American prisons went through a serious of reforms to reflect the current system. The waves of changes were against past abuses, illogical and harsh criminal codes, moral contamination and inhuman treatment in old prisons. Every generation that campaigned for changes in the system had its version of optimism and rationale for resolving challenges in dealing with crime and punishment. In the colonial America, the penalty for crime was maiming, public humiliation and pain. The death sentence was the punishment for rape, serious assaults, murder, grand theft and repeat offenders. On the other hand, less serious offenses such as skipping church, conjuring, lying, and adultery led to severe physical punishment.
Development of The Pennsylvania System
Systematic revision of codes to abolish the death sentence and corporal punishment for most crimes was completed in 1794 (Leonard, 1983). The reformers suggested the establishment of imprisonment system as a punishment instead of the earlier harsh treatment. This program was termed the Pennsylvania system, where law offenders were detained in prisons that were characterized by isolation; they were restricted from any visitors, religious advisors and communication was banned.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The idea of the institution was to create an environment where convicted persons would think about crime in absolute silence and confinement. It was believed that penitentiary would evoke penitence as the solitude would give them time to reflect on their ways, heed to conscience reproaches, expostulation of religious conviction and repent (Randall, 1995). Reformists argued that isolation with no evils or people to distract the offender would give them time to reflect on wrongdoings and change. This treatment accompanied with kindness and guidance was meant to assist offenders in rehabilitating. However, the penitentiary succumbed due to overcrowding of prisons and increase in maintenance cost.
Rise of Auburn System
The challenges of Pennsylvania system promoted the development of a more efficient system. Auburn supporters argued that it was inhuman to put the convicts in solitary houses for years. It was unnatural, and minds broke due to the mental suffering of idle isolation. Instead of causing people to rehabilitate, the Pennsylvania system bred despair and insanity. Auburn was different in that it allowed convicts to work with others in silent harmony. They worked hard and lowered the financial burden of maintaining their incarceration.
Auburn system was based on assumptions of penitentiary apart from solitary confinement that was discouraged due to inordinate attempts of suicide, sickness, and insanity. The congregate system, ‘Auburn’ was installed in 1822 after the complete ban of isolation policy. Although the new system had an aspect of silence, inmates were allowed to socialize with others; eat and work together (Adam 1982). However, in the evening, they were expected to stay alone, and correctional officers enforced silence. The construction space required was less, making it much cheaper compared to those in Pennsylvania. Inmates were engaged in workshops and factories hence they generated income. This exploited prison labor and helped cultivate a culture of hard work which was beneficial in shaping the character of prisoners.
Comparison of the Two Systems
Pennsylvania system was characterized by the conversion of jails into several single rooms where inmates were isolated. Solitude was meant to promote penitence as convicts were given time to think and reflect on their misdeeds. On the other hand, Auburn System was structured in a manner that prisoners could associate with each other and they were given time to mediate in the evening (Poortvliet, 2003) . The aspect of isolation in the two systems was meant to encourage rehabilitation.
While in Pennsylvania system prisoners worked individually to make products and train in a trade, Auburn System encouraged inmates to work in factories among other opportunities that came up. Many inmates were able to nurture a skill and gain experience from activities they engaged in. To this end, prisons were able to raise money to maintain the prisons which made it easier to support the population as opposed to Isolation system that fully depended on humanitarian relief.
In both systems, harsh punishment was disgraced and replaced by imprisonment where one would be fully isolated, and later prisoners allowed to mingle with others but spend the evening alone reflecting. The system was then improved to ensure that one was engaged in labor activities they were good at. The Auburn System flourished more compared to Pennsylvania system that faced many challenges ranging from the cost of maintaining the prisons, limited rehabilitation, overcrowding and a lack of space.
Auburn System was healthful and productive as it helped people discover and build skills that could support them after prison life. It is worth pointing out that teaching prisoners to work contributes to reducing crime rates in a country. Most law offenders commit offenses due to financial related reasons and idleness. As a result, learning to work is the foundation of any rehabilitation program of prisoners. In addition, allowing convicts to work with law-abiding citizens promoted self-realization and a need for change.
Conclusion
The American penitentiary system established in 1877 led to significant improvement of the colonial policies on crime and punishment. The reforms lasted because they were ingrained into the systems such that the systems that followed borrowed some aspects from the penitentiary system. Although Walnut Street, Eastern Penitentiary, Newgate experiments and Auburn systems eventually declined, the reforms were not a failure because they inspired humanity ideals that have been propelled to the current system. For instance, the current imprisonment system recognizes rehabilitation of law offenders, training in various courses and tolerance in punishment. The reforms give a history of unique American resolution milestones that spanned for about a century and eventually changed America and the world at large.
References
Adam J. Hirsch, (1982). From Pillory to Penitentiary: The Rise of Criminal Incarceration in Early Massachusetts, 80 MICH. L. REV. 1179, 1193
Leonard, G., (1983). Constitutional Limits on the Power to Restrict Access to Prisons - An Historical Re-Examination https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=100021
Poortvliet, K. (2003). Auburn vs. Pennsylvania Prison Systems. Retrieved from Study.com: http://study.com/academy/lesson/auburn-vs-Pennsylvania-prison-systems.html
Randall McGowen, (1995). The Well-Ordered Prison, in THE OXFORD HISTORY OF THE PRISON 87.
