Ideas of Pennsylvania System
The Quakers of Philadelphia Society for Alleviating the Miseries of Public Prisons formed the ideas of the Pennsylvania System. This system was started in the Eastern State Penitentiary in the early 1800s and it is called as a separate system. This system was started as Quakers felt that the prisoners could change their lives by living in solidarity.
Principles of Pennsylvania System
The Pennsylvania System of imprisonment involved keeping all the prisons in isolation in a small area where they ate, worked and slept. They were not allowed to meet other prisoners and to visit their family members. This system involved strict discipline and the entrance to their area was very low that is four feet and eight inches. It prisoners to kneel down and hence remind them of the crime they had committed.
Reasons of Implementation
These principles were formed because the founders of the Pennsylvania System because they thought that if the prisoners are kept away from other prisoners, it will prevent criminal activity in the future and they will be isolated from company of human beings. Quakers thought that staying alone would only make them repent about their crime.
Effect upon the prisoners
This method of imprisonment lead to various mental health issues in the prisoners as they had to stay in isolation and harassed by the officers of the prison. It also led to various other problems like memory issues, depression, anger, frustration various other health issues.
Reasons of Change
The Pennsylvania System of imprisonment was changed because it led to various health problems in the prisoners and it required a large amount of staff to keep the prisoners away from each other. The production rates of the goods was low since it was produced by them individually. In 1823, the flaws of this system were changed by the New York and hence a new system called as the Auburn System was formed. It involved working of prisoners together but they were kept separated from others during the night in their own compartment.
References:
Yeung, K. T., & Somashekhar, M. (2016). Sensing agency and resistance in old prisons: A pragmatist analysis of institutional control. Theory, Culture & Society, 33(3), 79-101.
Rubin, A. T. (2015). A Neo?Institutional Account of Prison Diffusion. Law & Society Review, 49(2), 365-400.
75000+ Completed Assignments
100% Secure Payment
