Full resolution (TIFF) - On this page / på denna sida - III. Chapter. Comparisons between the Auburn and Philadelphian penitentiary systems
<< prev. page << föreg. sida << >> nästa sida >> next page >>
Below is the raw OCR text
from the above scanned image.
Do you see an error? Proofread the page now!
Här nedan syns maskintolkade texten från faksimilbilden ovan.
Ser du något fel? Korrekturläs sidan nu!
This page has been proofread at least once.
(diff)
(history)
Denna sida har korrekturlästs minst en gång.
(skillnad)
(historik)
c) Possibility of continuing the proper
observance of the order prescribed.
In this respect the superiority of the
Philadelphian system is evident. The prisoner, shut up
in his solitary cell, is left entirely to himself; the
keeper has only to see that he is properly supplied
with food, materials for Work &c.
The Auburn system on the other hand
requires a constant watchfulness, in order to
maintain among the prisoners that complete silence, on
which the whole discipline and the security of the
keepers themselves depend. But when we consider
the almost irresistible necessity of man, to
communicate his thoughts and impressions, and the
numerous opportunities which offer themselves during
a long continued and often noisy employment, as
also during the meals, it will easily be seen, that
only the fear of severe corporal punishments, can
possibly deter the prisoners from exchanging words
of signs with each other. The despotic right, given
to every keeper, of immediately striking the
refractory, —- for the punishment must follow the
offence closely, -— gives rise to many abuses, and
awakes in the prisoner ill will and discontent
towards those who speak for law and for order,
which feelings exercise an injurious influence on
his inward improvement.
Beaumont and Tocqueville relate, that they
have seen at Sing-sing 900 criminals at work in
<< prev. page << föreg. sida << >> nästa sida >> next page >>
