The penal methods known as the Auburn and the Pennsylvania systems were designed to ensure criminals’ reformation. The latter’s main principle stated that solitary confinement is an optimal way to address the task. Meanwhile, the former’s difference was in adding the shared day work performed by prisoners to single-celling. They were also distinguished from each other by a degree of humanity, practicality, and cost-effectiveness, as well as outcomes and drawbacks.
From the perspective of expenses of the two approaches, the Pennsylvania system seems more challenging to implement. The reason for it is the use of private-industry contracts under the Auburn standards fulfilled by convicts. In this way, the latter’s prisons resemble more economic entities. This circumstance also contributes to faster and better rehabilitation of people staying in the facilities adopting it since they work more intensively and, therefore, realize their positive impact on society. As for the practical aspect of the architecture, it is addressed more efficiently by introducing day work because it covers other population groups’ needs.
Nevertheless, alongside the benefits of both modes of a prison stay, there are significant drawbacks. They are represented by the frequent cases of insanity without socialization for the Pennsylvania model. For the Auburn type of incarceration, the disadvantages are physical cruelty and the need to adjust to living following numerous rules. Thus, the organization of jails under the described practices cannot be viewed as fully beneficial.
In conclusion, the Auburn and Pennsylvania systems present varying ways of regulating offenders’ punishment. The former allows them to rehabilitate better and is more cost-effective and practical. In turn, the latter’s outcomes are more negative due to the absence of communication contributing to people’s appropriate functioning. Therefore, the Auburn type of imprisonment seems more humane as the convicts have more chances for future life in society.