Cassidy denied the term “solitary confinement” with the claim that, even though there was only one convict in each cell and convicts were not allowed to communicate with each other, they were not entirely solitary. His claim conveys that the people in charge did not believe they were harming the prisoners by denying them connection with their peers and also hints at the existence of other people with whom the convicts could speak. The most significant of these people included the resident chaplains and visiting clergy.[7] As the Quakers’ objective was to have the convicts re-discover the Inner Light, they provided free access to resources that would help the convicts to do so. These resources included a resident chaplain whose only job was to focus on the spiritual rebirth of the prisoners, missionaries who went to the prisons to conduct revivals, and prisoner access to the Bible, hymnals, and prayer books.[8] The Quakers intended these resources, in tandem with the many solitary hours, to provide convicts with the opportunity to reflect upon their lives and rediscover the Inner Light, and, therefore, become reformed citizens.     
   

Puritan ideology also influenced a penal system—the silent system—that was focused on practicality without the same care the Quakers exhibited for the well-being of the inmates. The Puritans, in contrast to the Quakers, believed that while God chose some for salvation, the majority of humanity was condemned to eternal damnation. When deciding who they believed was eligible for salvation, Puritans did not have faith that convicted criminals fell into that category. Consequently, the Puritan way of designing a prison system did not focus exclusively on the reform of the convicts, as they believed that salvation of actual sinners was not possible. Rather, the Puritan silent system focused on dealing with the irredeemable inmates in a way that Puritans, as the people in charge, could benefit most. 

The Puritans, while they settled all over New England, had a number of communities in New York and Massachusetts. Their occupation and influence in New York allowed for the first silent system-based prison, Auburn State Prison, to arise there in 1817. G. Powers, an agent and keeper there, writes “the whole duty of a convict, in this Prison, is to obey orders, labor diligently in silence, and whenever it is necessary for him to speak to a Keeper, to do it with a humble sense of his degraded situation.”[9] The harshness of Powers’s chosen vocabulary—with words like “duty,” “obey,” and “degraded”—suggests a cold and harsh mindset rather than one that focused on the support of convicts as they attempted rehabilitation. Some critics of the silent system believed that it was cruel to congregate prisoners but not allow them to speak with each other—a practice that reflects the name “silent system.” The Philadelphia North American writes, “There is something like a mockery of human nature, in putting men with hearts and tongues into each other's company, and yet forbid them to speak or make a sign under penalty of stripes, or some other suffering.”[10] While the newspaper was likely biased against the silent system, due to the fact that it was based in a predominantly Quaker area, it nevertheless highlights the moving spotlight of priorities away from the reformation and welfare of the prisoners. Powers also writes in his account of the Auburn State Prison that “one object in the confinement of convicts is, to secure society from their depredations.”[11] However, historian Martin B. Miller explains, “it was but one rhetorical step further to argue that the ‘defense of society’ is also for the good of the offender; to be punished, therefore, to be disciplined, is to be "corrected" and reformed; therefore all things done in the name of punishment may be also justified as reformative.”[12] Using this logic, the silent system was able to justify practices—such as caning a convict so hard for allegedly breaking the rules that the cane started to break—that did not expressly support the reform narrative.[13] The Puritans did not prioritize convicts' spiritual or physical welfare during imprisonment because they believed that most were already damned for eternity.

Due to their contrasting approaches to the management of convicts, the separate and silent systems also demonstrated differing priorities when it came to economics. The construction costs of separate system prisons were substantially more than those of the silent system. For example, the Eastern State Penitentiary, a separate system prison, cost over $600,000 to build, or approximately $1,023 per cell, while the Auburn State Prison, a prison operating under the silent system, cost about $450,000 in total to build, or $584 per cell.[14] Some might assume that since the separate system was almost double the cost of the silent system on a per-cell basis, the separate system administration would prioritize generating revenue. However, this assumption was not the case. The Quakers viewed additional so-called luxury costs, such as new furniture and dining tools, as worthwhile because they were focused on the welfare of the convicts. Warden Cassidy stated, “Cost should not enter into the question of prison-keeping. The prison should be conducted as economically as possible, but the mere question of cost, a dollar or two here and there at the sacrifice of everything else, should not be taken into account.”[15] The warden’s opinion is significant, as he was immersed in the administration of the separate system for 37 years—long enough that his opinions likely reflected those of the separate system administrators more broadly. Conversely, despite the silent system’s low cost compared to the separate system, operators of the silent system were intensely focused on its economics. In reference to the Western State Penitentiary, a silent system-based prison, Cassidy argued that those running it “were impregnated with the idea of making money and making it fast.”[16] The silent system’s focus on making money instead of spending it was a well-known legacy. These differing stances on financial management influenced the style of labor within each system.

The separate system used individual labor as solely a method of reform, not as a means to pay off expenses or as a punishment. While the practices of the separate system-based prisons demonstrate reformist intentions, Warden Cassidy’s words provide further evidence of this view of labor, as he states “the only way to reform any criminal class is to teach them to appreciate the value of industry [...] Labor is not a punishment in any sense, anywhere, or under any condition of circumstances.”[17] Instead of using labor to punish convicts, prison administrators of the separate system believed that the “severest punishment in [their] institution” was to rescind a convict’s labor privileges.[18] So, instead of having negative connotations, labor was a vehicle for convicts to instill self-discipline and healthy work habits.[19] To remain in line with Quaker beliefs, the layout of the cells facilitated the continual separation of prisoners while they labored; each cell had a workbench with materials and a foldaway bed that allowed for more workspace during the day. Because of the Quakers’ influence on the separate system, namely the importance that they placed on keeping convicts away from each other, inmates in this system “work with simple tools, and are largely taught trades,” according to the Wisconsin State Journal in 1887.[20] Simple tools and a workbench in each cell allowed convicts to create products such as nails, shoes, carded wool, and even clothing.[21] However, since the inmates did not have access to machinery, and they had to do every step of the manufacturing process by themselves, the products could not be overly complicated and they were not created in a timely manner, which meant that the convicts’ labor was not very economically efficient. A comparison of the expenses and earnings of twelve state prisons in 1851 demonstrates this inefficiency. For example, the expenses at the Philadelphia state prison (the Eastern State Penitentiary) totaled $17,339, compared to the $11,950 total earnings—not enough to sustain the costs of the system. (See Appendix A) Despite this knowledge, in response to a question about using machinery in prisons, Warden Cassidy states: