The analysis focused explicitely on three criteria to catagorize the prisons. During the analysis it became clear that it was not possible for all criteria to make a link to the other two.
It appears that within the analysed prisons there is very little cohesion between the different regimes, forms and kinds of inmates.
It is unknown if there would be more visible results if different criteria would have been chosen, such as the country/region of the prison, political climate and/or crime commited. At the start of the analysis these criteria seemed the most logical to base the analysis on.
However, what does become clear in the analysis is that the evolution of clear-cut prisontypes stalls in the mid-19th century, except for one building types (telephone pole). After the mid-19th century the evolutionary process in prison types becomes less clear. Different features of certain shapes and regimes get implemented in other types, creating hybrid types of prisons, thus improving and perfecting the prison types by adapting them to the needs of the individual regions and prisons. Hybrid prison types are becoming more common in the modern time, because prisons are becoming more specialized institutions, tailored to the specific needs of the local community and the society.
Due to these developments the regime types, building types and types of inmates become more linked to each other than before.
The development of prison types is much more an evolutionary process than a revolutionary process. New insights obtained from previous types were used to implent or avoid aspects from a certain type into a new regime type or building type. In most regime types you can see the influence of one or more previous types.
There are no fixed connections between regime types, building types and types of prisoners. Only the Centralized system is always connected to either the circular shape or the octagonal shape. Also the Pennsylvania system is mostly inplemented in a star shaped building, but not without exceptions.