The Pennsylvania system used to be the most commonly used system. The Pennsylvania system is also known as the separate system. It was designed to keep prisoners separate, even as they worked, as a condition of their punishment. The Philadelphia Society for Alleviating the Miseries of Public Prisons originally developed the idea. The Auburn system was first implemented in 1819 at the New York State Prison at Auburn. The Auburn system is considered a less pure model than the Philadelphia system. The Auburn prison system is also known as the congregate system. In this system, prisoners are kept together for most of the day. They are kept together during work, meals, and prayer, but return to solitary cells at night. Even thought they are kept together, silence among the prisoners is enforced at all times. The inmate’s work is usually hard labor, which is considered the correct route for their punishment and rehabilitation. Another aspect of the Auburn system is the tier system. Cells are layered …show more content…
The offender should be held responsible for their actions, and should be taken out of society to complete their punishment. I am torn between which system I believe does the most good. I used to believe that no contact with the outside world would always be the best punishment. They committed a crime, and they should pay for it. These days, people with a record can have a very hard time bettering their life after jail or prison. Having some contact with other prisoners, society, and a means to work inside can help with this. It really comes down to whether you believe criminals should be able to start fixing their mistakes during or after their punishment. The cost of these systems is different and should not be ignored, but for my assessment of the systems I have not included a difference in price. This is mostly because I feel as though there are cuts that could potentially be made to make the costs more
Community corrections have more advantages over incarceration and fewer disadvantages. Incarcerating people isn’t working that well and the biggest reason is the overcrowding of prisons. According to a chart in Schmalleger’s book, “prisoners compared vs. capacity” there has been overcrowding of prisons since 1980. We are putting more people in prisons than how much capacity they can actually hold. Not only has the prison population skyrocketed but it also costs a lot of money to house all of those people. Why should we send people to jail if they are convicted of a nonviolent crime when we could put them on probation so we don’t overfill prisons? 49% of convicted inmates committed a nonviolent crime. (Class 12/7/09) If we were to put nonviolent offenders on probation then that would make a lot of room for violent offenders.
In 1682, William Penn arrived in Philadelphia and succeeded in expanding The Great Law. The Great Law emphasized hard labor in a house of correction as punishment for most crimes. In the 1800s, two reformation systems were introduced. These systems are known as the New York System and the Pennsylvania System. The New York System, also known as the Auburn System was a more cost effective labor and the state negotiated contracts with the manufactures. The New York System evolved into the Congregate System. The system believed in hard labor in shops in the day and solitary confinement at night. The rule of silence and strict discipline were used. The New York System believed to have reformation through good work habits and discipline. The only prison to use this system was the Auburn Prison in 1816. If the prisoners were to learn the advantages and satisfaction of hard work and thrift, the New York System believed there could be no better way than to be compelled to work together in harmony, if such a system also offered the potential for inmates to grow and harvest their own vegetables, raise and butcher their own meat, make their own clothes, and manufacture other items for use or sale by the state, such a benefit to the budget could not be
It is 1787 in the home of Benjamin Franklin where a group of powerful Philadelphians held in high esteem have congregated to deliberate a very pressing issue. They are conversing on the present prison institutions established across America and Europe. It seems that the institutions in both countries are known for their appalling conditions. Benjamin Franklin and his colleagues have set out to change the course of prison history. Their plan is to make a prison system based entirely on reform and enlightenment instead of punishment and misery. They believe prisoners should repent and seek God to help them learn from their mistakes, hence the name penitentiary. After many long years, the men finally reach success and the Eastern State Penitentiary is opened in 1829. America was in a time of reform which was obvious by the opening of such a diverse prison. But no matter how much the Eastern State Penitentiary claims to be averse to torture and harsh conditions, it was after all a prison. From the outside, the Eastern State Penitentiary appeared to be marvelous and sensational, but what went on inside of those massive walls was something entirely different. Life at the Eastern State Penitentiary was unspeakable because of the cell life, disease, and treatment that the inmates had to endure.
Society has long since operated on a system of reward and punishment. That is, when good deeds are done or a person behaves in a desired way they SP are rewarded, or conversely punished when behaviour does not meet the societal norms. Those who defy these norms and commit crime are often punished by organized governmental justice systems through the use of penitentiaries, where prisoners carry out their sentences. The main goals of sentencing include deterrence, safety of the public, retribution, rehabilitation, punishment and respect for the law (Government of Canada, 2013). However, the type of justice system in place within a state or country greatly influences the aims and mandates of prisons and in turn targets different aspects of sentencing goals. Justice systems commonly focus on either rehabilitative or retributive measures.
These cells all face a secured central area. Technology plays a major role in keeping the facility up to the highest security standards. Every cell’s doors are controlled remotely and the cells include “video surveillance, motion detection and exterior lighting” (Berge). With these technological security measures, there are also procedural precautions. Inmates are kept in their cells for 23 hours a day until their sentences are completed.
During the early half of the 19th century, there were two new models of prisons being built in the United States. Along with the new styles of prisons being constructed, two new styles of correctional systems were developed, the Pennsylvania system, and the Auburn, New York system (Mays & Winfree, 2009). Although the designs of the actual prisons were dramatically different, both systems shared similar ideals, with regards to how inmates should spend their days. Ultimately, the Auburn system prevailed as the more popular system of corrections in the United States, with some of the system’s correctional philosophies being used well into the 20th century (Mays & Winfree, 2009). Before discussing the actual philosophies, which were used to manage the inmates in each system, we should first look at the difference in the design of the prisons used in each system.
The Pennsylvania system is a method of imprisonment based on the principle that solitary confinement reforms prisoners. The Philadelphia Society for Alleviating the Miseries of Public Prisons, which was mainly made up of Quakers, promoted it. Solitary confinement started in 1829 at the Eastern State Penitentiary in Philadelphia. The Eastern State Penitentiary was founded on the Pennsylvania System. The prisoners there were kept in cells 12x7.5x16 feet. They saw nobody, except for institution officers and occasional visitors. The inmates were kept ...
More are sentencing options are great because just like every person is different, so is the crime. Prison may not always be the most effective response for people, so If courts have options other than incarceration, “they can better tailor a cost-effective sentence that fits the offender and the crime, protects the public, and provides rehabilitation” (FAMM, 2011). Findings have also proven that alternative saves taxpayers money. “It costs over $28,000 to keep one person in federal prison for one year1 (some states’ prison costs are much higher). Alternatives to incarceration are cheaper, help prevent prison and jail overcrowding, and save taxpayers millions” (FAMM, 2011, para. 3). Lastly, alternatives protect the public by reducing crime. There is a 40% chance that all people leaving prison will go back within three years of their release (FAMM, 2011). “Alternatives to prison such as drug and mental health courts are proven to confront the underlying causes of crime (i.e., drug addiction and mental illness) and help prevent offenders from committing new crimes” (FAMM, 2011, para.
Prisons are not places where nonviolent offenders can serve time and then be released a better person, more fit for society. The prison environment is wrong, and as a result a nonviolent offender will leave unimproved. It is my belief that the alternatives of community control programs, rehabilitation programs, and restitution programs are the answers to the sentencing of nonviolent offenders.
As the current prison structures and sentencing process continues to neglect the issues that current offenders have no change will accrue to prevent recidivism. The issue with the current structure of the prison sentencing process is it does not deal with the “why” the individual is an social deviant but only looks at the punishment process to remove the deviant from society. This method does not allow an offender to return back to society without continuing where they left off. As an offender is punished they are sentenced (removal from society) they continue in an isolated environment (prison) after their punishment time is completed and are released back to society they are now an outsider to the rapidly changing social environment. These individuals are returned to society without any coping skills, job training, or transitional training which will prevent them from continuing down th...
Every civilization in history has had rules, and citizens who break them. To this day governments struggle to figure out the best way to deal with their criminals in ways that help both society and those that commit the crimes. Imprisonment has historically been the popular solution. However, there are many instances in which people are sent to prison that would be better served for community service, rehab, or some other form of punishment. Prison affects more than just the prisoner; the families, friends, employers, and communities of the incarcerated also pay a price. Prison as a punishment has its pros and cons; although it may be necessary for some, it can be harmful for those who would be better suited for alternative means of punishment.
Part of the punishment is the elements prisoners must endure while imprisonment. The conditions in prisons can be characterized as harsh and unbearable at times. Cold daunting cells and prison overcrowding evoke mediocracy living conditions (Herzing 2015). Yes, payment for crimes should match the crimes committed. Murders, rapes, and all other odious crimes should evoke a place of lack luster conditions to those of such criminal background (Washington 2016). The amenities once enjoyed by an individual in society should be taken away, if convicted of a crime. The freewill to go to the store, or a movie, to live in certain neighborhoods, should be entities lost due to criminal behavior. Besides the loss of freedoms, how should the prison system effect prisoners?
Both the medical model and the community model were great attempts to better our system of corrections. There major problems were that they did not consider all of the options and the problems that may occur. Combing these three systems seems like it would work because it gives people the opportunities they need while still satisfying the public’s safety in incarcerating them to pay for their crime. Crime will never be completely abolished because people have a free will to act as they wish and some people are just evil. Even though crime will probably never be fully ended, we should may every attempt possible to rehabilitate those who have previously offended to prevent them from re-offending.
All over America, crime is on the rise. Every day, every minute, and even every second someone will commit a crime. Now, I invite you to consider that a crime is taking place as you read this paper. "The fraction of the population in the State and Federal prison has increased in every single year for the last 34 years and the rate for imprisonment today is now five times higher than in 1972"(Russell, 2009). Considering that rate along crime is a serious act. These crimes range from robbery, rape, kidnapping, identity theft, abuse, trafficking, assault, and murder. Crime is a major social problem in the United States. While the correctional system was designed to protect society from offenders it also serves two specific functions. First it can serve as a tool for punishing the offender. This involves making the offender pay for his/her crime while serving time in a correctional facility. On the other hand it can serve as a place to rehabilitate the offender as preparation to be successful as they renter society. The U.S correctional system is a quite controversial subject that leads to questions such as how does our correctional system punish offenders? How does our correctional system rehabilitate offenders? Which method is more effective in reducing crime punishment or rehabilitation? Our correctional system has several ways to punish and rehabilitate offenders.
middle of paper ... ... Prisons need to be structured, orderly, isolated and individualized in order to really rehabilitate the offender. Despite the very strict methods needed in order to accomplish prisoner reformation, this type of punishment was still a far cry from the public executions that were popular in earlier history. Policy makers, the public and a new generation of thinkers are now focused on stabilizing American society and improving the conditions of mankind (Rotham), particularly when it comes to the criminal justice system rather than simply demonstrating power and control to try and maintain deterrence.