Auburn State Prison in New York and Eastern State Penitentiary near Philadelphia were influential models of strictly suppressing prisoners’ communication.
Nineteenth-century penal authorities differentiated from solitary confinement the Auburn and Pennsylvania systems for suppressing prisoners’ communication.
While strictly suppressing communication among prisoners, Auburn Prison and Eastern State Penitentiary provided official communication with prisoners.
Auburn State Prison and Eastern State Penitentiary vigorously suppressed prisoners’ communication with family and friends.
Vociferous debates about how to suppress communication among prisoners assumed such suppression actually promoted reformation.
Techniques for suppressing prisoners’ communication at Eastern Penitentiary included keeping prisoners silent, in separate cells, at all times.
Construction and operating cost of the Eastern State Penitentiary near Philadelphia, which pioneered the separate system of suppressing prisoners’ communication. Cost per cell compared to other early U.S. prisons.
Spectator counts and spectator revenue for U.S. state prisons in the 1840s, with time series 1820 to 1862 for Auburn State Prison, New York; and 1829 to 1902 for Eastern State Penitentiary, Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvania law included among authorized visitors to prisons members of the Philadelphia Society for alleviating the Miseries of Public Prisons.
Prisoner deaths, prison populations, and death rates yearly for a cross-section of U.S. state prisons, 1820 to 1843. Some data on race and sex. Comparison to over-all U.S. population.
Distinguished visitors were welcomed to Pennsylvania’s Eastern State Penitentiary and allowed to converse with prisoners held under its separate system.
About 3% of prisoners died per year under the Auburn and Pennsylvania prison regimes in early 19th-century U.S. Much larger figures are incorrect.
In the 19th century, public figures and penal scholars from around the world visited Auburn State Prison or Eastern State Penitentiary and discussed extensively their penal communicative practices.
Penal policy competition: Auburn / silent / congregate system versus the Pennsylvania / solitary / separate system
Benjamin Rush thought that public knowledge that a person had been imprisoned would stigmatize the person and destroy his or her sense of shame.
Richard Vaux and other leading Pennsylvania public figures continued to advocate the Pennsylvania System long after it was abandoned in practice.
Prisoners received, average number, number discharged, number present on Dec. 31 in Eastern State Penitentiary, by year, 1829 to 1903.
Visits per year and per prisoner by members of the Philadelphia Society for Alleviating the Miseries of Public Prisons, 1846-1903, with some per visitor data. Visits to prisoners by moral instructor employed by Eastern State Penitentiary.
While exhibiting prisoners ended early in the 20th century, prisons, especially non-functioning historic prisons, have endured as spectator attractions.
Both the Auburn and Pennsylvania systems for suppressing prisoners’ communication were not able to do so completely in practice.
Prison population growth that exceeded prison cell construction undermined in practice the deliberative consensus to suppress prisoners’ communication.
Ordinary personal visits to prisoners were limited to one every 15 days. Prisoners could mail one letter per day.