‘Insufficiently cruel’ or ‘simply inefficient’?

The Howard League and liberal colonial penality in mid‐20th‐century Britain: The death penalty in Palestine and the Kenya Emergency

“…In the 1930s, the purpose of colonial imprisonment was redefined away from violent punishment towards rehabilitation via scientific means (Bruce‐Lockhart, 2017; Hynd, 2015). There was a growing commitment to penal welfarism and emerging networks of professional knowledge in relation to colonial imprisonment (Bruce‐Lockhart, 2017; Hynd, 2015). This professionalisation did not mean coercive violence disappeared from colonial prison systems and the use of corporal punishment against Black African prisoners was sometimes interpreted as a type of ‘civilising violence’ (Hynd, 2015).…”

“…There was a growing commitment to penal welfarism and emerging networks of professional knowledge in relation to colonial imprisonment (Bruce‐Lockhart, 2017; Hynd, 2015). This professionalisation did not mean coercive violence disappeared from colonial prison systems and the use of corporal punishment against Black African prisoners was sometimes interpreted as a type of ‘civilising violence’ (Hynd, 2015). Capital punishment remained in use, as it did in Britain, with rates of the execution of non‐politically motivated criminals not necessarily higher than in the metropole (see Campbell, 2015; Hynd, 2012).…”

“…From the 1920s onwards, colonial penality embraced discourses of reform, emphasising modernisation and becoming more bureaucratic. This shift paralleled changes in the administration of colonialism itself (Hynd, 2015). In the 1930s, the purpose of colonial imprisonment was redefined away from violent punishment towards rehabilitation via scientific means (Bruce-Lockhart, 2017; Hynd, 2015).…”

“…This shift paralleled changes in the administration of colonialism itself (Hynd, 2015). In the 1930s, the purpose of colonial imprisonment was redefined away from violent punishment towards rehabilitation via scientific means (Bruce-Lockhart, 2017; Hynd, 2015). There was a growing commitment to penal welfarism and emerging networks of professional knowledge in relation to colonial imprisonment (Bruce-Lockhart, 2017;Hynd, 2015).…”

“…The establishment of the Howard League's Colonial Subcommittee in 1930 was emblematic of reformist developments, as was its work with the Society of Friends and League of Nations Union to successfully persuade the League of Nations to adopt a set of global minimum standards for prisoners in 1934 (Bruce-Lockhart, 2017). Consistent with the priorities of penal welfarism, provision for women and young people was of particular interest to colonial penal reform, as was the development of probation systems (Hynd, 2011(Hynd, , 2015. However, the 'civilising mission' of liberal colonial penality conflicted with 'the imperatives of indirect rule' (Hynd, 2012, p.89).…”