Skip to Main Content
 
 

Global Prison Studies

This libguide gives an overview of critical studies of prisons and incarceration, taking an explicitly global approach. It emphasizes the prison's global development, practice, and logic.

Brief History

China: Ancient China employed various methods of punishment, including corporal penalties, exile, forced labor, and imprisonment. However, it wasn't until the Qing Dynasty (1644-1912) that organized prison systems resembling modern penitentiaries began to take shape. The Qing Dynasty saw high levels of overcrowding, often leading to death and disease. Banishment, considered 'more humane' a punishment than the death penalty, grew in use as as Qing Dynasty rulers were unable to deal with a rapidly growing population (Dikotter 2007, see also Waley-Cohen 1991), very similar to the European transport of convicts to the colonies of Australia and in the Americas. During this period, the Qing government established "yamen" or administrative offices that also served as detention centers for accused individuals awaiting trial or punishment.

The first significant influence of European standards on China's penitentiary system came during the late Qing Dynasty and the early Republican era. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, as China grappled with internal reforms and interactions with Western powers, ideas about modernizing legal and penal institutions gained traction. In the late 1800s, the Qing sent envoys to U.S. and European prisons to observe and bring back prison technologies, both in the form of prison design and in prison order. In a series of deals with foreign powers (namely Great Britain) to 'modernize' their legal code and systems of punishment, in 1905 the Qing began to implement these changes: they abolished bodily dismemberment and beheadings immediately, and began to phase out corporal punishment. "This profound transformation of the regime of punishment entailed an overhaul of the existing detention system: not only should old gaols be reformed in line with modern penal principles current in Europe, but their number had to be drastically increased in order to accommodate a rising tide of inmates, as the custodial sentence became the most common form of punishment next to fines." (Dikotter 2007). As elsewhere, what were intended as reforms for the better treatment of prisoners inadvertently created a huge network of spaces of detention, as well as an ideology that saw custody/imprisonment as the solution to social ills.

One of the pivotal moments of this transition was the establishment of the Beiping Prison (later renamed the First Prison of Beijing) in 1912 under the influence of European models, specifically the U.K.'s Pentonville PrisonBeiping Prison in Beijing was designed based on Western penitentiary principles combined with Chinese architectural design, with separate cells, classification of prisoners based on offenses, and structured routines aimed at rehabilitation rather than mere punishment. This institution marked a departure from traditional Chinese methods of incarceration and set the stage for further changes. As elsewhere, the prison was a “prestige institution” that its supporters hoped demonstrated the country’s modernity, progress, and forward thinking. It is still functioning today, now known as Capital Model Prison.

The early 20th century also saw efforts to codify Chinese criminal law and establish standardized procedures for sentencing and imprisonment. The Penal Code of 1907, influenced by both Chinese legal traditions and Western legal concepts from Germany, France, and Japan, provided a framework for the administration of justice and the management of prisons. China also began collecting criminological data, a practice that allowed them better analysis of crimes committed and from where the accused came from, a criminological enterprise with counterparts in the positivist criminology of Italy which would have a great influence on Latin American and European punitive systems and that manifest there and in the United States in eugenics programs which sought to reduce what it saw as "criminal" populations, often through the prisms of race, class, and gender. The Penal Code of 1907 was not adopted formally until 1912, due to the downfall of the Qing Dynasty in 1911, after the Xinhai Revolution

However, China's 20th-century history, marked by revolutions, wars, and political upheavals, significantly impacted its penitentiary systems. The establishment of the People's Republic of China in 1949 under the Communist Party leadership led to major reforms in the legal and penal spheres. The system expanded with the establishment of labor camps and reform-through-labor institutions, such as the notorious Laogai camps (reform through labor) and Laojiao facilities (reeducation through labor), which became prominent features of China's penal system during the Maoist era. During this time, incarcerated populations exploded; According to Domenach's 1992 study (which, it should be noted, as has been contested), during the early years of the founding of the Chinese Communist Party 4 to 6 million Chinese were held in labor camps, as well as potentially up to 2 million executed for crimes against the party. For more on the prominence of prison camps in China, see Williams 2004.

In the post-Mao era, particularly after the economic reforms of the late 20th century, China witnessed further changes in its penitentiary systems. Efforts were made to improve prison conditions, enhance legal protections for prisoners, and align with international standards of human rights and imprisonment. Despite these changes, concerns persist regarding issues such as overcrowding, judicial transparency, and treatment of prisoners, prompting ongoing discussions and reforms within China's criminal justice and corrections systems. The ongoing detention of Uyghur and other Turkic muslim minorities in Xinjiang Province, a prison population whose numbers the Chinese government so far has not disclosed, is notable in its parallels to racial segregation through the prison system elsewhere, and at the same time for being very much particular to China and to the 20th century. The Chinese government's reticence about releasing prison population numbers, combined with the persistence of Cold War era influence on Western scholarship about the region, makes the study of prisons in China a particularly thorny one, and one that deserves greater examination in the future.

India: 

Prisons in India have evolved from ancient forms of confinement and punishment to modern institutions influenced by colonial legacies, indigenous legal traditions, and contemporary political questions.

Ancient India had various methods of punishment and confinement, including imprisonment, fines, exile, and corporal punishment, as outlined in ancient legal texts such as the Manusmriti and Arthashastra. Prisons, known as "bandi grihas" or "bandi khana," existed in ancient Indian kingdoms and were used to detain criminals, political dissidents, and prisoners of war. However, these early forms of incarceration were often rudimentary and lacked the structured systems seen in modern prisons.

The Mughal Empire (1526-1857) introduced centralized administrative structures that included the establishment of "dungeons" or "qilas" for imprisoning criminals and political opponents. These facilities varied in conditions and management, with some known for their harshness and lack of basic amenities.

During British colonial rule, the Indian penal system underwent significant transformations influenced by Western ideas of punishment, deterrence, and ostensible rehabilitation. The British introduced modern penitentiary concepts, such as the separation of prisoners based on offenses, labor-based rehabilitation programs, and the construction of structured prison buildings.

Saumya Dadoo argues this classification system was instrumental not only in the development of prisons, but in the ‘classificatory logics’ that structured British colonial rule through race and gender. “Central to the rise of the colonial prison regime was the enforcement of classificatory logics, i.e.: defining, ordering and dividing the prison population. Anxieties around “moral contamination”, enmeshed with Victorian era evangelical Christian ideals of morality and discourses around health and hygiene, made the classification of prisoners an essential feature of prison discipline. Classificatory logics were not only a means of managing deviancy and crime but also an end in themselves… used to control and disciplining the native population as a whole.” (Dadoo, Colonial Carcerality: Classificatory Logics and Gender in the Prison Regime of Colonial India, 2019).These prisons were “paradigmatic products of colonial modernity,” in that they were informed by Enlightenment notions of reason and order, and were systems for the control of what the British saw as an unruly and disordered population “predisposed to crime” by way of their race (Waits in ‘Imperial Vision, Colonial Prisons: British Jails in Bengal, 1823–73,’ 2018). For a brief but comprehensive timeline of Indian incarceration, see Raju's 'Historical Evolution of Prison System in India', 2014.

One of the earliest modern prisons in India was the Cellular Jail in Port Blair, Andaman Islands, built in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. But while construction didn't begin until 1896, the Andaman Islands had been used as a penal colony by British colonial authorities since at least 1857, when, in the aftermath of the Rebellion of 1857 (known variously as the First War of Independence, the Indian Insurrection, Sepoy Mutiny, the Indian Mutiny, the Great Rebellion, or the Revolt of 1857), over two hundred rebellion participants were exiled there. Many famous revolutionaries and independence activists were held on the island and later in the Cellular Jail, including Sardar Singh Artillery, Diwan Singh Kalepani, Yogendra Shukla, Batukeshwar Dutt, Shadan Chandra Chatterjee, Sohan Singh, Vinayak Savarkar, Hare Krishna Konar, Shiv Verma, Allama Fazl-e-Haq Khairabadi, and Sudhanshu Dasgupta. In bringing together those considered dangerous by the British state, this prison (and the Indian prison system more broadly) inadvertently functioned as an incubator for the revolutionary thought and revolutionary groups, much like its counterparts in Vietnam, The United States, and parts of Latin America and Africa, which would produce the national movement for independence. The Cellular Jail symbolized the harshness of British colonial rule and became a symbol of resistance and sacrifice in the Indian freedom movement. It is now a memorial and tourist site.

After India gained independence in 1947, efforts were made to reform and modernize the country's prison system. The Prisons Act of 1894, inherited from British colonial rule, was amended and updated to reflect contemporary legal and human rights standards. Indian prisons today operate under the guidance of this act, which outlines regulations for the management, treatment, and rehabilitation of prisoners.

Cellular Jail - Wikipedia

(Cellular Jail on the Andaman Islands, 1911. from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_Jail)

Ross Island, 1872. Precursor to Cellular Jail. from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_Jail

Model Prison of Beijing. Sidney D. Gamble, Peking: A social survey, London: Oxford University Press, 1921

(Model Prison of Beijing Beijing. Sidney D. Gamble, Peking: A social survey, London: Oxford University Press, 1921)

Texts