Prisons are not social dustbins, yet many societies continue to treat them as such. Prisons have drifted away from the State’s positive obligation to rehabilitate and reintegrate individuals and have instead become spaces of mere incapacitation.
In certain democratic countries such as India and the US, prisons have become an all-purpose administrative shortcut. Whether the issue is of poverty or unemployment; dissent or social unrest; homelessness or substance dependence, imprisonment is the State’s solution for all social crisis. The numbers speak for themselves as 75% of India’s prison population consists of undertrials. There should be no hesitation in acknowledging that the prison has become both a symbolic and literal repository for society’s unresolved failures.
A modern prison must begin with a simple shift in perspective. The prison system of 21st century should see prisoners as future citizens and not permanent outsiders. Its foundation should rest on principles of restorative justice rather than retributive isolation. A 21st century prison should create an environment that strengthens the prospects of resettlement.
States cannot forget that a person stepping inside a prison still remains a citizen of its country as much as any free individual outside its walls. The constitutional promises of dignity, equality and humane treatment do not stop at the prison gate; they remain sacred and binding upon the State. It follows, therefore, that in the 21st century, a State’s role in utilising prisons should not merely be to confine, but to prepare each prisoner for meaningful reintegration into society.
Eventually, reimagining prisons requires moving beyond punitive philosophies and stagnant architectural designs. It should recognise incarceration as a temporary condition and reform as a continuing constitutional obligation.
There is no single solution to prison reform. What confronts us today is the accumulated burden of centuries coupled with punitive philosophies that have pictured prisons among the most feared and despised institutions on Earth. Whether in their architecture, facilities or material conditions, prisons have long been shaped by neglect and indifference. The State’s negative utility approach towards prisons has often been treated as justification for such deliberate deprivation of jails.
Yet, this state of affairs is neither inevitable nor universal. Across jurisdictions, it has become increasingly evident that prisons mirror the moral priorities of the societies that build and maintain them. However, even a nudge towards dignity can disrupt this cycle and make prisons modern.
Recognising this, some nations have started developing creative and context-sensitive approaches to rehabilitate and restore faith in prisoners that may qualify as modern day prison policies. These approaches do not deny accountability; instead, they acknowledge an often ignored truth that most prisoners will eventually return to society.
Among the many reform pathways available, two developments merit particular attention: firstly, the use of literacy and education as tools of rehabilitation and, secondly, modernising the prison architecture to humanise confinement.
The idea of “literacy to liberty” programme is to build academic communities in prison and empower them to become privileged voices. When prisons become spaces of community learning rather than isolation, they can produce voices capable of meaningfully re-entering the society. A few countries have introduced policies that place learning at the centre of prison life, aiming to build academic communities behind bars. Brazil’s reading-based remission model and Argentina’s in-prison university programmes stand out as clear examples of this shift.
Brazil’s remission for reading policy
Brazil has the third-highest prison population in the world, yet a small nudge in prison policy has shown that the focus can shift from incapacitation to rehabilitation. In 2012, Brazil’s Ministry of Justice introduced a prison reform policy with two clear aims: first, to support the reintegration of incarcerated individuals through structured educational activity; and second, to reduce overcrowding in prisons.
Under this program, prisoner-participant can earn a small reduction in their sentence by reading approved books and writing a brief summary or reflection, linking literacy with remission. For each book they read, a participant may receive four days deducted from their sentence, subject to an annual cap of 12 books (48 days of maximum remission), and evaluation of the written work.
Such policy supports rehabilitation by encouraging prisoners towards independent thinking. It also introduces a system of positive incentives, where prisoners are rewarded for choosing activities that contribute to their own development. In this way, the program treats education not only as a tool for learning, but also as a catalyst towards eventual reintegration into the society.
In-prison university programs in Argentina
Argentina is another country that faces significant challenges within its prison system. Yet, instead of ignoring these issues, it has introduced a model that brings universities into prisons. In 2004, Argentina introduced a national prison education programme under the premise that ‘inmates must have full access to education in all its levels and modalities’. Today, 34 out of 70 public universities in the country offer academic programs across 17 of the 24 penitentiary jurisdictions. Notably, 68% of these initiatives were introduced between 2007 and 2022, showing a steady expansion of higher education behind prison walls.
This approach not only creates an academic lifeline within the prison environment, but also establishes a continuous dialogue between life inside and outside. It prepares prisoners to earn recognised degrees, promises their chances of an employment after release and helps bridge the gap between prison society and human morality.
Prison structures which takes their inspiration from panopticon models focus more on constant surveillance and building more solitary cells with narrow openings, poor light and isolation, leaving little room for dignity or mental well-being. So, when a person is reduced to being constantly watched or completely cut off from the society, let alone from prison members, the prison itself works against reform.
A 21st-century prison must move away from this logic. Architecture matters because space shapes behaviour. Prisons should aim towards more human contact and movement as they are not privileges, but a necessity for any change. When prison spaces look less like cages and more like places of discipline, learning and routine, they support accountability rather than undermine it. With this understanding, it is useful to look at how some modern prison models have been designed to reflect these principles in practice.
Henley Halebrown design
At the forefront, Henley Halebrown Architects, based out of London, has conceptualised the idea of a 21st century modern prison that moves away from traditional custodial design. Their proposed design replaces long, linear wings of buildings with a chequerboard pattern of small “houses”, each with its own garden. The objective is to create a prison environment that reduces reoffending by improving prospects of resettlement through education, work and meaningful social engagement that mirrors life outside the prison.
The prison is organised into semi-autonomous houses accommodating 50–70 prisoners each. Within these units, prisoners live, work, and learn together, with direct access to shared courtyards that maintain a psychological connection with nature. The ground floor of each house functions as a common space for meals, meetings, workshops, and leisure, encouraging social interaction and reducing isolation. By clustering shared facilities at the centre, the design creates natural community hubs rather than dispersing activity across the prison.
A key feature of the model is time-based efficiency. The simplified circulation and spatial planning reduce the need for constant movement control, allowing staff to focus more on rehabilitation than security. In doing so, the design reverses the traditional panopticon logic, replacing the central watchtower with a circular circulation system that manages movement through an efficient central “roundabout”.
CF Moller's ‘Storstorm Prison’ design
Storstrom Prison in Denmark offers a clear example of how even a maximum-security prison can be designed with humanity at its foundation. Built for the Danish Prison and Probation Service and designed by CF Moller Architects, the prison was planned with a specific purpose - to support resocialisation while maintaining security. The architecture supports the inmates’ mental and physical well-being and also ensures a secure and pleasant workplace for employees. The design is intended to make the facility less institutional and more like a village community.
From an architectural perspective, the prison cells are grouped into small units of four to seven rooms, arranged around a shared social space. Each unit includes a living area and a common kitchen where prisoners cook their own meals. This daily routine encourages responsibility and a sense of normal life. Colour choices play an important role within the prison structure.
Instead of dull greys, softer and warmer tones are used to reduce stress and create a calmer atmosphere. Natural daylight is prioritised with adequate windows throughout the prison, recognising its importance for mental well-being. Prisoners also have access to indoor and outdoor sports areas, supporting both physical fitness and social welfare.
At a larger scale, the prison is designed in a town-like structure that resembles the surrounding villages rather than a fortress. Its layout includes streets and open squares, and the buildings are kept at a human scale. Hence, the philosophy of rehabilitation is visible in its facilities and architecture rather than merely in their laws and rules.
The prisons models discussed above show that prisons of the 21st century need not be places of despair and exclusion; they can be redesigned with their rehabilitative goals. However, these instances also highlight a glaring truth that rehabilitation is still more of a ideal vision than a reality for the majority of prison systems around the world. Obviously, availability of resources is a big problem, but without sustained political will and administrative commitment, even the most resourceful countries with progressive prison designs and policies risk becoming symbolic gestures rather than catalyst of real change.
Rethinking prisons does not mean invoking smarter policies or tighter administrative control. It begins with a shift in how we, as a society, choose to look at those behind fortified walls. Not every prisoner is a hard-core criminal; many are human beings shaped by the failure of multiple institutions. If the State and its members including ourselves are unwilling to accept this moral responsibility, prisons will continue to function as spaces of neglect and abandonment. They will continue to reflect our collective indifference, rather than our constitutional and ethical ideals. They will continue to reveal that we take human dignity seriously only when it is most convenient to do so.
The real question, then, is not whether humane and modern prisons are possible, but whether we, as members of society, are willing and prepared to take accountability for building and sustaining them.
Sahajveer Baweja is an advocate practicing before the High Court of Rajasthan.