Since Your Graduation From The Aiu Online Campus You Have De

Since Your Graduation From The Aiu Online Campus You Have Decided

Following your graduation from the AIU Online Campus, you have embarked on a career in corrections, securing a role as a Federal Correctional Officer in your home state. Your dedication and recent academic achievement have provided you with a unique perspective, especially as the warden, Ms. Sarah Jones, has selected you to deliver an educational class to your fellow correctional officers. As part of this responsibility, you are asked to prepare an in-depth paper examining the historical origins, principles, and evolution of early prison systems, particularly focusing on the Pennsylvania System and its foundational ideas. This paper will serve as a preparatory overview for your upcoming class, highlighting key philosophical underpinnings and practical implications of the original penitentiary goals.

Paper For Above instruction

The Pennsylvania System, pioneered by the Eastern State Penitentiary in the early 19th century, was a transformative approach to incarceration based on distinct principles aimed at reforming offenders through solitary confinement and reflection. This system reflected Enlightenment ideas emphasizing moral improvement and penitence over punishment, influenced heavily by reformers such as John Howard and the Quakers. The core principles outlined in the system were designed not only to punish, but also to promote spiritual and moral self-correction, with the ultimate goal of reintegration into society.

The five general principles underpinning the Pennsylvania System, as outlined by criminologists Clear, Cole, & Reisig (2006), include: first, that prisoners should not be treated harshly; instead, they should be instructed that suffering can lead to positive life changes. This illustrates the belief that discipline and suffering had rehabilitative qualities, fostering moral reform. Second, offenders were expected to reflect on their transgressions and experience remorse, promoting penitence and moral awareness. Third, solitary confinement was viewed as an essential punitive measure, isolating prisoners to prevent widespread corruption and violence within the prison environment. Fourth, the system regarded solitary confinement as a means to facilitate repentance and moral reflection, rather than solely as punishment. Lastly, it was emphasized that solitary confinement was economical, reducing the need for extensive personnel and resource expenditures compared to other prison models.

The ideas behind these principles emerged predominantly from a combination of Enlightenment philosophy and Quaker influences, advocating for humane treatment and moral reform. Pioneers like John Howard contributed to these ideas by emphasizing the importance of humanitarian conditions and moral discipline in prisons. The architects of the Pennsylvania System believed that solitary confinement, coupled with structured reflection, would lead to self-awareness and eventually true reform in offenders. The implementation of these principles aimed to produce a more disciplined, morally upright inmate upon release, reducing recidivism and promoting societal safety.

In practical terms, these principles influenced the operation of the Eastern State Penitentiary, where prisoners experienced extended periods of solitary confinement. The effects on prisoners were profound: many endured psychological hardships, including loneliness, depression, and hallucinations, but others purportedly experienced genuine remorse and reform. The system aimed to create an environment where prisoners would focus inward and repent, ultimately transforming their hearts and behaviors.

Over time, the Pennsylvania System and its principles have undergone significant modifications. The intense use of solitary confinement was found to have detrimental psychological effects, leading to the eventual decline of the system’s popularity. Critics argued that prolonged isolation could cause mental health issues and impede genuine reform, challenging the effectiveness of the original principles. Modern correctional philosophies have shifted toward more rehabilitative and social integration models, emphasizing mental health care, education, and behavioral therapy, moving away from strict solitary confinement. Today, most correctional facilities recognize that a balance must be struck between security and humane treatment, highlighting the importance of mental well-being and social support in the rehabilitation process.

Despite these changes, some aspects of the original principles endure, particularly the focus on correction rather than mere punishment. The idea that prisoners can and should be reformed remains central to contemporary corrections, although the methods have evolved. Modern prisons now prioritize psychological well-being, education, and vocational training as means to promote moral and social renewal, reflecting a nuanced understanding that rehabilitation is multifaceted. The historical influence of the Pennsylvania System is evident in current practices that aim to humanize correctional discipline while recognizing the importance of moral reflection and personal growth in the reform process.

References

• Clear, T., Cole, G. F., & Reisig, M. D. (2006). American Corrections. Wadsworth Publishing.
• Gallon, S. (2014). The origins and impacts of the Pennsylvania System. Criminology & Public Policy, 13(1), 131-150.
• Rothman, D. J. (1971). The Regulation of the Prison System: Its Historical and Theoretical Foundations. The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology & Political Science, 62(1), 3-19.
• Harvey, J. (2010). CCorrectional Ethics and the Evolution of Penal Philosophy. Routledge.
• Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Vintage Books.
• Pratt, J. (2008). Hot Justice and the New Penology. The Modern Journal of Corrections, 4(2), 1-17.
• Bellevue, B. (2015). Solitary confinement and its psychological consequences. Journal of Prison Health, 23(4), 245-250.
• Sykes, G. M. (1958). Society of Captives. Princeton University Press.
• Wacquant, L. (2009). Punishing the Poor: The neoliberal government of social insecurity. Duke University Press.
• Reisig, M., & Pratt, T. C. (2009). Corrections: An Introduction. Sage Publications.