
endeavors.” Since any mainstream interpretation of  
human rights includes the right not to be tortured, 
and since long-term solitary confinement can be 
counted on to inflict substantial psychological 
pain, a recognized form of  torture, the logic 
behind asking architects to forego design of  prison 
facilities for long term solitary confinement appears 
to be a straightforward extension of  the AIA’s 
existing Code of  Ethics. We recommend that the 
AIA adopt Mr. Sperry’s proposal. It is a stand that 
is long overdue.

Endnotes

1. Karrie Jacobs, “Prison Break,” Architect. Nov 
2012. 134-141.  

2. Jim Lewis, “Behind Bars…Sort of,” New York 
Times Magazine, June 10, 2009. See also: http://
weburbanist.com/2011/09/23/not-just-jail-12-
modern-futuristic-fascinating-prisons/ (November, 
2012).

3. Angela Brown, Alissa Cambier and Suzanne 
Agha, “Prisons Within Prisons: The Use of  
Segregation in the United States,” Federal Sentencing 
Reporter, v24n1, October 2011. 46.

4. Daniel P. Mears, “Evaluating the Effectiveness of  
Supermax Prisons,” Urban Institute Justice Policy 



AP . vol 4 . No 1 . 2019

86

sp
ec

to
r

 e
t.

 a
l.

Center, March 2006, 4.

5. United Nations General Assembly Department of  Public Information, 
“Special Rapporteaur on Torture tells Third Committee Use of  Prolonged 
Solitary Confinement on Rise, Calls for Global Ban on Practice,” GA/
SHC/4014, October 18, 2011.

6.“The New York City Department of  Corrections, for example, reported 
that in fiscal year 2012, which ended in June, more than 14 percent of  
all adolescents were held in at least one period of  solitary confinement 
while detained. The average length of  time young people spent in solitary 
confinement at Rikers Island was 43 days.” –“US: Teens in Solitary 
Confinement” Human Rights Watch, October 10, 2012. www.hrw.org/
news/2012/10/10/us-teens-solitary-confinement

7. Stuart Grassian’s report on his career study is perhaps the most complete: 
“Psychiatric Effects of  Solitary Confinement,” Journal of  Law and Policy, 
v22, n325 325-383. For other studies on the health effects of  solitary 
confinement, see Peter Scharff  Smith “The Effects of  Solitary Confinement 
on Prison Inmates. A Brief  History and Review of  the Literature” in Crime 
and Justice vol. 34, 2006 (pp. 441-528); Craig Haney “Mental Health Issues in 
Long-Term Solitary and ‘Supermax’ Confinement” in Crime & Delinquency 
49(1), 2003 (pp. 124-56); Stuart Grassian “Psychopathological Effects of  
Solitary Confinement” in American Journal of  Psychiatry 140, 1983 (pp. 1450-
4). Even attempts to justify solitary appear not to stand up to scrutiny. See 
November 29, 2010 “ACLU and Experts Slam findings of  Doc Report on 
Solitary Confinement.” www.aclu-co.org which criticizes a report written 
by Maureen O’Keefe et al. entitled “One Year Longitudinal Study of  the 
Psychological Effects of  Administrative Segregation,” Denver: State of  
Colorado, October 31,2010.

8. Scott, G. & Gendreau, P. “Psychiatric implications of  sensory deprivation 
in a maximum security prison.” Canadian Psychiatric Association Journal, v14, 
1969: 337-341. 338.

9. United Nations General Assembly Department of  Public Information, 
“Special Rapporteaur on Torture tells Third Committee Use of  Prolonged 
Solitary Confinement on Rise, Calls for Global Ban on Practice,” GA/
SHC/4014, October 18, 2011.

10. Grassian, 349.

11. Available at: http://www.univie.ac.at/bimtor/dateien/topic8_
istanbul_statement_effects_solconfinment.pdf

12. Part 1 Article 1 of  the UN Convention against Torture and Other 
Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment states: “For the 



87

isparchitecture.com

purposes of  this Convention, the term ‘torture’ 
means any act by which severe pain or suffering, 
whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted 
on a person for such purposes as obtaining from 
him or a third person information or a confession, 
punishing him for an act he or a third person has 
committed or is suspected of  having committed, or 
intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or 
for any reason based on discrimination of  any kind, 
when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the 
instigation of  or with the consent or acquiescence 
of  a public official or other person acting in an 
official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering 
arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful 
sanctions.” http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_
doc.asp?symbol=a/res/39/46

13. Hilary McConnaughey, “Punishment 
Narratives: Tracking Supreme Court Jurisprudence 
Concerning Solitary Confinement,” Colgate Academic 
Review, v8, fall 2010. McConnaughey concludes, “In 
sum, the Supreme Court expanded the concept of  
solitary confinement so that it is warranted for a 
variety of  infractions and can be an expected part 
of  a person’s sentence.” (99).

14. Recent Supreme Court attitudes toward 
solitary confinement reverse, somewhat, the 
opinion expressed in the nineteenth century, when 
it observed that solitary confinement “was an 
additional punishment of  the most important and 
painful character,” IN RE MEDLEY, 134 U.S. 160 
(1890) http://laws.findlaw.com/us/134/160.html

15. Jeffrey L. Metzner MD and Jamie Fellner Esq. 
“Solitary Confinement and Mental Illness in U. S. 
Prisons: A Challenge for Medical Ethics,” Journal of  
the American Academy of  Psychiatry and the Law Online, 
v38n1 104-108. March 2010


