History of corrections Young Arrington Correction System and Practices August 8, 2012 Comparison and contrast between Auburn and Pennsylvania correctional systems Comparison The Auburn correctional system began at the New York State Prison in 1819 and was referred to as a congregate system. The Auburn beliefs were crime prevention through silent confinement and fear of punishment. In the Auburn system inmates ate and worked in groups during the day and returned to isolation at night. Criminals with serious crimes were kept separated for days without any other inmate interaction or communication.
While being confined the inmates were treated well and given adequate nutrition, but they had no chance or possibility of being relieved of their isolation. This practice ultimately led to mental instability, self-mutilations and suicides. The Pennsylvania system was a solitary system which forced inmates to be completely separated from each other for their entire prison sentence. This system was constructed with the belief that inmates could reflect on their lives, mistakes and realize the value of discipline and appropriate behavior and work habits.
Despite the fact that both the Pennsylvania and Auburn systems were similar and popular they were not universally recognized or accepted. The prisons administration for both varied across the states due to the difference in social and economic conditions. Another important comparison between the Pennsylvania and Auburn system was their strict belief in rehabilitation and establishment of a consistent organized staff and strict military bearing, would be necessary for behavioral improvement.
They both believed that the correctional system would fill the void left from misfortunes of family, religion, society and lack of education. The two systems also shared the idea and objectives of producing model citizens who could work proficiently, submissively and independently. The construction in differentiating the two systems was very important according to C. Banks. The Auburn system was referred to as a congregate but silent system while the Pennsylvania system was referred to as solitary imprisonment.
However, both systems believed that inmates were not actually bad people but the product of an imperfect society and could be rehabilitated with the proper guidance, supervision and strict routine staff. The two systems organization and management led to significant cost differentials. The Auburn system was said to be more economical to construct, organize and maintain, while the Pennsylvania system was less expensive to operate. Contrast
The Auburn system was considered a harsh program where prisoners were only allowed to work together during the day while in complete silence and by night returned to seclusion in a very small cell purposely made so that the inmates would be allowed out for a period of time during the day. The Pennsylvania correctional system was referred to as a Quaker-inspired system which forced the inmates to be separated for their entire prison sentence. Some individuals believed that the Auburn system was just a modified version of the Pennsylvania system.
The two systems were adopted differently by other states. The Pennsylvania system was mainly practiced in the south east region and was quickly discarded by all states except for New Jersey who practiced this system until 1958. Many preferred the Auburn system because of its economic benefits and cost effectiveness. The Europeans favored the Pennsylvania system, stating that it would be more beneficial for an inmate’s soul and that the Auburn system was too lenient and just delayed the improvement and rehabilitation process.
It was believed that the Pennsylvania system produced honest inmates while the Auburn system produced obedient inmates. Conclusion A careful analysis of the Pennsylvania and Auburn correctional systems explains why the Auburn system closely mimcs the modern day correctional systems. The officers in correctional facilities today are no longer as harsh and the inmates have basic human and civil rights that are respected no matter how serious of a crime they’ve committed.
The modern day system does not mimic the Auburn system completely, but has many similar features compared to the Pennsylvania system. Although both systems had different features they’re main principal objectives were to rehabilitate inmates into respected law abiding citizens. References Banks, C. (2005). Punishment in America: A reference handbook. NewYork ABC-CLIO. pp. 45-100 Manaworker, M. B. (2006) Prison management: problems and solutions. Gyan Publishing House. pp. 91-120 Siegel, J. , & Worrall. (2012). Essentials of criminal justice. Boston: Boston: Cengage Learning (8th ed. ). pp. 5-30