Christopher Munn’s Penalties of Empire offers the most comprehensive study to date of capital punishment in colonial Hong Kong and constitutes a major intervention in the historiography of imperial justice in East Asia. Hong Kong occupies a distinctive position in the global history of the death penalty: it was the earliest jurisdiction in East Asia to abolish capital punishment de facto and among the first to do so formally in law. At the same time, it functioned for more than a century as a legally hybrid colonial space in which British common law coexisted with Qing legal norms, Chinese social ethics, and imperial administrative imperatives. Munn’s book takes this hybridity seriously, not as a background condition but as the central analytical problem.
Drawing on exceptionally rich judicial and administrative archives, the author reconstructs the operation of capital punishment over roughly 150 years of colonial rule. The volume builds on Munn’s earlier work on Anglo-Chinese relations and colonial criminal justice, but goes significantly further in theoretical ambition and empirical scope. Rather than treating the death penalty as a discrete legal institution, Penalties of Empire analyzes it as a site where colonial governance, racial hierarchy, migration, political violence, and legal pluralism converged. In doing so, the book moves beyond both celebratory narratives of imperial legal modernization and purely coercive accounts of colonial repression.
The book is structured around nine emblematic capital cases, framed by a theoretically dense introduction and two concluding chapters on postwar decline and abolition. This review focuses less on the narrative reconstruction of individual cases than on the book’s historiographical contributions, which can be grouped under five interrelated themes.
I. Capital punishment as a problem of imperial justice
The introduction establishes the book’s central conceptual contribution: the claim that “judicial justice” under empire was itself a costly and contested project. Munn situates Hong Kong within the broader literature on the “penalties of empire,” arguing that capital punishment exposed the structural contradictions of colonial rule more sharply than almost any other legal practice. Rather than assuming the coherence of English common law, he foregrounds the institutional fragility of its application in a multilingual, mobile, and racially stratified society.
Five structural tensions organize the analysis: linguistic mediation and procedural fairness; the instability produced by mass migration; the suspension of ordinary law under emergency conditions; the problem of extradition across competing sovereignties; and divergent moral and legal understandings of homicide among Chinese and Europeans. This framework positions the book squarely within recent scholarship that emphasizes colonial law as a field of negotiation rather than unilateral imposition, while retaining a critical awareness of power asymmetries.
Methodologically, Munn’s approach aligns with—and extends—work by Lauren Benton, Martin Wiener, and others on imperial legal pluralism. His distinctive contribution lies in demonstrating how capital punishment functioned not merely as an endpoint of criminal justice, but as a diagnostic tool revealing the limits of imperial legality itself.
II. Race, fear, and the racialization of capital justice
One of the book’s strongest contributions lies in its sustained analysis of race as a structuring principle of colonial capital trials. Across multiple chapters, Munn demonstrates that capital punishment in Hong Kong was never racially neutral, even when procedural forms appeared formally egalitarian.
Rather than reducing racial bias to individual prejudice, the book shows how race operated institutionally: through jury composition, evidentiary standards, clemency decisions, and administrative overrides of judicial outcomes. Particularly valuable is Munn’s attention to asymmetries in the political meaning of homicide. Crimes involving European victims—especially children or military families—were consistently framed as threats to colonial order, whereas violence against Chinese or marginalized groups carried far less symbolic weight.
Equally important is the book’s refusal to treat “Europeans” as a homogeneous category. By foregrounding cases involving destitute sailors and “poor whites,” Munn complicates the racial hierarchy of colonial society and exposes internal tensions within imperial governance. Executions of white defendants, when they occurred, functioned less as acts of equal justice than as symbolic performances aimed at preserving imperial legitimacy. This insight contributes to a growing historiography on whiteness, class, and marginality in colonial contexts.
The analysis of racial fear—particularly in moments of political tension—also situates Hong Kong within wider imperial patterns. Capital punishment emerges as a mechanism for managing anxieties about rebellion, loyalty, and sovereignty, rather than as a neutral response to crime.
III. Capital cases as engines of institutional change
Another major historiographical intervention lies in Munn’s demonstration that capital cases functioned as catalysts for institutional transformation. Rather than treating legal reform as a top-down process driven by metropolitan legislation, the book shows how specific trials exposed procedural deficiencies and forced incremental change.
The emergence of publicly funded legal aid, reforms to interpretation and bilingual documentation, and adjustments to jury practices all appear not as abstract reforms but as responses to concrete failures in capital trials. This bottom-up perspective adds nuance to existing accounts of legal modernization in Hong Kong, which have often emphasized administrative rationalization while underplaying the contingent and contested nature of reform.
Particularly noteworthy is Munn’s treatment of interpretation as a central, rather than peripheral, problem of colonial justice. By tracing the slow institutionalization of professional interpretation, the book contributes to a broader rethinking of language as a core dimension of legal power. In this respect, Penalties of Empire resonates with recent work on translation, mediation, and epistemic authority in colonial courts.
IV. Emergency, collective violence, and the limits of common law
Munn’s analysis of piracy, labor unrest, and prison violence highlights the conditional nature of common-law governance under colonial rule. In moments of crisis, ordinary judicial procedures were repeatedly displaced by special legislation, emergency regulations, and exemplary punishment.
The book’s treatment of piracy is particularly effective in linking local judicial practice to global legal categories such as hostis humani generis. Capital punishment here functioned as an instrument of maritime security and imperial deterrence, revealing how colonial law could rapidly assume a militarized form. Similarly, labor-related violence demonstrates how judicial outcomes were shaped by political imperatives to maintain order rather than evidentiary certainty.
These chapters contribute to a growing literature on emergency powers and colonial legality, showing that the rule of law in Hong Kong was neither continuously suspended nor consistently applied, but selectively recalibrated in response to perceived threats. Capital punishment thus appears as a flexible, if blunt, technology of governance.
V. Legal culture, moral reasoning, and Chinese normativity
One of the most original aspects of the book is its sustained engagement with Chinese legal and moral reasoning within colonial trials. Rather than treating Chinese defendants as passive subjects of British law, Munn reconstructs how Chinese communities mobilized alternative normative frameworks—drawn from Qing law, Confucian ethics, and social convention—in clemency campaigns and public debate.
The analysis of crimes of passion and adultery is particularly revealing. While British law recognized mitigation based on loss of self-control, Chinese appeals often invoked relational ethics and established legal doctrines concerning sexual transgression. Munn shows that although these logics rarely succeeded at the level of formal adjudication, they exerted real influence in the political sphere of mercy and commutation.
This discussion contributes to broader debates on legal pluralism by illustrating how non-Western legal concepts persisted, not as formal law, but as socially authoritative reasoning within colonial governance. At the same time, the book’s engagement with Qing legal doctrine remains selective, leaving room for further dialogue between historians of Chinese law and imperial legal history.
VI. Decline, hollowing out, and abolition
The final chapters challenge linear narratives of abolition as moral progress. Munn demonstrates that capital punishment in Hong Kong declined not because it was decisively repudiated, but because it gradually lost functional legitimacy. Jury reluctance, commutation practices, administrative hesitation, and metropolitan influence combined to render executions increasingly rare well before formal abolition.
Particularly insightful is the analysis of Chinese ambivalence toward the death penalty. While public discourse often favored harsh punishment, jurors consistently avoided imposing death sentences. Munn interprets this gap as evidence of a deeper erosion of capital punishment’s moral authority at the level of practice, even in the absence of abolitionist consensus.
Abolition in 1993 thus appears not as the culmination of a rights-based movement, but as the endpoint of a long process in which capital punishment ceased to be a politically viable tool of governance. This conclusion situates Hong Kong within global patterns of de facto abolition and contributes to comparative studies of punishment and state power.
VII. Overall assessment
Penalties of Empire is a major scholarly achievement. It combines archival depth with conceptual clarity and succeeds in integrating legal history, colonial studies, and Chinese social history into a coherent analytical framework. Munn avoids both imperial apologetics and reductive critiques, offering instead a nuanced account of colonial justice as simultaneously modernizing and deeply unequal.
For scholars of imperial law, capital punishment, and East Asian legal history, this book sets a new benchmark. Its historiographical interventions—particularly on race, legal pluralism, and the erosion of punitive legitimacy—will shape future debates well beyond the Hong Kong case.
Open access
