History of Corrections
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
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
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