List The Primary Features Of The Pennsylvania And Auburn Sys

List The Primary Features Of The Pennsylvania And Auburn Systems Of Im

List the primary features of the Pennsylvania and Auburn systems of imprisonment. Which are the pros and cons of these system models? What features from the Pennsylvania and Auburn systems have carried forth into today’s prison systems?

NOTE: In order to receive full credit (25 points) you are required to: 1- Respond to the question 2- Use the reading material to support your response. Use APA style to cite the reading material.

Paper For Above instruction

The Pennsylvania and Auburn systems represent two historically significant models of incarceration that emerged in the 19th century, each with distinct philosophies and operational features. Understanding their primary characteristics, advantages, disadvantages, and influences on modern correctional approaches provides valuable insights into the evolution of prison systems.

The Pennsylvania System

The Pennsylvania system, also known as the separate system, was developed in the early 19th century and is characterized primarily by its emphasis on solitary confinement. In this model, prisoners were kept in complete isolation from one another, with the intention of encouraging reflection and penitence. The core features included individual cells, complete silence, and minimal human interaction to foster penitence and moral reform (Schmalleger, 2020). Prisoners were rarely allowed outside their cells, which helped to prevent vice and corrupt influence from others. Their work was often done inside the cells, promoting discipline and self-control.

The Auburn System

The Auburn system, developed concurrently in New York, contrasted sharply with the Pennsylvania model by adopting a congregate system. In this model, prisoners worked and ate together during the day but were kept in solitary confinement at night (Huet, 2008). A distinctive feature was the use of silence during work hours to maintain order and discipline, but prisoners could interact with one another, fostering a sense of communal discipline. The design of the Auburn system included large, congregate work halls where prisoners labored in silence, which was believed to promote efficiency and moral reform through labor and discipline (Clear & Cole, 2019).

Pros and Cons of the Pennsylvania and Auburn Systems

Pros

Both systems shared several advantages. The Pennsylvania system's emphasis on introspection and penitence aimed at moral reform, which could lead to genuine rehabilitation. Its use of solitary confinement reduced opportunities for vice and the spread of corruption among inmates. Similarly, the Auburn system's focus on labor and discipline aimed to instill work ethic and order, which could improve inmates’ skills and prepare them for reintegration into society.

Cons

Despite their aims, both systems exhibited significant drawbacks. The Pennsylvania system’s reliance on total isolation often resulted in mental health issues, including depression and insanity, due to extreme loneliness and sensory deprivation (Sorensen & Kaldor, 2020). The Auburn system’s congregate model, while more cost-effective and practical, sometimes facilitated the spread of violence and vice among inmates. Further, the strict silence rule was stressful and harsh, potentially hindering rehabilitation and fostering resentment (Bramblett et al., 2018).

Features Influencing Modern Prison Systems

Contemporary correctional practices have borrowed various elements from both systems. The emphasis on security and discipline, central to the Auburn model, remains fundamental in modern prisons, especially through the use of lockdowns, surveillance, and regimented routines. The idea of inmate labor, which was institutionalized in the Auburn system, persists today in various forms such as work programs and vocational training, aimed at reducing recidivism and promoting rehabilitation (Clemmer, 2019). On the other hand, the Pennsylvania system’s focus on psychological and moral reform has influenced modern approaches that prioritize mental health services, education, and therapy as integral components of corrections (Davis, 2021). However, contemporary systems tend to balance security, rehabilitation, and human rights considerations, moving away from the harsh punitive elements of earlier models.

Conclusion

The Pennsylvania and Auburn systems laid foundational principles for prison management, emphasizing solitary reflection versus disciplined labor. Their strengths and weaknesses have influenced the evolution of correctional philosophy, leading to a more balanced approach today that incorporates security, rehabilitation, and humane treatment. Understanding these historical models aids in ongoing efforts to improve incarceration practices and reduce recidivism.

References

• Bramblett, T. G., Johnson, M., & Williams, R. (2018). Corrections and the Criminal Justice System. Routledge.
• Clear, T., & Cole, G. (2019). American Corrections. Cengage Learning.
• Davis, L. (2021). Mental health in prisons: Past, present, and future. Journal of Correctional Health Care, 27(1), 56-65.
• Huet, K. (2008). The Auburn System and Its Impact on Modern Corrections. Criminal Justice Review, 33(4), 415-430.
• Clemmer, G. (2019). The Evolution of Prison Labor in the United States. Journal of Prison Education, 24(2), 1-15.
• Schmalleger, F. (2020). Corrections in the 21st Century. Pearson Education.
• Sorensen, J., & Kaldor, P. (2020). Mental health and solitary confinement: A review of the literature. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 73, 101612.