Although this “silent” system was incredibly popular with many reformers across the United States and beyond (de Tocqueville wrote of it in Democracy in America), Pennsylvania had already developed a vying system. Prohibited from talking at all times, prisoners were confined in separate cells at night and then labored together during the day in workshops modeled on the industrial factory. This regimented work routine and enforced silence issued from American Protestant ethics and the increasingly capitalist logic of the emergent nation. Consequently, the “Auburn System” was developed in New York at Auburn State Prison and Sing Sing Correctional Facility. The reformers believed the penitentiary could serve as a model for family and education, so sought a system that was more rehabilitative than harshly punitive. The state prisons which had emerged out of earlier reform efforts were becoming increasingly crowded, diseased, and dangerous.
In the early to mid- 19th Century, US criminal justice was undergoing massive reform. This digital collection exhibits several documents charting the emergence of the Auburn Prison System. The following introduction to the collection was written by Katie Thorsteinson. At the end of the initial term, however, five-year increments can be added onto to the prisoner's sentence every five years, indefinitely, if the system determines he or she isn't rehabilitated.The creation of the 19th Century Prison Reform Collection was supported by the Grants Program for Digital Collections in Arts and Sciences, awarded to Katie Thorsteinson, doctoral candidate in the Department of English at Cornell University, in 2017. With few exceptions (for genocide and war crimes mostly), judges can only sentence criminals to a maximum of 21 years. The maximum life sentence in Norway shows just how serious the country is about its unique approach. A 2007 report on recidivism released by the US Department of Justice found that strict incarceration actually increases offender recidivism, while facilities that incorporate "cognitive-behavioral programs rooted in social learning theory" are the most effective at keeping ex-cons out of jail. Norway adopts a less punitive approach than the US and focuses on making sure prisoners don't come back. In his words though, "Americans want their prisoners punished first and rehabilitated second." In general, prison should have five goals, as described by criminologist Bob Cameron : retribution, incapacitation, deterrence, restoration, and rehabilitation. For Norway, removing people's freedom is enough of a punishment. That means no bars on the windows, kitchens fully equipped with sharp objects, and friendships between guards and inmates.
The 75-acre facility maintains as much "normalcy" as possible. Take a look at Halden Prison, and you'll see what we mean. This system focuses on rehabilitating prisoners. So how does Norway accomplish this feat? The country relies on a concept called " restorative justice ," which aims to repair the harm caused by crime rather than punish people. Few citizens there go to prison, and those who do usually go only once. The majority of crimes reported to police there are theft-related incidents, and violent crime is mostly confined to areas with drug trafficking and gang problems.īased on that information, it's safe to assume Norway's criminal justice system is doing something right. Norway also has a relatively low level of crime compared to the US, according to the Bureau of Diplomatic Security.
The US has one of the highest: 76.6% of prisoners are re-arrested within five years. It has one of the lowest recidivism rates in the world at 20%. On top of that, when criminals in Norway leave prison, they stay out.
0 kommentar(er)
