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)
threats or bad advice, to commit new crimes. Experience offers proofs of this, as numerous as they are lamentable. By means of separate cells, this great difficulty is completely obviated: at Cherry- hill a prisoner inquired, whether his accomplice had been taken, when they had lived in adjoining cells for two years.
It is common in the jails, for the prisoners to form plans and agreements respecting new crimes, and to enter into engagements to assist each other, when they obtain their freedom. The strict silence observed in the Auburn discipline certainly forms a check, to some extent, against these dangerous unions, but it cannot, nevertheless, be so perfect a security against them, as solitude and the prisoners’ utter ignorance of each other.
If we compare the number of relapses, we obtain an instructive view of the effect of the different systems on the prisoners’ moral improvement.
When the classification system prevailed, the
proportion was as follows:
At the old prison in New York the number
of relapses was 11 pr:ct; in Connecticut 25 pr:ct;
in Boston 16 pr:ct.
The Auburn system.
At Wethersfield about 9 pr:ct; at Sing-sing
8½ pr:ct; at Auburn 6¾ pr:ct.
The Philadelphian system.
At Cherry-hill out of 278 liberated only 15
relapses, or not quite 5½ pr:ct.
<< prev. page << föreg. sida << >> nästa sida >> next page >>
