The Auburn System
"The best prison is the one prisoners consider the worst." - Robert Wiltse, Warden of Sing Sing State Prison
New York opened two prisons during the early 19th century: Auburn State Prison (1817) and Sing Sing State Prison (1828). The Pennsylvania system was initially adopted at Auburn but a wave of sickness and mental illness led to the creation of an alternative system in 1822 (1). In this machine-like system which "reduced the human beings within the prison to automata", the solitary approach of the Pennsylvania system was replaced with a silent system of prison discipline- inmates were isolated at night but congregated in workshops during the day, in silence (1). This system lacked faith in the prisoner's ability to rehabilitate and the prison administrators of this system utilized intimidation and terror tactics. Corporal punishment prevailed and prison authorities ruled with an iron fist.
Even though the labor method employed by the Pennsylvania system was still more effective for the reformation of prisoners (corruption was less common since external contractors were not involved and there was more internal control over production) the Auburn system became the more popular prison system, partly because it was more profitable- the Pennsylvania system put the ESP through bankruptcy at one point (1).
In America, the Auburn system was the prominent prison system in states other than Pennsylvania and became the prototype for present-day American penitentiaries. The Pennsylvania system was eventually abandoned by ESP and other prisons because solitary confinement seemed to lead to an increase in mental illness and the labor system that was a part of it was not enough to sustain the prisons. However, the system was adopted (with some modifications) in European countries such as Norway and has found much success. Is it a coincidence then that the recidivism rate in Norway is half of what it is in America (2)?
Today, a revival of the Pennsylvania system is being seen in America, without the compassionate aspect implemented by the original. Long-term isolation is again being practiced by super-max institutions, even though there doesn't seem to be a correlation between this practice and lower recidivism rates (2). Perhaps the key to successful prison reform lies in the renewal of Quaker attitudes towards imprisonment and an effort to truly rehabilitate prisoners. This starts with treating prisoners humanely and meeting their basic needs, not depriving them of social contact, which is a practice adopted by Norwegian prisons.
Even though the labor method employed by the Pennsylvania system was still more effective for the reformation of prisoners (corruption was less common since external contractors were not involved and there was more internal control over production) the Auburn system became the more popular prison system, partly because it was more profitable- the Pennsylvania system put the ESP through bankruptcy at one point (1).
In America, the Auburn system was the prominent prison system in states other than Pennsylvania and became the prototype for present-day American penitentiaries. The Pennsylvania system was eventually abandoned by ESP and other prisons because solitary confinement seemed to lead to an increase in mental illness and the labor system that was a part of it was not enough to sustain the prisons. However, the system was adopted (with some modifications) in European countries such as Norway and has found much success. Is it a coincidence then that the recidivism rate in Norway is half of what it is in America (2)?
Today, a revival of the Pennsylvania system is being seen in America, without the compassionate aspect implemented by the original. Long-term isolation is again being practiced by super-max institutions, even though there doesn't seem to be a correlation between this practice and lower recidivism rates (2). Perhaps the key to successful prison reform lies in the renewal of Quaker attitudes towards imprisonment and an effort to truly rehabilitate prisoners. This starts with treating prisoners humanely and meeting their basic needs, not depriving them of social contact, which is a practice adopted by Norwegian prisons.
(1) Historic Structures Report. Publication no. 1. Vol. 1. Philadelphia: Marianna Thomas Architects, 1994. Web. 14 May 2016.
(2) "In Norway, A Prison Built On Second Chances." NPR. NPR. Web. 15 May 2016.
(2) "In Norway, A Prison Built On Second Chances." NPR. NPR. Web. 15 May 2016.