Show on page(s): 

“The rise of the penitentiary and confinement as punishment was accompanied by the debate about the Auburn and Pennsylvania systems, both of which imposed isolation from fellow prisoners and the outside. D. Rothman, The Discovery of the Asylum 82 (1971) (hereinafter Rothman) (‘As both schemes placed maximum emphasis on preventing the prisoners from communicating with anyone else, the point of dispute was whether convicts should work silently in large groups or individually within solitary cells’); id., at 95. Although there were several justifications for such isolation, they all centered around the belief in the necessity of constructing a special setting for the ‘deviant’ (i.e., criminal), where he would be placed in an environment targeted at rehabilitation, far removed from the corrupting influence of his family and community. Id., at 71; A. Hirsch, The Rise of the Penitentiary: Prisons and Punishment in Early America 17, 19, 23 (1992); cf. Friedman 77 (describing the changing attitudes toward the origin of crime). Indeed, every feature of the design of a penitentiary—external appearance, internal arrangement, and daily routine—were aimed at achieving that goal. Rothman 79-80; see also id., at 83.” J. Thomas (concurring), Overton v. Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 126, 143 (2003).