The British Journal of Criminology, 2023, 63, 929–947

https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azac054
Advance access publication 26 July 2022
Article

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjc/article/63/4/929/6650298 by Univ of California (INACTIVE) user on 09 September 2024

‘A Prison Is a Prison’: Perspectives From
Incarcerated Men on the Therapeutic
and Punitive Aspects of Halden Prison in
Norway
Sami Abdel-Salam and Ashley Kilmer*
*
Sami Abdel-Salam, Department of Criminal Justice, West Chester University of Pennsylvania, West
Chester, PA, USA; [email protected]; Ashley Kilmer, Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and
Criminal Justice, Towson University, Towson, MD, USA.

Halden prison in Norway was architecturally designed to create a humane space conducive to mental
wellbeing and motivation for personal growth. However, little is known about how those imprisoned
perceive these design choices and its impact on their daily lived experience. The current study uses data
from surveys and semi-structured interviews to examine the perceptions of incarcerated men at Halden
regarding the prison’s design and its effect on overall impressions of the prison, therapeutic benefits
and experiences of punishment. Findings indicate that although incarcerated individuals acknowledge
the positive design elements of the prison, they do not perceive a therapeutic or motivational benefit.
Furthermore, certain ‘pains’ of imprisonment persist within this environment, and the juxtaposition of
therapeutic design elements and security practices may have unintended punitive effects. Results from
this study serve as an important counterbalance to overwhelmingly favorable impressions of Halden’s
design as mitigating the pains of imprisonment while promoting rehabilitation.

KEY WORDS: therapeutic, prison, architecture, Halden, Norway, motivation

INTRODUCTION
Penal philosophy and prison design
The design and architectural style of prisons as a reflection of correctional philosophy, opera-
tions and punitive conditions of carceral spaces has been a topic of inquiry since the construc-
tion of the early modern-era prisons ( Johnston 2000; Wener 2012). Publications from Italian
architects in the 1400’s discuss the types of building materials and layout necessary to prevent
escape and facilitate guard patrols ( Johnston 2000).1 Philosopher and legal reformist Jeremy
1 For an in-depth review of the history of penal architecture, please see Johnston’s Forms of constraint: A history of prison
architecture (2000).

© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies (ISTD). All
rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: [email protected]
930 • The British Journal of Criminology, 2023, Vol. 63, No. 4

Bentham’s conceptualization of the panopticon and its promise for revolutionizing penal super-
vision practices, is perhaps one of the most well-known scholarly discussions of the role of
prison design on facilitating correctional operations. While Bentham’s panopticon was never
actually realized, many early prisons in Western Europe and the United States used semi-circu-

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjc/article/63/4/929/6650298 by Univ of California (INACTIVE) user on 09 September 2024

lar and radial designs inspired by his vision.
Prison design during the 19th and 20th centuries began to reflect not just supervision style,
but broader goals of punishment and treatment. Early penitentiaries, as their name suggests,
were designed to create an environment of extreme isolation and sensory deprivation that was
assumed best for promoting solemn reflection and penitence by those incarcerated. As shifts
towards treatment and rehabilitation gathered support in the early half of the 20th century, facil-
ities were often branded as ‘reformatories’ and ‘houses of correction’, abandoning the label of
penitentiary along with its practices. The design of these new correctional facilities reflected
this shift in philosophy with buildings that resembled large manors with Victorian and Gothic
architectural elements ( Johnston 2000). Levi Scofield, the architect who designed the Ohio
State Reformatory that was featured in the film Shawshank Redemption, believed the ornate, cas-
tle-like design would inspire younger incarcerated individuals to dedicate their lives to reform
(McKee 2014).
The intent behind modern prison design on mitigating or exacerbating the ‘pains of impris-
onment’ has been studied by the work of Yvonne Jewkes including the use of design elements to
facilitate surveillance activities, promote ‘othering’, control movement, extract labor and manip-
ulate the psychological state of those imprisoned (Hancock and Jewkes 2011; Jewkes 2018).
Modern designs that create open, common spaces and utilize a variety of color, light and tex-
ture can elevate mood, instill hope and facilitate therapeutic goals (Hancock and Jewkes 2011;
Jewkes 2018). In addition to changes seen in the interior of prison facilities, prisons built within
the last 20 years have incorporated principles of biophilic design such as green spaces within
prison grounds. The inclusion of natural elements in prison design has been inspired by the use
of such features in healthcare and occupational settings, as a strategy to improve overall wellbe-
ing ( Jewkes and Moran 2015; Jewkes et al. 2019).

The role of prison design in producing ‘pains of imprisonment’

The design of carceral spaces influences how incarceration is experienced by individuals. One
of the most well-known scholars to study the experience of incarceration is Gresham Sykes
(1958), who identified five types of deprivation encountered while incarcerated collectively
referred to as the ‘pains of imprisonment’: liberty, desirable goods and services, consenting
sexual relationships, autonomy and security. These deprivations can produce a prison culture
of violence, resulting in higher rates of recidivism rather than producing the intended effect
of deterrence. Numerous studies have researched those pains first identified by Sykes and
expanded upon them through the incorporation of more ‘modern pains’ (Fleury-Steiner and
Longazel 2013; Haggerty and Bucerius 2020). These studies have found that incarceration
not only fails to consistently produce a deterrent effect, but that imprisonment can actually
be criminogenic (Spohn and Holleran 2002; Vieraitis et al. 2007; Cid 2009; Nagin et al. 2009;
Listwan et al. 2013; Duwe and Clark 2017; Mitchell et al. 2017). Painful prison conditions such
as highly restrictive environments and high risks to physical safety can produce strain, which if
left unresolved, can result in long-term changes to emotional traits, poor coping strategies and
engagement in violent behavior (Agnew 1992; 2001; Listwan et al. 2013).
Prison design contributes to the production of imprisonment-induced strains through the
associated living conditions and supervision practices. Supervision in radial or spoke-and-hub
design prisons is often indirect, with officers monitoring behavior from centralized locations,
rarely engaging in direct interaction or even existing within the same shared common spaces as
 Therapeutic Effects of Prison Architecture at Halden Prison • 931

those incarcerated. In contrast, the ‘pod’ style prisons that emerged in the 1980s feature smaller
housing units connected by secure passages or yards, each supervised by its own set of officers
( Johnston 2000). These self-contained housing units created new opportunities for more fre-
quent and direct interactions between officers and those incarcerated as well as common areas

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjc/article/63/4/929/6650298 by Univ of California (INACTIVE) user on 09 September 2024

that could be used for programming and recreation. Research has found that the design of the
prison facility, along with accompanying supervision style, impacts how individuals experience
their confinement (Frederique and Sexton 2014). Those incarcerated in facilities that provided
more direct supervision within pod-style prisons described their incarceration as less painful,
more humane and more easily integrated into their existing lives and identities than people con-
fined in warehouse-style prisons with indirect supervision. Studies in other settings (e.g., police
custody), show that how detainees are treated influences legitimacy of authority. Skinn et al.
(2020) found a relationship between material conditions of detention and sense of equal worth
on perceptions of ‘good’ versus ‘bad’ police custody.

Modern prison design, green spaces and therapeutic environments

While the construction and operating costs associated with building new prisons are always
chief concerns, some believe these facilities should include aspects of biophilic design to aid in
promoting health and wellbeing. This makes sense considering poor physical and mental health
during imprisonment often leads to poor reentry outcomes (e.g., employability) (Link et al.
2019). Biophilic design uses natural light, bright color schemes and the inclusion of nature as
a means of enhancing emotional wellbeing and decreasing psychological symptoms associated
with poor mental health (Kellert 2008). It also leverages the restorative and inspirational forces
of nature while providing a safe and functional space (Ryan et al. 2014).
While the extent of the influence of biophilic design on the experience of those incarcerated
is unclear, studies outside of prisons point to its benefits. Aristizabal et al. (2021), e.g., found
an increase in cognitive performance, as well as a decrease in stress, among office workers when
biophilic visual content (e.g., indoor plants) and auditory content (e.g., trickling water) were
introduced in an office setting. Rates of attention were also higher among people working in
interior rooms containing wooden floors, walls and ceilings (Shen et al. 2020). In addition to
characteristics of mental wellbeing, biophilic design has been shown to increase the connec-
tions between people and sense of relationships (Richardson and Butler 2021).
One of the best examples of a prison based on principles associated with biophilic design
is Halden prison in Norway. Halden is a maximum-security, men’s prison located in southern
Norway and is this country’s second-largest prison with a capacity for incarcerating 250 indi-
viduals. When it opened in 2010, it captured worldwide attention for both its exterior and inte-
rior design as well as its prioritization of rehabilitation. While Halden reflects the same core
principles implemented in all prisons across Norway (providing similar treatment services and
supervision practices), its unique architectural design sets it apart ( Jewkes 2018).
Community rooms within the residential units of Halden are equipped with glass paneling
along the exterior walls. Throughout the prison, color schemes and use of natural lighting are
meant to mentally stimulate, reduce feelings of tension and depression and encourage attitudes
conducive towards rehabilitation. Additionally, those incarcerated have large windows within
their private cells. Cell-sharing, a common practice within most prisons, can be a threat to
self-dignity and sense of worth (Schliehe and Crewe 2022). Halden provides a separation of
public spaces (e.g., community room) from individual cells where privacy and sense of auton-
omy help alleviate some of the frustration and psychological harm experienced in a shared space.
Halden’s exterior is filled with tall trees, grassy spaces, walking paths and wooden benches that
blend seamlessly into the natural textures of the environment. Those incarcerated have opportu-
nities to go outside during their recreational time and sit under the trees or walk along the paths.
932 • The British Journal of Criminology, 2023, Vol. 63, No. 4

Since the residential units are separated from other buildings, individuals must walk outside to
go from one site to the other, providing exposure to fresh air.
Along with other Norwegian prisons, Halden incorporates the ‘principle of normality’. This
is a correctional approach that attempts to create an environment within the prison facility that

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjc/article/63/4/929/6650298 by Univ of California (INACTIVE) user on 09 September 2024

mirrors the ‘outside world’ as much as possible (Høidal 2018). The purpose of providing a sense
of normality is to prepare the individual for release and ease their transition back into soci-
ety. For example, the physical distances at Halden between buildings are designed to mimic
the travel one might engage in to go to work. In addition, the cells and community spaces are
designed to feel more residential, and schedules and routines are purposefully created to reflect
those on the outside.
Data on outcomes following release that suggest the inclusion of biophilic design and empha-
sis on normality within Halden and other Norwegian prisons has been effective. One officer
interviewed for a prison reform project in the United States stated that he had never heard of
a sexual assault taking place during the years he has worked at the prison (Bouffard 2019).
Furthermore, re-incarceration rates for those released from the Norwegian prison system aver-
age 16–20 per cent within three years of release, compared to over 50 per cent in the United
States (Deady 2014; Durose et al. 2014; Hall and Chong 2018). On the surface these findings
suggest that Norway’s correctional approach is having some positive effect on reducing criminal
behavior. How much of this is attributable to the design of Halden prison and sense of normality
is unclear.

The current study

While outsiders’ perspectives of Halden tend to focus on exceptional features such as flat screen
TVs, private bathrooms and the idyllic surroundings of the prison (Gentleman 2012; Benko
2015), these amenities may not have as much relevance in the lived experiences of those incar-
cerated or the impact of biophilic design and sense of normality. In order to bridge this gap in
the literature, the current study explores the quality and importance of the physical layout and
architecture of Halden prison and its influence on the attitudes and experiences of those incar-
cerated. Specifically, we examine incarcerated individuals’ perceptions of Halden’s environment
and design features overall, whether individuals perceive the environment as therapeutic or
motivating, whether the environment provides a sense of normality and whether aspects of
Halden’s design minimize some of the pains of imprisonment.

METHODS
Data collection and sample
Data collection took place at Halden prison during a three-week time period during the summer
of 2017. The Research Team (RT) recruited participants from each of the residential units at
the prison (with the exception of the intake unit). In anticipation of hesitancy or disinterest to
participate in study, the RT took careful steps to mitigate the disruption of data collection on
their daily routines and demonstrated respect towards those asked to participate. One month
prior to the RT team arriving at Halden, a flyer was placed within each of the residential units,
as well as various locations on the prison grounds. It included a brief description of the pro-
ject, what participants would be asked to do and when data collection would take place. It also
included names, pictures and organizational affiliations for each member of the RT. The flyer was
intended to acclimatize potential participants to the project and to get them thinking about par-
ticipation prior to the arrival of the RT. Demonstrating respect towards those incarcerated was
also deemed important to the success of the project. Upon approaching each residential unit,
the RT first knocked on the main door and asked for permission to enter, before introducing
 Therapeutic Effects of Prison Architecture at Halden Prison • 933

themselves to individuals within the community rooms and providing a brief explanation as to
the purpose of their presence. After these introductions, the RT spent time answering questions
and engaging in casual conversations with those incarcerated to build initial rapport.
Quantitative data were collected in the form of a structured questionnaire, and qualitative

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjc/article/63/4/929/6650298 by Univ of California (INACTIVE) user on 09 September 2024

data was derived from a semi-structured interview. Participation in the study was voluntary, and
individuals could decide whether they wanted to complete the questionnaire, the interview, or
both. A total of 121 questionnaires were distributed and 81 were returned. The response rate
represents over two-thirds of the questionnaires distributed (67 per cent). Additionally, a total
of 47 interviews were conducted, primarily with participants who also completed a question-
naire. Given the short time-period allocated for data collection and other barriers such as differ-
ing languages spoken by the respondents, this response rate is satisfactory.
It was not the intention of the current study to recruit a representative sample of participants
for the purpose of generalization. Instead, the study seeks to contribute to the extremely limited
existing research that provides first-hand experiences and perceptions of those incarcerated at
Halden. Also, due to the restrictions of which housing units were available to recruit from and
the language barrier with some foreign nations held in the prison, a census sample of those
incarcerated was not feasible. However, as Table 1 below shows, the sample is representative of
the total Halden population in many important regards. Official data on the total population
was provided by the administration of Halden to compare with information collected from the

Table 1. Demographic and offense characteristics of sample versus total Halden population
Response item Sample (n = 81) Total population (N = 248)
Age (mean) 39.8 37.8
Language/nationality (%)
Norwegian 72.8 64.1
English/Foreign National 27.2 35.9
Detention status (%)
Sentenced 70.4 70.2
Remand custody 21.0 29.8
Missing 8.6 –
Type of offense (%)
Violent 36.8 35.8
Property 11.1 12.0
Drug 54.3 35.8
Other 13.6 16.4
Missing 11.1
Average sentence (in years) 5.5 5.9
Missing 22.2
Prior prison (%)
Yes 59.3 –
No 39.5 –
Missing 1.2 –
934 • The British Journal of Criminology, 2023, Vol. 63, No. 4

questionnaire data. While prison administration could not provide reliable data for some infor-
mation that was collected in the questionnaire, there are many similarities between the study
sample (n = 81) and the total population (N = 248) (see Table 1).
Data was collected as part of a larger evaluation study in collaboration with the Norwegian

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjc/article/63/4/929/6650298 by Univ of California (INACTIVE) user on 09 September 2024

Correctional Service (NCS) to identify which aspects of the prison’s architecture and correc-
tional practices are of greatest benefit to those incarcerated. The questionnaire included 116
items used to evaluate various aspects of the prison including the facilities and amenities,
treatment services, educational and vocational training, relationships with correctional staff
and release planning. Most questionnaire items provided Likert-style scales ranging from very
poorly/unlikely to very well/likely, depending on the specific question, for respondents to indi-
cate their level of satisfaction with or utilization of prison services or resources.
The semi-structured interview consisted of 22 questions covering the same general topics as
the questionnaire. The qualitative data adds substantive insight from those incarcerated that is
not obtainable through the questionnaire responses. Interview questions relative to the current
study’s focus on the influence of the prison’s design on rehabilitative and therapeutic efforts
include: ‘how would you describe the physical conditions of this prison?’, ‘is there anything
about the physical conditions and the way Halden prison is built that impacts your sentence in
a positive or negative direction?’, ‘do the physical conditions of this prison motivate you in any
way?’, and ‘how could Halden prison be changed in order to make it a more productive use of
your time while serving your sentence here?’ A total of 47 interviews were completed (26 in
Norwegian and 21 in English), each lasting between 45 and 60 minutes. The interviewer used
an audio-recording device to capture responses and all interviews were transcribed into English.

Data analysis
Questionnaire responses were analyzed using STATA (Version 15.1) to generate descriptive
data such as the percentage of respondents falling into each response category, as well as the
percentage who chose not to answer a given question. Given the relatively small sample size,
comparisons between subgroups of respondents was not methodologically appropriate and
therefore questionnaire data is presented for the full sample. With respect to the qualitative
data, all interview transcripts were uploaded to NVivo qualitative data analysis software for
theme identification, using a two-step coding process. First, an initial coding framework was
developed based on the interview questions and particular areas of interest and involved review-
ing each transcript line-by-line and coding for topics or concepts from this initial framework to
find themes within these content areas (Charmaz 2006; Glaser and Strauss 2009). Additional
codes not previously identified were added to the initial coding framework whenever new top-
ics or themes emerged (Corbin and Strauss 1990; Rubin and Rubin 1995; Charmaz 2006; Berg
and Lune 2007). This second, inductive coding process of developing new codes ‘in vivo’ during
the data analysis allows the researcher to identify unexpected themes within the data that were
not previously identified in the initial coding framework. This dual-step coding process results
in a more comprehensive analysis of the qualitative data (Fereday and Muir-Cochrane 2008).

RESULTS
Perceptions of Halden’s design and physical environment and its impact on overall wellbeing
and therapeutic goals revealed a more complex relationship than what the existing literature
led us to expect, demonstrating that these design elements within carceral spaces may not func-
tion in the same ways as they do in other occupational and institutional settings. Three related
themes emerged from the responses provided to the interview questions (and further supported
by survey data) that are discussed in detail below. First, respondents overwhelmingly described
 Therapeutic Effects of Prison Architecture at Halden Prison • 935

the access to private cells at Halden as the most appreciated amenity and an important protec-
tive factor against the negative aspects of the prison environment. Second, while respondents
viewed other aspects of Halden’s design favorably, they did not perceive the environment having
a meaningful therapeutic or motivating influence. Third, respondents generally considered the

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjc/article/63/4/929/6650298 by Univ of California (INACTIVE) user on 09 September 2024

physical features and amenities of Halden as largely insignificant relative to the punitive aspects
of confinement. Each of these themes are discussed in reference to the existing literature on
environmental design, carceral power and the pains of imprisonment.

‘It’s important to go and have your own space’: the need for privacy in prison
The use of single-occupancy cells at Halden was overwhelmingly the most appreciated feature of
the prison’s design. It was also the only physical design feature that the majority of respondents
perceived as having a therapeutic impact with 85 per cent of survey respondents indicating the
cells contributed positively to their mental health. In the interviews, respondents commented
on the importance of having a private space to retreat to and destress and were highly apprecia-
tive of having such an option within a high-security prison.

Respondent #11: Compared to the States, it’s luxury. Of course, I have my own room, I can
close my door and take off the key.
Interviewer: Other than it being nice to have your own room, does it help or hurt?
Respondent #11: …Nobody can see through my cell door, nobody come and bother me
if I don’t like it, you know, so this is, sometimes ten people in one unit, can make problems
you know, you get tired of listening to everybody talk and music, and this is and that, so it’s
important to go and have your own space.
*****
It’s pretty much okay. You have your own cell, you have your privacy, you have a television,
you can go, you can sleep when you want, you can put the lights out when you want, so pretty
much, physically, it’s okay. (Respondent #15)

The ability to have privacy within the prison was the design feature that was commented on the
most. Respondents acknowledged that they viewed their private cells as a ‘safe space’ to avoid
confrontation or conflict. In addition, the ability to enter and leave one’s room or adjust the
lighting provided a small, but meaningful sense of control that is typically not an option in more
traditional carceral settings. The use of private cells aligns with Norway’s principle of normality,
that aims to have life within the prison mirror life on the outside, to aid in rehabilitation and
transition following release. The ability to go to one’s room, escape the surveillance mechanisms
used within the prison’s common spaces and rest without the disruptions found in multi-occu-
pancy and dormitory style prison housing reflects this attempt at normality (Hyatt et al. 2020).
Respondents who completed the interviews frequently reported that their private cell was
not only a space to gain some privacy or to decompress, but also helped to alleviate negative
emotions such as depression, anger and anxiety.

Yeah, if I’m sitting with one person with these bars and not a lot of light, like a cage… if you put
the animal in the cage and you don’t have contact, they become sad, desperate (Respondent
#12)
*****
Being in my room I mean I have a pretty big desk, I have a bed, I have a TV, DVD player, I
have my own bathroom, I have a fridge you know it doesn’t look like some third world country
that is just, you know, concrete, even though that walls are concrete but it doesn’t have that
sort of typical cell atmosphere. It’s, you know, on my wall I have covered with pictures of my
936 • The British Journal of Criminology, 2023, Vol. 63, No. 4

niece and it’s- you can exist there without being depressed by your atmosphere. (Respondent
#13)

While less frequent, other respondents did comment that the use of private cells not only

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjc/article/63/4/929/6650298 by Univ of California (INACTIVE) user on 09 September 2024

reduced negative emotions but had a positive influence on their mental state. The following
respondent illustrates these sentiments by discussing the ‘good feeling’ that occurs when wak-
ing up and being able to see natural light and flowers as he begins his day:

…waking up in the morning, even though you’re in a cell, the door is locked, so you can’t go
outside, but you have the glass and no bars on the glass, as you just said, and then you look out
and there might be a flower bed in front of you, that’s a good feeling. (Respondent #2)

The impact of single cells as both a protective factor against negative emotions as well as poten-
tially having a positive impact on wellbeing is consistent with existing research on prison
crowding and housing style. For example, a study on cell-sharing in a Dutch prison found that
cell-sharing, rather than higher population density within housing units, was associated with
greater negative perceptions of the quality of prison life (Molleman and Ginneken 2015). In
addition, the loss of privacy has long been considered a primary deprivation and byproduct of
prison living conditions and loss of liberty, that has a negative impact on the wellbeing of incar-
cerated individuals (Sykes 1958; Schwartz 1972). It is clear from both the survey ratings about
single cells and the interview responses that access to private space is an amenity that was rec-
ognized as both rare and highly valuable within carceral spaces. More specifically, the responses
indicate that the use of private cells mitigates at least some aspects of the pains of imprisonment,
particularly those related to the deprivations of liberty, autonomy and security (Sykes 1958).
In a space that is designed for surveillance and control over those incarcerated, the ability to
temporarily retreat into a private space offers respondents a reprieve from the strains, conflict
and unwanted interactions that are often inescapable in punitive environments. Private cells
allow individuals to regain a limited but meaningful amount of autonomy over their actions
and alleviate some of the psychological wariness stemming from the ‘tightness’ of power within
the prison environment (Crewe 2011; Warr 2016). In addition, private cells can provide an
opportunity for individuals to take off the ‘mask’ or persona that they adopt as a survival strat-
egy in prison and reconnect with their ‘outside’ selves. The ability to let that guard down behind
closed doors could help individuals avoid losing their former identities entirely (Goffman 1961;
Schmid and Jones 1991; Frederique and Sexton 2014).

‘A prison is a prison’: therapeutic impact of prison design

In addition to avoiding the anemic and dehumanizing design choices of traditional prisons,
Halden was built with the intention that the physical spaces, color and incorporation of natural
elements would produce a positive psychological effect through mood enhancement (Hancock
and Jewkes 2011; Ballew and Omoto 2018; Jewkes 2018). Within this therapeutic environ-
ment, residents could use their time while incarcerated more productively. From an outsider’s
perspective, the physical space, amenities and environment provided by Halden prison appear
well-aligned with the goal of encouraging the mental wellbeing and rehabilitation of residents.
However, the responses of those incarcerated at Halden provided only mixed support for this
assumption that a softer, greener physical design can produce motivating or therapeutic effects
within a carceral space. The vast majority of survey respondents acknowledged the physical
space and environment either somewhat (41 per cent) or very much (38 per cent) contributed
to a positive atmosphere. However, fewer respondents perceived the prison’s design as either
somewhat (30 per cent) or very much (27 per cent) reducing the feelings of punishment and
 Therapeutic Effects of Prison Architecture at Halden Prison • 937

59 per cent of respondents indicated that the physical environment provided little or no moti-
vation for treatment.
Similarly, interview responses reflected an overall sentiment that although the physical design
of Halden was aesthetically pleasing and offered more amenities than other prison facilities, it

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjc/article/63/4/929/6650298 by Univ of California (INACTIVE) user on 09 September 2024

did not produce any direct therapeutic or motivating effects. There were two, related explana-
tions provided by respondents regarding the lack of perceived therapeutic benefits. The first was
a sense of disappointment or frustration resulting from a disconnect between expectations they
had about Halden’s environment and the reality they encountered. Several respondents shared
that their expectations of Halden were informed by media depictions or descriptions from other
individuals who had served time or were familiar with the prison and were disappointed to find
that amenities were more run down than anticipated. Relatedly, respondents voiced frustration
at the discrepancy between what was described in speeches made by prison officials about the
amenities and freedom of movement at Halden and their own experiences within the facility.
The most frequent examples of this disconnect were related to access to outdoor spaces. Despite
community rooms having floor-to-ceiling windows to maximize the use of natural lighting,
many respondents voiced frustration about only being able to look through those windows at
the green spaces, instead of going outside and directly experiencing the sunlight and fresh air.

I think the quality is good. The only thing is not good, is uh, that we are always looking out the
windows, instead of being outside. (Respondent #4)

During one of the interviews, a respondent actually went over to one of the windows and demon-
strated that they were locked and could not be opened. Another individual stated that when
outdoors they ‘have to stick to the asphalt if we’re out walking’. While media coverage often
highlights outdoor access, including photographs or video clips of those incarcerated sitting
outside on benches in grassy areas or strolling along a tree-lined pathway, respondents stated
that they were restricted to 1–2 h per day in small yards and brief supervised walks between
buildings.

So, if I live in something that seemingly looks nice when you bring a camera and push it in
here, like they do several times a week with the international press to show the cells and school
and all that stuff. Yes, it looks nice. But it has nothing to do with our perception of everyday
life. (Respondent #33)

This frustration has been documented in other interviews with people incarcerated in prisons
that incorporate green spaces (Moran and Turner 2019; Reddon and Durante 2019) where
incarcerated individuals are able view the flora and natural settings in and around the prison
but have limited ability to access it. Unlike the benefits of biophilic design in occupational and
caregiving settings, the potential restorative and therapeutic benefits of nature exposure may
be significantly curtailed by the emphasis placed on security and control. Officers’ decisions
regarding access to these natural outdoor elements are more likely informed by an assessment
of perceived security risks rather than perceived therapeutic benefits (Moran and Turner 2019).
The second explanation given about the lack of therapeutic or motivating effects of the pris-
on’s design was that the physical amenities could not overcome the constant awareness that one
was still imprisoned:

I think a prison is a prison. I don’t really feel anything therapeutic about it. Not even a little
bit. (Respondent #15)
*****
938 • The British Journal of Criminology, 2023, Vol. 63, No. 4

Respondent #23: …it really doesn’t matter what it looks like. It does not give me anything
else after I’m released if I have stayed at the world’s finest cell in the world’s finest prison.
Interviewer: Does it motivate you in any way?
Respondent #23: There is no such thing as motivation in squared walls.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjc/article/63/4/929/6650298 by Univ of California (INACTIVE) user on 09 September 2024

Another respondent explained that the surveillance and numerous rules within the prison cre-
ate an environment where one is ‘constantly reminded of where you are…no matter how much
they try to make the area surrounding us feel or seem like a normal situation, it doesn’t work.
You always know that you’re in prison’. Referring back to the individual who demonstrated that
the windows do not open, the natural light was intended to be positive and ‘home-like’, yet
the sealed windows were a continuous reminder that the window was located within a secured
prison facility. The locked windows, restricted movement and surveillance provided evidence
of respondents’ status as a ‘prisoner’, despite intentionally avoiding traditional features of prison
security such as bars on windows. (HLM Arkitektur 2018). The reflections of respondents indi-
cated that while there was an overall appreciation for the amenities and natural design elements
of Halden, the environment was not recognized as having a therapeutic or motivating influence.
Even without the typical physical security features and ascetic interiors found in many carceral
settings, the ‘tightness’ resulting from the application of surveillance and control (Crewe 2011)
served as a reminder that respondents were in a punitive environment.

‘Everything you do, they decide’: the pains of imprisonment persist

The Norwegian Correctional Service (NCS) views the loss of liberty as the purpose of
incarceration and the only deprivation or punishment that should be inflicted. The phys-
ical conditions of the prison are not meant to exacerbate suffering or produce additional
pains beyond losing the freedoms enjoyed on the outside related to work, family and social
life. This approach has been viewed as unconventional and one of the main reasons Halden
has garnered so much attention with press coverage referring to the prison as ‘radically
humane’ (Benko 2015), with critics citing the prison’s design, relatively comfortable and
safe living conditions, amenities and access to green spaces as too ‘soft’ a response to crime.
These reactions indicate that there is an expectation that the State subject individuals to
the pains of imprisonment (Sykes 1958), otherwise those incarcerated will not experience
their confinement as punishment.
The men interviewed at Halden made it clear that despite Halden’s design and amenities, their
incarceration experience was still highly punitive. Almost all of the individuals who were inter-
viewed described similar pains of imprisonment encountered in more traditional prison envi-
ronments. Research on the various deprivations resulting from incarceration have found that
‘concrete’ deprivations related to prison amenities and design, provisions and resources are gen-
erally not perceived as negatively as ‘symbolic’ punishments such as loss of autonomy, identity
and family and social relationships (Rocheleau 2013; Sexton 2015). As one respondent noted, a
beautiful prison environment did not mitigate the punitive experience of being ‘locked up’:

You know the toilet can be made of diamonds, but still, you’re locked up, man. It makes no
difference if it’s made of gold or diamonds, or metal, you’re still locked up, it’s no difference.
(Respondent #14)

Other respondents discussed their incarceration in comparison to their life on the outside, pro-
viding accounts of their experience that aligned with narratives of penal consciousness identified
by Frederique and Sexton (2014). Respondents described feelings that they were disconnected
from their outside lives or that they felt their life was on ‘pause’.
 Therapeutic Effects of Prison Architecture at Halden Prison • 939

… you’re not outside, you’re inside. Meaning it doesn’t matter how beautiful the prison is
outside and all these things because in your heart you’re still connected there. So, everything
is on pause outside, you know? (Respondent #3)

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjc/article/63/4/929/6650298 by Univ of California (INACTIVE) user on 09 September 2024

The perception of punishment as a ‘suspension of life’ (Frederique & Sexton 2014) is asso-
ciated with experience of punishment as low in salience, or importance to their lives, but
high in severity, resulting in a feeling of being stuck while other aspects of life continue to
pass by (pp. 2). Respondents acknowledged that poor living conditions can make the expe-
rience of incarceration far worse, however, individuals were unable to avoid the punitive
experience of feeling disconnected from the outside. While Halden was designed to create
an environment that mirrors life on the outside, respondents’ feelings of detachment to their
outside lives were due to lost social roles and relationships that could not be maintained
while incarcerated.
A loss of connection to family and loved ones was the most frequently reported ‘pain’ of
imprisonment that respondents shared in their interview responses. Many individuals expressed
feelings of shame, grief and sadness about the limited communication with their children and
other immediate family members. Others discussed missing out on important family events
or not having the opportunity to say goodbye to loved ones that passed away while they were
incarcerated.

I usually go to my mother every day and watch a movie with her, eat with her, to keep her
company, so she don’t feel alone. But while I’m in here, I have ten minutes extra to [talk to]
her, so I call her every week, ten more minutes, but they go away too fast. (Respondent #10)
*****
I cannot say bad words about living here you have your own room, you can cook, you can
have a shower…you’re not scared someone is gonna come stab you in the shower or rape you
or something I don’t know…but for me really, it’s prison. I miss my family; I lost my father- he
passed away and my grandmother and my first cousin. It’s prison. (Respondent #9)

Sykes describes the deprivation of liberty as not only the restrictions of movement and other
control measures encountered within the prison but also the limitations placed on communica-
tion with family members, including visits, phone calls and mail (Sykes 1958). While Halden is
not as confining or restrictive as other high-security prisons, interview responses indicated that
the loss of time spent with loved ones was painfully felt.
The second most frequently reported pain of imprisonment identified was the loss of auton-
omy and ability to make choices for oneself. The need to rely on officers to leave their residen-
tial unit to go outside, request additional phone time with family members, schedule medical
appointments or obtain permissions for an extended leave were common sources of aggra-
vation. As one respondent stated, ‘everything you do, they decide’. Halden aligns with other
Norwegian prisons by practicing the principle of normality, attempting to have life on the inside
resemble life outside the prison as much as possible (Høidal 2018). However, respondents did
not feel that the ability to control minor aspects of their daily schedule (e.g., when to go to bed)
compensated for the greater loss of decision-making and personal autonomy.

…it’s like a kindergarten. Our every step is being followed and then they ask the Warden why
inmates are being followed: ‘they’re supposed to follow you when you’re in prison’. If they
think that we have lost the illusion that we’re in prison because it’s nice in here... (Respondent
#23)
*****
940 • The British Journal of Criminology, 2023, Vol. 63, No. 4

I have no feeling whatsoever of normality inside this prison… Every time you move from a
housing unit to medical to the library to places of employment, for those who go there, you are
checked and double-checked, metal detectors, you walk in lines, you move in groups; there’s
no normality whatsoever. (Respondent #16)

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjc/article/63/4/929/6650298 by Univ of California (INACTIVE) user on 09 September 2024

In fact, the limited amounts of freedom provided by Halden, coupled with the prison’s home-
like design and the emphasis on the principle of normality could potentially result in a height-
ened awareness of the loss of autonomy. Shammas (2014) found that the ‘freedom’ provided in
Scandanavian prisons, like Halden, can lead to confusion about one’s role or identity as a ‘prisoner’
and the bounds of freedom within a penal environment that’s intentionally designed to not feel like
a prison. The ambiguity in one’s status and privileges can also result in frustration due to expecta-
tions of autonomy in a prison environment that seeks to mirror outside life but does not permit
individuals to make the decisions about their daily lives that they are accustomed to (Shammas,
2014). In addition, respondents commented on the constant surveillance and presence of correc-
tional officers as further diminishing the limited autonomy they had. There was a perception most
actions were monitored by correctional officers, who were usually only a few feet away except when
individuals were in the privacy of their cells. Several individuals described their autonomy as an ‘illu-
sion’ where it may appear they have choices but there could be negative consequences if they chose
‘wrong’. These sentiments echo the arguments made by Lewis’ essay ‘Humanitarian Theory of
Punishment’ that ‘treatment’ or rehabilitation efforts targeting those convicted of crimes will often
be implemented in ways that are as coercive as more retributive forms of punishment (1953: 55).
The need to anticipate the potential hidden penalties associated with decision-making creates a level
of uncertainty and tension when negotiating those interactions (Crewe 2011; Shammas 2014). As
one respondent stated when describing the prison, ‘physically it’s okay, but psychologically it’s dif-
ferent’, alluding to the pains that persist within carceral spaces, even when more traditional features
of these punitive environments are removed. The experiences and perceptions shared by respond-
ents are remarkably similar to the ‘tightrope act’ described by Crewe (2011: 520) in his discussion
of the pains of self-governance and the ‘tightness’ of institutional authority. Halden was designed to
mostly avoid the ‘heavy’ forms of security and control seen in more traditional maximum security
prisons in the past that stripped almost all autonomy from those incarcerated. Instead, the utili-
zation of ‘soft’ power and self-governance exerts a form of control that is less coercive, but more
invasive and uncertain—less physically violent, but more oppressively paternalistic (Crewe 2011).
It was clear from the responses that the modern amenities of Halden and efforts to create
a sense of normality did not completely eliminate the pains of imprisonment encountered in
other types of correctional facilities. Respondents did not encounter deprivations of goods
and services or safety (Sykes 1958) to the same degree as individuals incarcerated in more tra-
ditional prisons, but they did encounter deprivations to liberty, relationships and autonomy.
The persistence of these pains, even within a prison designed to promote rehabilitation over
punishment, indicates they are not contingent on the physical coldness, lack of amenities or
brutality often found in traditional correctional settings, but are an inherent part of the carceral
experience.

DISCUSSION
Halden has received recognition as a new standard in prison design. The inclusion of biophilic
features and the principle of normality are intended to create a therapeutic environment con-
ducive to mental wellbeing and motivation towards rehabilitative goals. The current study uti-
lized closed-ended surveys and semi-structured interviews to examine whether the intentions
of Halden’s design are actualized in the experiences and perceptions of currently incarcerated
 Therapeutic Effects of Prison Architecture at Halden Prison • 941

individuals. Findings indicate that except for the single cells in residential units, respondents
did not perceive elements of Halden’s design or use of green spaces as therapeutic nor was the
prison environment able to eliminate certain pains of incarceration.
The overwhelming appreciation for the use of single cells was unsurprising given that they

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjc/article/63/4/929/6650298 by Univ of California (INACTIVE) user on 09 September 2024

offer individuals an experience of privacy rarely found in carceral settings. The cells provide
a space beyond the gaze of correctional officers, surveillance technology and other incarcer-
ated individuals, allowing respondents to remove their mask and shed the identity they adopt
(Goffman 1961) when navigating the public spaces of the prison and exist more authentically,
even if temporarily. The cells also mitigate some of the pains of imprisonment by creating a
space where individuals can exercise limited autonomy and experience a sense of freedom from
officer power and control. Furthermore, interviews with correctional officers at Halden report
that acts of violence are rare (Gentleman 2012) and single cells likely contribute to the absence
of violence by providing a space to retreat or isolate from conflict.
A theme that emerged that was perhaps less expected was the overall denial of Halden’s
physical features and green features as therapeutic. Drawing from existing literature on
elements associated with biophilic design in institutional and carceral settings (Hancock
and Jewkes 2011; Ballew and Omoto 2018; Jewkes 2018), it was anticipated that these
elements at Halden would have a therapeutic influence. While respondents spoke posi-
tively about the ability to see greenery and natural light from within their cells and around
the prison grounds, they dismissed the idea that these elements could motivate them or
contribute positively to their wellbeing. We offer two interpretations for these findings.
First, it’s possible that the prison’s environment is producing therapeutic benefits that
are not consciously recognized by those incarcerated. As mentioned previously, physical
altercations at Halden are relatively rare along with other forms of violence. During the
interviews individuals acknowledged that although they are being punished, they did not
have to worry about the threat of being harmed by other incarcerated individuals, which
they knew was a possibility in other prisons. Instead of one’s energy being entirely directed
towards safety and survival, or worse, actively engaging in crime or violence as a means of
survival (Liebling 1999; Viggiani 2006; Lindegaard and Gear 2014; Liebling et al. 2020),
those incarcerated at Halden can focus on education and vocational classes, mental health
and preparation for their release. Therefore, while not consciously perceived, Halden’s
environment and the safety, privacy and peace it provides may have an important influence
on individuals’ capacity to focus on rehabilitation. Norway’s reincarceration rate is one
of the lowest in the world at 20 per cent within two years of release (Deady 2014; Denny
2016), further suggesting that while not explicitly acknowledged, Halden’s incorporation
of biophilic design has resulted in an environment conducive to rehabilitation and release
preparation.
A second interpretation is that the therapeutic impact of the environment is overshadowed
by negative emotions resulting from the disconnect between the expectations incarcerated indi-
viduals had about Halden when imprisoned at other institutions and the realities when they
arrived and found the facilities were not as nice as they anticipated. Relatedly, respondents
were aware of the media attention Halden receives and have witnessed or participated in vari-
ous tours given to government officials, corrections officers and the public. Respondents stated
that the way Halden was portrayed during these events did not reflect the reality of day-to-day
life. One example of this disconnect is the principle of normality. For most adults, normality
includes a significant degree of personal autonomy. However, the ‘tightness’ of power within
the institution removes any illusion that prison life can approximate normality. The avoidance
of prison uniforms and emphasis on vocational training are also meant to convey a message that
individuals are at Halden to gain the skills and resources to desist from offending behavior and
942 • The British Journal of Criminology, 2023, Vol. 63, No. 4

return as fully functioning citizens to their communities. However, respondents were frequently
reminded about their status as ‘inmates’ when interacting with officers or encountering the
numerous restrictions on their movement and decision-making. The frustration resulting from
this dissonance aligns with the concept of ‘desistance signaling’ described by Maruna (2012)

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjc/article/63/4/929/6650298 by Univ of California (INACTIVE) user on 09 September 2024

and the challenge of having one’s ‘rehabilitation’ recognized as legitimate while shrouded in the
stigma of a criminal label. Individuals incarcerated at Halden are expected to signal their desist-
ance from offending behavior by participating in programming and demonstrating prosocial
behavior while moving about a prison designed to mirror aspects of society outside the prison.
The benefits of these efforts are diminished when individuals are subjected to lockdowns,
denied permission to move about the prison or are treated with suspicion or contempt due to
their status as a prisoner. The tension that results from creating a prison environment intended
to encourage incarcerated individuals to practice and demonstrate desistance behavior while
interacting with those individuals as though they are still ‘criminal’ could counteract therapeutic
effects of the environment.
It was clear from the data that efforts to create a humane prison environment at Halden
were not able to fully eliminate the painful aspects of incarceration. Although individuals
at Halden did not experience the same deprivations of safety or goods and services (Sykes
1958), they are still exposed to pains resulting from deprivations of liberty, autonomy and
relationships. These losses are often closely related to aspects of an individual’s identity
and roles they have on the outside (Naser and Visher 2006; Visher 2007; McKay 2018),
and therefore these symbolic punishments (Sexton 2015) may be felt more acutely than
those related to access to certain amenities or living conditions enjoyed prior to their incar-
ceration. As discussed above, the juxtaposition of environmental elements meant to pro-
mote a sense of normality with the prison’s security measures and restrictions produces a
stark reminder of one’s status as a ‘prisoner’ and potentially exacerbates these pains.
In addition, the use of ‘soft’ power (Crewe 2011) and intensive surveillance within the prison
can produce new forms of pain and ‘tightness’ stemming from the uncertainty produced by
frequent monitoring and interactions with staff. Research suggests that the social climate of
a prison, which includes interactions with correctional staff, is associated with wellbeing and
disruptive behavior while incarcerated as well as post-release outcomes (Auty and Liebling
2020). Uncertainty and anxiety can result when individuals are unable to anticipate the out-
come of interactions with staff due to staff variation in use of discretionary power (Crewe 2011).
Frustration and other negative emotions can occur when individuals are exposed to staff who
are disrespectful, unsupportive or fail to follow-through with requests (Butler and Drake 2007;
Hulley et al. 2012; Crewe and Liebling 2015).
The salience of these punitive aspects of their imprisonment may further reduce the ability of
respondents to perceive any therapeutic effects of Halden’s environment. However, it should be
acknowledged that individuals were interviewed while they were incarcerated. It is possible that
once they are released and these pains are removed that the potential therapeutic aspects of the
prison may be more easily recognized. Farrall et al.'s (2014) ambitious qualitative longitudinal
research on desistance from crime of nearly 200 probationers over a 15-year period found that
individuals had significant shifts in their perceptions about their probation experience as time
went on. The strains and accompanying emotions while under supervision influenced their
perceptions about the helpful aspects of their probation and supervision officer. When those
strains or emotions shifted as time went on, the individuals in the study reflected on their prior
supervision differently. The same shift in perceptions could occur with respondents in the cur-
rent study if we had the opportunity to conduct follow-up interviews after their release from
prison. Future research on the effects of the prison environment on rehabilitation and release
preparation efforts would benefit from utilizing a longitudinal research design.
 Therapeutic Effects of Prison Architecture at Halden Prison • 943

Limitations of current study

The current project was not without challenges and limitations. Despite significant efforts by
the RT to recruit participants2 some expressed a reluctance to participate because of ‘research
fatigue’ (Mjåland n.d.) or their concern of being perceived as a ‘snitch’. In terms of the former

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjc/article/63/4/929/6650298 by Univ of California (INACTIVE) user on 09 September 2024

issue, Halden has received a great deal of media and research attention. Many of the potential
respondents are acutely aware of these observations and have become tired of being the subject
of such scrutiny and did not want to participate in another study they perceived to be ‘pointless’.
These concerns highlight the potential burden that research participation can create for incar-
cerated individuals who often receive little direct benefit for their time and contributions. While
direct compensation for participation is often restricted in carceral settings due to ethical con-
cerns about coercion (Eldridge et al. 2011), future research should consider methods for pro-
viding greater agency of research participants, including active involvement in the development,
data collection and analysis of research. The use of narrative criminology (Maruna and Liem
2021) and participatory action research (Payne and Bryant 2018) can de-center the research-
ers’ voice and provide opportunities for incarcerated individuals to engage with research in a
more empowered and meaningful way.
Another limitation is that data was collected during a single summer with individuals cur-
rently incarcerated at the prison. Existing research suggests that incarcerated individuals may
experience their incarceration differently as they move through different phases of their impris-
onment, with those in the early stage of their sentences often reporting the pains of impris-
onment as more severe (Crewe et al. 2017; 2019). The average sentence for our sample is 5.5
years and while we don’t know how much of their sentence respondents had already served, it’s
possible that they experienced their confinement more acutely than individuals incarcerated
for a longer period of time. Additionally, the ability to follow-up with individuals after their
release to see whether their perceptions of the prison have shifted now that they are no longer
incarcerated would provide valuable information about whether therapeutic benefits would be
recognized in restrospect.
A third notable limitation was navigating the linguistic differences between English,
Norwegian and various other languages spoken by several of the respondents. While the study
included both a Norwegian and English version of the survey and language spoken during the
interviews, there were still some who were unable to participate because they did not speak
either language. Others chose to complete the questionnaire in English, with the added obstacle
of translating meaning to and from their own native language.

CONCLUSION
This study provides an important contribution to the existing research on Halden prison and
Norway’s approach towards punishment more broadly. Halden’s record of low violence cou-
pled with much-lauded reentry outcomes indicate that the prison is experiencing some level
of success in their approach to incarceration. However, there are few studies that include data
collected directly from individuals incarcerated at Halden, and the current study’s sample size
is one of the largest available for this difficult-to-access population. The insights provided by
those incarcerated serve as an important counterbalance to the widely held assumptions
regarding the therapeutic benefits of Halden’s architectural design. While those imprisoned at
Halden recognized some of its positive features, they did not perceive them all as a therapeutic

2 The RT prepared for this study knowing the reputation of Halden prison and the high visibility of it through sources such
as the media. It was anticipated that there might be some reluctance by incarcerated individuals to participate in ‘another’ study.
For this reason, the RT planned at length how best to encourage participation. These efforts are detailed at the beginning of the
section Data Collection and Sample.
944 • The British Journal of Criminology, 2023, Vol. 63, No. 4

source of comfort and support for mental wellbeing. Incarceration was still perceived as a pain-
ful experience, largely due to the loss of liberty and autonomy and connections with loved
ones. Furthermore, findings from the current study add to the limited literature on the pains
of imprisonment that persist despite the use of soft power and attempts at normality within

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjc/article/63/4/929/6650298 by Univ of California (INACTIVE) user on 09 September 2024

prisons like Halden. The removal of traditional physical and operational control mechanisms
can lead to unintended ambiguity and frustration when navigating these ‘normalized’ spaces
with a ‘prisoner’ identity. These findings demonstrate the importance of including the voices of
incarcerated individuals about their own experiences into evaluations of the impact of prison
design. Their insights allow for a more comprehensive understanding of the way prison design
can influence the experience of incarceration, and highlight small things that can be done to
increase autonomy, reduce surveillance, increase sense of liberty and maintain important rela-
tionships with loved ones while not compromising security and safety. In particular, designing
prisons with spaces, ideally private, where individuals can exercise some amount of control over
their choices and behavior and increasing opportunities for communication and engagement
with family members can mitigate some pains of imprisonment, thus providing an environment
in which it is more likely individuals can concentrate on therapeutic and rehabilitative goals.

FUNDING
The authors received no financial support from any funding agency to assist with conducting
this study or the preparation of this manuscript.

REFERENCES
Agnew, R. (1992), ‘Foundation for a General Strain Theory of Crime and Delinquency’, Criminology, 30:
47–88.
Agnew, R. (2001), ‘Building on the Foundation of General Strain Theory: Specifying the Types of Strain
Most Likely to Lead to Crime and Delinquency’, Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 38: 319–61.
Aristizabal, S., Byun, K., Porter, P., Clements, N., Campanella, C., Li, L., Mullan, A., Ly, S., Senerat, A.,
Nenadic, I. Z., Browning, W. D., Loftness, V., and Bauer, B. (2021), ‘Biophilic Office Design: Exploring
the Impact of Multisensory Approach on Human Well-being’, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 77:
1–15.
Auty, K. M. and Liebling, A. (2020), ‘Exploring the Relationship Between Prison Social Climate and
Reoffending, Justice Quarterly, 37: 358–81.
Ballew, M. T. and Omoto, A. M. (2018), ‘Absorption: How Nature Experiences Promote Awe and Other
Positive Emotions’, Ecopsychology, 10: 26–35.
Benko, J. (2015), ‘The Radical Humaneness of Norway’s Halden Prison’, New York Times, available online at
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/29/magazine/the-radical-humaneness-of-norways-halden-
prison.html.
Berg, B. L. and Lune, H. (2007), Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences, 6th edn. Pearson.
Bouffard, K. (2019), ‘Could Norway’s Mental Health Focus Reduce Incarceration in Michigan?’ available
online at The Detroit News. https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/special-reports/2019/10/10/
norway-prison-model-fixing-mental-illness-problems-michigan-prisons/1504226001/.
Butler, M. and Drake, D. H. (2007), ‘Reconsidering respect: its role in Her Majesty’s Prison Service’, The
Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 46: 115–127.
Charmaz, K. (2006), Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. London:
Sage Publishing.
Cid, J. (2009), ‘Is Imprisonment Criminogenic? A Comparative Study of Recidivism Rates Between Prison
and Suspended Prison Sanctions’. European Journal of Criminology, 6: 459–80.
Corbin, J. M. and Strauss, A. (1990), ‘Grounded Theory Research: Procedures, Canons, and Evaluative
Criteria, Qualitative Sociology, 13: 3–21.
Crewe, B. (2011), ‘Depth, Weight, Tightness: Revisiting the Pains of Imprisonment’, Punishment & Society,
13: 509–29.
 Therapeutic Effects of Prison Architecture at Halden Prison • 945

Crewe, B., Hulley, S., and Wright, S. (2017), ‘Swimming With the Tide: Adapting to Long-term Imprisonment’,
Justice Quarterly, 34: 517–41.
Crewe, B., Hulley, S., and Wright, S. (2019), Experiencing Long Term Imprisonment From Young Adulthood:
Identity, Adaptation and Penal Legitimacy. HM Prison & Probation Service, available online at http://
www.justice.gov.uk/publications/researchand-analysis/moj.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjc/article/63/4/929/6650298 by Univ of California (INACTIVE) user on 09 September 2024

Crewe, B., and Liebling, A. (2015), ‘Staff culture, authority, and prison violence’, Prison Service Journal, 221:
9–14.
Deady, C. W. (2014), Incarceration and Recidivism: Lessons From Abroad. Pell Center for International
Relations and Public Policy Report.
Denny, M. (2016), ‘Norway’s Prison System: Investigating Recidivism and Reintegration’, Bridges: A Journal
of Student Research, 10: 2.
Durose, M. R., Cooper, A. D., and Snyder, H. N. (2014), Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 30 States in
2005: Patterns From 2005 to 2010, Vol. 28. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice
Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Duwe, G. and Clark, V. (2017), ‘The Rehabilitative Ideal Versus the Criminogenic Reality: The Consequences
of Warehousing Prisoners’, Corrections, 2: 41–69.
Eldridge, G. D., Johnson, M. E., Brems, C., and Corey, S. L. (2011), ‘Ethical Challenges in Conducting
Psychiatric or Mental Health Research in Correctional Settings’, AJOB Primary Research, 2: 42–51.
Farrall, S., Hunter, B., Sharpe, G., and Calverley, A. (2014), Criminal Careers in Transition: The Social Context
of Desistance from Crime. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fereday, J. and Muir-Cochrane, E. (2008), ‘Demonstrating Rigor Using Thematic Analysis: A Hybrid
Approach of Inductive and Deductive Coding and Theme Development’. International Journal of
Qualitative Methods, 5: 80–92.
Fleury-Steiner, B. and Longazel, J. G. (2013), The Pains of Mass Imprisonment. Routledge.
Frederique, N. and Sexton, L. (2014), ‘Through Their Eyes: How Prisoners Make Sense of Their Incarceration’,
National Institute of Justice Journal, 273: 60–65.
Gentleman, A. (2012), Inside Halden, the most humane prison in the world. The Guardian, available online at
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/may/18/halden-most-humane-prison-in-world.
Glaser, B. G. and Strauss, A. L. (2009), The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research.
Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Goffman, E. (1961), Asylums: Essays on the Social Situations of Mental Patients and Other Inmates. Doubleday
(Anchor Books).
Haggerty, K. D. and Bucerius, S. (2020), ‘The Proliferating Pains of Imprisonment’, Incarceration, 1: 1–16.
Hall, P. and Chong, M. D. (2018), ‘A Prison’s Social Climate, and Its Impact on Reintegration and Recidivism’,
James Cook UL Rev., 24: 231.
Hancock, P. and Jewkes, Y. (2011), ‘Architectures of Incarceration: The Spatial Pains of Imprisonment’,
Punishment & Society, 13: 611–29.
HLM Arkitekture. (2018), ‘Halden Prison’, available online at https://hlm.no/en/projects/
halden-prison.
Høidal, A. (2018), ‘Normality Behind the Walls: Examples From Halden Prison’, Federal Sentencing Reporter,
31: 58–66.
Hulley, S., Liebling, A., and Crewe, B. (2012), ‘Respect in prisons: Prisoners’ experiences of respect in public
and private sector prisons’, Criminology & Criminal Justice, 12: 3–23.
Hyatt, J. M., Andersen, S. N., and Chanenson, S. L. (2020), ‘Prison Cells as a Grounded Embodiment of Penal
Ideologies: A Norwegian-American Comparison’, in The Prison Cell, 45–70. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
Jewkes, Y. (2018), ‘Just Design: Healthy Prisons and the Architecture of Hope’, Australian & New Zealand
Journal of Criminology, 51: 319–38.
Jewkes, Y. and Moran, D. (2015), ‘The Paradox of the ‘Green’ Prison: Sustaining the Environment or
Sustaining the Penal Complex?’, Theoretical Criminology, 19: 451–69.
Jewkes, Y., Moran, D., and Turner, J. (2019), ‘Just Add Water: Prisons, Therapeutic Landscapes and Healthy
Blue Space’, Criminology and Criminal Justice, 20: 381–398.
Johnston, N. B. (2000), Forms of Constraint: A History of Prison Architecture. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois
Press.
Kellert, S. R. (2008), ‘Dimensions, Elements, and Attributes of Biophilic Design’, in J. Heerwagen and M.
Mador, eds., Biophilic Design: The Theory, Science, and Practice of Bringing Buildings to Life, 3–19. Wiley.
Lewis, C. S. (1953), ‘The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment’, Res Judicatae, 6: 224.
Liebling, A. (1999), ‘Prison Suicide and Prisoner Coping’, Crime and Justice, 26: 283–359.
946 • The British Journal of Criminology, 2023, Vol. 63, No. 4

Liebling, A., Williams, R., and Lieber, E. (2020), ‘More Mind Games: How “The Action” and “The Odds”
Have Changed in Prison’, The British Journal of Criminology, 60: 1648–66.
Lindegaard, M. R. and Gear, S. (2014), ‘Violence Makes Safe in South African Prisons: Prison Gangs, Violent
Acts, and Victimization Among Inmates’, Focaal, 2014: 35–54.
Link, N. W., Ward, J. T., and Stansfield, R. (2019), ‘Consequences of Mental and Physical Health for Re-entry

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjc/article/63/4/929/6650298 by Univ of California (INACTIVE) user on 09 September 2024

and Recidivism: Toward a Health-based Model of Desistance’, Criminology, 57: 544–73.
Listwan, S. J., Sullivan, C. J., Agnew, R., Cullen, F. T., and Colvin, M. (2013), ‘The Pains of Imprisonment
Revisited: The Impact of Strain on Inmate Recidivism’, Justice Quarterly, 30: 144–68.
Maruna, S. (2012), ‘Elements of Successful Desistance Signaling’, Criminology & Public Policy, 11: 73–83.
Maruna, S. and Liem, M. (2021), ‘Where is This Story Going? A Critical Analysis of the Emerging
Field of Narrative Criminology’, Annual Review of Criminology, 4: 125–46. doi:10.1146/
annurev-criminol-061020-021757.
McKay, T., Lindquist, C. H., Kennedy, E. K., Feinberg, R., Landwehr, J., Bir, A., Payne, J., and Comfort, M.
(2018), ‘Always Having Hope: Father-child Relationships After Reentry From Prison’, Journal of Offender
Rehabilitation, 57: 162–87.
McKee, T. B. (2014), ‘The Genius of Design Behind the Ohio State Reformatory’, Richland Source, available
online at www.richlandsource.com.
Mitchell, O., Cochran, J. C., Mears, D. P., and Bales, W. D. (2017), ‘Examining Prison Effects on Recidivism:
A Regression Discontinuity Approach’, Justice Quarterly, 34: 571–96.
Mjåland, K. (n.d.). ‘Saying No.’ [Blog Post], available online at https://www.compen.crim.cam.ac.uk/Blog/
blog-pages-full-versions/blog-14-mjaland.
Molleman, T. and van Ginneken, E. F. (2015), ‘A Multilevel Analysis of the Relationship Between Cell
Sharing, Staff–prisoner Relationships, and Prisoners’ Perceptions of Prison Quality’, International Journal
of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 59: 1029–46.
Moran, D. and Turner, J. (2019), ‘Turning Over a New Leaf: The Health-enabling Capacities of Nature
Contact in Prison’, Social Science & Medicine, 231: 62–9.
Nagin, D. S., Cullen, F. T., and Jonson, C. L. (2009), ‘Imprisonment and Reoffending’, Crime and Justice, 38:
115–200.
Naser, R. L. and Visher, C. A. (2006), ‘Family Members’ Experiences with Incarceration and Reentry’,
Western Criminology Review, 7: 20–31.
Payne, Y. A. and Bryant, A. (2018), ‘Street Participatory Action Research in Prison: A Methodology to
Challenge Privilege and Power in Correctional Facilities’, The Prison Journal, 98: 449–69.
Reddon, J. R. and Durante, S. B. (2019), ‘Prisoner Exposure to Nature: Benefits for Wellbeing and Citizenship’,
Medical Hypotheses, 123: 13–8.
Richardson, M. and Butler, C. (2021), ‘Nature Connectedness and Biophilic Design’, Building, Research, and
Information, 50: 36–42.
Rocheleau, A. M. (2013), ‘An empirical exploration of the “pains of imprisonment” and the level of prison
misconduct and violence’, Criminal Justice Review, 38: 354–374.
Rubin, H. J. and Rubin, I. S. (1995), Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Ryan, C. O., Browning, W. D., Clancy, J. O., Andrews, S. L., and Kallianpurkar, M. B. (2014), ‘Biophilic
Design Patterns: Emerging Nature-based Parameters for Health and Well-being in the Built Environment’,
International Journal of Architectural Research, 8: 62–75.
Schliehe, A. and Crewe, B. (2022), ‘Top Bunk, Bottom Bunk: Cellsharing in Prisons’, Open Qualitative
Criminology, 62: 484–500.
Schmid, T. J. and Jones, R. S. (1991), ‘Suspended Identity: Identity Transformation in a Maximum-security
Prison’, Symbolic Interaction, 14: 415–32.
Schwartz, B. (1972), ‘Deprivation of Privacy as a Functional Prerequisite: The Case of the Prison’, Journal of
Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, 63: 229.
Sexton, L. (2015), ‘Penal Subjectivities: Developing a Theoretical Framework for Penal Consciousness’,
Punishment & Society, 17: 114–36.
Shammas, V. L. (2014), ‘The Pains of Freedom: Assessing the Ambiguity of Scandinavian Penal
Exceptionalism on Norway’s Prison Island’, Punishment & Society, 16: 104–23.
Shen, J., Zhang, X., and Zhiwei, L. (2020), ‘Impact of Wooden Versus Nonwooden Interior Designs on Office
Workers Cognitive Performance’, Perceptual and Motor Skills, 127: 36–51.
Spohn, C. and Holleran, D. (2002), ‘The Effect of Imprisonment on Recidivism Rates of Felony Offenders: A
Focus on Drug Offenders’, Criminology, 40: 329–58. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.2002.tb00959.x.
 Therapeutic Effects of Prison Architecture at Halden Prison • 947

Sykes, G. M. (1958), The Society of Captives: A Study of a Maximum Security Prison. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Vieraitis, L. M., Kovandzic, T. V., and Marvell, T. B. (2007), ‘The Criminogenic Effects of Imprisonment:
Evidence From State Panel Data, 1974–2002’, Criminology & Public Policy, 6: 589–622.
Viggiani, N. D. (2006), ‘Surviving Prison: Exploring Prison Social Life as a Determinant of Health’,

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjc/article/63/4/929/6650298 by Univ of California (INACTIVE) user on 09 September 2024

International Journal of Prisoner Health, 2: 71–89.
Visher, C. A. (2007), ‘Returning Home: Emerging Findings and Policy Lessons About Prisoner Reentry’,
Federal Sentencing Reporter, 20: 93–102.
Warr, J. (2016), ‘The Prisoner: Inside and Out’, in Y. Jewkes, J. Bennett, and B. Crewe, eds., Handbook on
Prisons, 2nd edn., 586–604. Routledge.
Wener, R. (2012), The Environmental Psychology of Prisons and Jails: Creating Humane Spaces in Secure Settings.
Cambridge University Press.