The Auburn prison system was used for the first time in the early 19th century and its primary characterizer was the fact that inmates were made to work in groups during the night and then allocated individual cells at night with silence being enforced at all times (Banks, 2005). By virtue of the fact that inmates generally tend to be noisy and rowdy, this system advocated for enforced silence whenever necessary, though the usage of this element was rare during the night because the solitary confinement had the effect of taming the violent prisoners (Mays and Winfree, 2008). However, there were calls from different quotas advocating for the minimal usage of solitary confinement and over time, enforced silence developed as a favored alternative. The latter was actually more appreciated by human rights authorities as it had the notable effect of teaching inmates the importance of discipline and mutual respect (Carlson and Garrett, 2008). Consequently, the system was ended up being more of a hybrid of isolation and enforced silence.
The Pennsylvania system unlike the Auburn system advocated for total solitary confinement, in the sense that inmates were kept on their own irrespective of the time of day or the activity they were partaking in (Carlson and Garrett, 2008). Each prisoner had his/her own cell which came fully equipped with a toilet, a bathing area and an exercise yard; a design that was aimed at keeping inmate contact to the bare minimum. The supporters of the Pennsylvania system regarded imprisonment as punishment for criminals and the time given was for the individuals to reflect upon their misdoings and repent for their sins (Banks, 2005). Keeping inmates in groups was seen as distractive to the prisoners and was seen as an impediment to their repentance and ensuing atonement. Due to the 24-hour isolation of inmates, the Pennsylvania system was also known as the “separate” system (Mays and Winfree, 2008). The arrangement of the prison cells in the Auburn system was such that they fell in tiers with one cell directly above the other. The tiers were essentially referred to as blocks and were given alphabetical letter classification depending on the weight of the crimes. Each block had its own color of uniform and the inmates from a particular tier were expected to be properly clad whenever they were out of their cells. Due to the fact that the inmates were constantly working in groups, the Auburn system was also referred to as the “congregate” system (Mays and Winfree, 2008).
Both the Auburn and Pennsylvania systems operated on the premise that prisons were institutions of reformation and as such the inmates were candidates for humane treatment. The prisoners were accorded proper meals, beddings and medical care, and were also allowed to practice their different religions (Banks, 2005). For both systems during the day, the inmates were subjected to hard labor requiring the input of intensive manual force, such as masonry and tilling farms. However, as has been stated earlier, the Auburn system allowed the inmates to work in groups while the Pennsylvania system left the prisoners to work alone (Carlson and Garrett, 2008). For the former, during periods of on-foot movement from one location to another the inmates were forced to walk in perfect unison. This method of harmonizing the shuffling of feet with the right hand on the shoulder of the person in front as the prisoners walked was referred to as the lock-step formation (Banks, 2005).
The two systems offered some formal vocational training aimed at helping the inmates find some footing once their sentences were over. The inmates were given a number of specializations and were encouraged to choose the ones that they were most interested in. Like with every other prison function, the Pennsylvania system provided this kind of training in isolation, while the Auburn system encouraged the provision of vocational training in groups (Mays and Winfree, 2008).
In the Pennsylvania system, meals were served to the inmates in their individual cells while in the Auburn system the meals were presented with all prisoners gathered in one hall (Carlson and Garrett, 2008). However, the Auburn system was designed in such a way that during meals, the prisoners had special seating arrangements and table allocations; a structure that was devised to help reduce noise levels (Banks, 2005). The primary advantages of the Auburn system over the Pennsylvania system included the fact that the inmates themselves generated enough revenue for the running of the facility through the work of their hands and that it was easier for the prison officials to maintain law and order within the institution (Mays and Winfree, 2008).
Between the two prison systems, the Auburn system is the one that most closely resembles the one practiced in modern-day correctional facilities. This is because most of the architecture and principles of prisons in states across the United States borrow heavily from it. Prison institutions today advocate for keeping inmates in groups, with some of them (inmates) sharing cells. Meals are served in groups with pre-designed seating arrangements. Even though the inmates are not required to maintain utmost silence, they are encouraged to speak to each other in low tones and in ways that show utmost mutual respect.
Reference List
Banks, C. (2005). Punishment in America: A reference handbook. California: ABC-CLIO.
Carlson, P.M. & Garrett, J.S. (2008). Prison and Jail Administration: Practice and Theory. Massachusetts: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Mays, L.G. & Winfree, L.T. (2008). Essentials of Corrections. Connecticut: Cengage Learning.