Page 2507
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025
The Famılıes Left Behınd by Prısoners in the Ottoman Empıre and
The State's Approach to Thıs Issue
Saadet Tekin*
Department of Education Faculty, Ege University, Turkey
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.51244/IJRSI.2025.1210000217
Received: 20 October 2025; Accepted: 28 October 2025; Published: 15 November 2025
ABSTRACT
This study aims to examine the socio-economic hardships experienced by the families of individuals convicted
under the Ottoman penal system, based on archival documents. It is particularly evident that when the head of
the household was sentenced to long-term or distant punishments such as imprisonment, exile, or hard labor, the
remaining family members—mostly women and children—faced serious economic uncertainty. During this
process, the families' requests for assistance from the state focused on basic needs such as food, shelter, children's
education, and placement in boarding schools. Another issue frequently encountered in the archival documents
is requests for the salaries of convicted persons who were civil servants to be transferred to their families, along
with the responses and actions taken by administrative authorities in response to these requests.
The study examines not only individual punishment but also its effects on family structures, as well as how the
Ottoman state developed social policies in response to such circumstances. In cases of punishment such as exile
and hard labor, petitions and official correspondences regarding requests for transportation and food assistance
when family members wished to go to the place where the convict was located provide important clues about
the social assistance understanding of the period. In this context, this study, conducted in light of Ottoman
archival documents, demonstrates that punishment had a social impact rather than being merely an individual
sanction. It also reveals the limited social support mechanisms developed by the state to mitigate this impact.
The hardships faced by the families of prisoners in the Ottoman Empire have been evaluated at the intersection
of the social welfare and justice systems of the period.
Keywords: Ottoman Empire, Prison, Prisoner, Family, Victimization.
INTRODUCTION
From the second half of the 19th century onwards, centralization efforts in the Ottoman Empire, along with the
legal and administrative reforms initiated with the Tanzimat, and ever-increasing political and social turmoil
came to the forefront. During this period, punitive measures such as imprisonment, exile, and forced labor
intensified in the name of protecting state authority and maintaining social order. Studies on the Ottoman justice
system have generally focused on criminal law theory, court structures, and prison institutions. However, the
socio-economic devastation and victimizations of innocent family members left behind by a convicted person,
beyond the punishment itself, have often remained in the background.
The Ottoman legal system has two fundamental pillars: Islamic law and customary law. In Islamic criminal law,
criminal law sanctions are grouped into three categories: penalties, security measures, and redress for harm
caused by the crime (Avcı, 2016, p. 640). Penalties in civilized countries are imposed by the state on individuals
who commit crimes as a consequence of their actions. In the Ottoman Empire, however, punishment methods
were shaped according to the type of crime, the status of the offender, and the legal practices of the period. For
example, penalties involving physical violence were replaced in later years by forms of punishment based on
confinement. Imprisonment became a form of punishment in the Ottoman Empire after the 17th century. From
the 19th century onwards, the Ottoman Empire sought to overcome the crisis it had fallen into and meet the
needs of its people, while also accepting secular laws alongside its existing laws under the influence of Western
pressure. These laws were adopted from Western states, translated, and put into practice. This led to new
Page 2508
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025
structures within the judicial system. Prison sentences were generally imposed for crimes such as theft, rebellion,
failure to pay debts, and similar offenses. Beginning in the 16th century, as the navy began to expand, the state,
struggling to find rowers, used convicts to meet this need, thus giving rise to a form of punishment known as
“oar punishment.” This punishment was also generally applied for serious crimes such as murder and banditry.
Rowing punishment is the implementation of imprisonment in the Ottoman Empire by rowing (Kılınç, 2015,
p.534). The duration of this punishment also varies. If the offender is sentenced to life imprisonment, the
punishment continues until the prisoner dies, while if it is a fixed term, it ranges from 3 to 15 years. Generally,
political offenders and rebels who are likely to escape are given “Kalabent punishment.” Kalebent punishment
involves keeping the offender under guard in a castle (Altınöz, 2023, p. 2).The sultan is the sole authority in
determining the penalties of exile and kalabent and in designating the locations (Baytimur, 2016, p. 832). The
duration of the penalty may be fixed or lifelong. Exile was also imposed on individuals who caused unrest and
disorder within society. Exile punishment is the banishment of the offender to another city or region. Although
exile punishment is considered a severe punishment, it can be considered a lighter punishment compared to
death, galley slavery, and imprisonment (Baytimur, 2016, p. 834). Exile periods may be temporary or lifelong.
The exiled person is held in custody at their destination. This exile can cause psychological and economic
problems for the family left behind.
The Ottoman social structure was multi-ethnic, multi-religious, and multi-layered. This structure, which
encompassed different ethnic and religious groups within the vast empire, presented a complex picture. Groups
such as Turks, Arabs, Armenians, Greeks, Serbs, Bulgarians, Jews, and many others, which were very different
in terms of language, religion, and tradition, lived together for a long time under a tolerant system of governance.
Examining the family structure in the Ottoman Empire, we see characteristics based on traditional Turkish
culture alongside the influences of Islamic law. The family is the cornerstone of society. The family structure is
patriarchal (Ekinci, 2020, p.340).The father is the head of the family and is responsible for the family's
livelihood, while the mother is responsible for the children's education and the household. In this case, one of
the father's most important duties within the family is to provide for the family’s sustenance. In this context, if
the father who provides for the family commits a crime and goes to prison, it affects not only his personal
situation but also his family and immediate social environment (Ergenç, 2006, Çadırcı, 1991).
The aim of this study is to analyze, within the context of archival documents, the administrative and humanitarian
approach adopted by the Ottoman Empire in response to the poverty, helplessness, and educational problems
faced by the families of prisoners. The state's response to the social problems created by a penal system reveals
the limits and scope of the social welfare state concept of that period. The numerous injustices experienced by
prisoners' families are frequently mentioned in the documents of the period.
This qualitative research, based on documents from the Prime Ministry Ottoman Archives, examined the requests
made directly to the state by the spouses, children, and elderly parents of prisoners, such as financial assistance,
salary allocations, pardons, and the accommodation and placement of children in boarding schools.
Subsequently, the focus shifted to the effects of imprisonment on children and the state's educational
interventions.
MATERIAL AND METHOD
The study is based on original archival documents held by the Ottoman Archives (BOA) of the Prime Ministry
of the Republic of Turkey. The documents cited in the article are classified under various sub-files of the
Supreme Court (Divan-ı Ahkam-ıAdliye/A. DVN), the Office of the Grand Vizier (Sadaret Mektubî Kalemi/A.
MKT), the Council (İrade-I Meclis-I Vükela/MV), the Grand Vizier's Office of Documents (Bâb-ıÂlî Evrak
Odası/BOE) , the Council of State (Şûrâ-yı Devlet/ŞD), and the Ministry of Internal Affairs (Dahiliye
Nezareti/DH) classifications. Document scans were conducted using keywords such as assistance for prisoners
and exiled families, pardons, salary allocations, residence changes, and child protection. Therefore, document
analysis was used as the data collection method in this study.
Document analysis, also known as documentary research, involves examining existing records and documents
to obtain data. Document analysis encompasses the processes of finding, reading, taking notes, and evaluating
Page 2509
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025
sources for a specific purpose. In other words, document analysis is a series of processes that occur during the
examination and evaluation of printed and electronic (computer-based and internet-accessible) materials (Sak et
al., 2021, p. 230).
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
In this study 34 Ottoman Archive documents from the Tanzimat period to the period following the Armistice of
Mudros (1839-1922) were examined. The findings show that the approaches towards the prisoners' families were
far removed from today's social policy practices, relying on individual applications and the initiative of local
authorities. However, it should also be noted that the Ottoman bureaucracy took solution-oriented steps even
during periods of crisis and turmoil (the 31 March Incident, after the Armistice of Mudros). The provision of
support to prisoners' families through indirect means from special budget items is indicative of this approach.
Efforts to protect the family as a social unit, albeit limited, reflect the emerging concept of the welfare state.
Archival documents again show that a conviction not only affects the convicted individual, but also leaves family
members dependent on the prisoner's income facing serious socio-economic hardship. The countless appeals
made by prisoners' families to the administration reveal the financial hardship and destitution arising from
abandonment. The punishment of offenders and the subsequent events have made it imperative to perceive
imprisonment as a public issue. The findings show that there is no distinction between common criminals
(murderers) and political prisoners (the March 31 Incident). The state has taken certain steps to resolve the
problems that have arisen through compensation mechanisms and legal interventions. Prisoners' families have
been supported with daily allowances, salary allocations, and assistance from extra-budgetary sources within the
framework of the “needy arrangement” in terms of financial support.
Certain arrangements were made for the accommodation of orphaned children, their placement in boarding
schools, and the provision of their basic livelihood needs. It was intended to protect children from criminal
environments through Darülaceze and boarding schools. These steps can be considered an extension of the social
responsibility awareness that began to emerge after the Tanzimat.
Detailed findings related to the documents used below are provided.
The Difficulties Faced by Surviving Spouses and Children and the State's Approach to This Issue
Ottoman archival documents show that not only the punishment of convicts but also the hardships faced by the
families left behind were brought to the attention of the state. Economic activity in Ottoman society was largely
carried out by men. We see that women had a limited economic role. In this context, the imprisonment of the
male head of the family means the immediate collapse of the family economy. Consequently, this situation has
been raised in many documents, and support has been requested from the relevant state authorities.
The petition of Şibliü’l Urban dated 3 Rabi al-Awwal 1263 (March 10, 1847) is noteworthy. In this petition,
Şibliü’l Urban, who had been imprisoned for four years, requested release on bail, stating that his family was “in
a miserable state” (A.} DVN. 23-15). This application is not only an individual request for freedom, but also a
text that clearly expresses the economic and social problems within the family to the relevant state authority.
Delioğlu Ahmet, who lived in the district of Ağlasun under the Hamid Sanjak, was convicted in a case involving
a woman known as Çakır Ayşe. His two young children were left behind in poverty. Delioğlu Ahmet
subsequently filed a similar request for release (A.} MKT. UM. 511-79).
Certain arrangements may be made regarding individuals convicted by the Divan-ı Harb-i Örfî courts and their
surviving families. In this context, a document shows us that the practices regarding the social rights of convicted
individuals demonstrate that the principle of social responsibility is also taken into account alongside the criminal
justice mechanism. In this regard, while it is not possible to directly allocate a salary to convicted persons, the
payment of their previous disability and retirement pensions has continued. It has been requested that, in cases
where the families left behind are in need, the Treasury provide cash assistance under the “muhtaciyet tertibi”
(relief for the needy) program and that school-age children be provided with free education by applying to the
Ministry of Education (MV. 132-14). The state felt the need to make legal arrangements to address such
difficulties, and the correspondence indicates that certain steps were taken to prevent the victimization of
Page 2510
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025
prisoners' families. Indeed, studies were conducted to amend certain laws for the purpose of providing salaries
to the children of those sentenced to Kalebent, oar punishment, and Neft (exile) by the Divan-ı Harbi Örfi
(Military Court of Appeals), and the draft laws prepared for this purpose were sent to the Meclis-i Mebusan
(Parliament) for approval (MV. 137-114). In this regard, three articles of the draft law prepared to protect the
children of prisoners sentenced to the penalties specified by the decision of the Divan-ı Harb-i Örfi from suffering
were also ratified by the Assembly of Deputies (BEO. 3720-278927). As seen, while steps were taken to assist
the families of prisoners removed from the capital for security reasons, it was requested that the marriages of
women whose husbands had been executed or sentenced to death be annulled and that their children be enrolled
in boarding schools free of charge (MV. 130-26). The issue of the children's schooling was addressed in
numerous correspondences. Since it was not possible to allocate salaries to individuals sentenced to severe
penalties by the Divan-ı Harb-i Örfi and their families, it was stipulated that these prisoners should be provided
for their living expenses from the prison budget (allocation) at the penal centers where they were held, and that
their children should be enrolled and admitted free of charge to boarding schools (mekatib-i leyliye) (MF. MKT.
1144-50). Although salaries could not be paid directly to the families, indirect support was provided from the
location where the convict was held. In addition, the state made efforts to integrate the children into society
through education by enrolling them in boarding schools free of charge.
In another document, Fatma Hanım, the wife of Ahmet Efendi, who was imprisoned for theft, found herself in
financial difficulty and appealed to the judge, stating that she could not provide for her two young children.
Following this, the court, as a result of its assessment, issued a legal ruling ordering that 20 kuruş per week be
paid to Ahmet Efendi's children from the confiscated property belonging to him (Şer'iye Register, Istanbul
1301/17). This legal ruling shows us that the property belonging to the offender can be used not only for the
benefit of the state but also for the benefit of children in need.
Another document illustrating the social and economic vulnerability faced by the families left behind by
prisoners in the Ottoman Empire concerns the family left behind by Aslan bin Muhlis, who was sentenced to
one year in prison for theft. Aslan bin Muhlis states that his family is in a difficult situation due to his
imprisonment and requests assistance on behalf of his family (ZB. 477-99). Undoubtedly, the hardship referred
to here is basic needs such as shelter, food, drink, and health. This document again proves that the Ottoman
administration or local authorities did not ignore such grievances and that by reflecting the prisoner's family's
situation in official records, they paved the way for them to receive foundation aid, soup kitchen services, cash
support, and assistance from local charities.Another feature of the document is that although Aslan bin Muhlis
was convicted of theft, a shameful crime, his family was not ostracized because of this crime but instead received
help. This reflects the principle of the individual nature of crime in Ottoman society.
The document dated May 30, 1880 contains requests for assistance stating that the family members left behind
by two prisoners sent to the Lesbos Kalebent were living in difficult conditions. These requests were verified by
the local administration, the Vilayet of Cezayir-i Bahr-i Sefîd, and the correspondence prepared on the matter,
along with its attachments, was sent to the Ministry of Justice (DH. MKT. 1329-27).The document mentions
two incidents. In the first incident, it is stated that Ethem Efendi, the former clerk of Rüsumat (Customs and Tax
Office), was in Midilli Kalebentliği, while his wife and two children were experiencing financial difficulties.
For this reason, it was requested that the family be granted a daily allowance, that is, regular daily financial
assistance. The second case involved a request for the two children left behind by Eyüplü Berber Mehmet, who
was sentenced to 15 years in prison for murdering his wife, to be provided with an allowance and to be settled
somewhere, that is, to be provided with shelter. Despite the severity of the crime committed by Eyüplü Mehmet,
the protection of his children by the state is another clear demonstration of the importance the Ottoman Empire
attached to the principle of the individual nature of crime. Eyüplü Mehmet's request for housing for his children
demonstrates that the state aims not only to meet their basic needs but also to integrate these children into society.
The request for placement is important not only for the protection of children but also for their integration into
the social order and moral structure.
As is well known, the punishment of Kalebent involves convicts serving their sentences in a castle far from their
families. Consequently, the families of prisoners sentenced to this type of punishment have faced difficulties in
visiting the place where the prisoner is held. One such case is the hardship faced by the family of a prisoner
sentenced to 10 years of imprisonment and exiled to Rhodes. The prisoner's wife and three children were left in
Page 2511
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025
a desperate situation. It has been stated that the families of prisoners who have been exiled to distant
neighborhoods, whose wives are unable to cover the expenses of traveling to be with their husbands and children,
should have these needs met either by the municipality (Şehremaneti) or by allocating additional funds from the
Zaptiye Nezareti budget for this purpose and immediately granting permission for the expenditure (ZB. 333-98).
The document is important in that it shows that various state institutions were involved in resolving the issues.
Another document shows that Selim bin Said from Pürzerrin (Prizren), who had been sentenced to 15 years by
the Bulgarian emirate, requested that his family be brought to him so that he could see them more easily.
Following an investigation, the prisoner's request was deemed inappropriate (HR. ŞFR. 04, 824-2).In fact, this
request demonstrates the prisoner's desire to maintain ties with his family. However, the investigation concluded
that this request was not appropriate, indicating that maintaining family unity was not a priority for the state
within the Ottoman penal system. It is likely that the state prioritized security over the prisoner's social and
emotional needs.
In addition to requests for financial support or for their families to be brought to their location, prisoners serving
their sentences far from their families are seen to have submitted petitions to the administration requesting the
pardon of their sentences. For example, a letter sent from the province of Sivas to the Ministry of the Interior in
1897 reported that Nuri Efendi, a reserve army sergeant, had been sentenced to 15 years of hard labor for a
murder case, but that his wife had died, leaving his four children and elderly mother destitute. On the grounds
of the social injustice created by this situation, it was requested that the aforementioned prisoner be granted the
af-ı âlîye “pardon by the sultan,” that is, benefit from the sultan's pardon (BOE. 987-74019). Another request for
pardon came from Kamile Hanım, a resident of Filibe. There are numerous examples in Ottoman archival
documents of women petitioning for pardons on behalf of their husbands. In a petition written to the Court
Administration, Kamile Hanım, a resident of the Hacı Hasan neighborhood in Filibe, stated that her husband had
been sentenced to three years of hard labor for showing a weapon to a Bulgarian and had been in prison for 22
months. Kamile Hanım stated that she was experiencing extreme hardship and poverty and requested that her
husband's remaining sentence be pardoned (HR. ŞFR. 04, 510-41). Here, it is important that the woman contacted
the state directly on behalf of her family, using her hardship and the situation of her children as grounds for
pardon.
A similar situation occurred in Amasya prison. In a letter written to the Ministry of Justice, it was stated that Ali
Bey, a Circassian refugee living in Mecidözü district, who was sentenced to 13 years in Amasya prison for
bribery, had three children left orphaned after his wife committed suicide. Due to this situation, it was requested
that Ali Bey's remaining sentence be pardoned so that he could take care of his children (DH. MTK. 439-42).
Ali Bey's wife's suicide also provides us with information about the period. The woman may have committed
suicide after falling into despair due to her husband's prison sentence. It shows the helplessness she fell into and
also the socio-economic dependence of women of that period. Furthermore, the state's intervention in the case,
feeling a social responsibility towards the children's situation and moving towards a pardon, gives us clues about
the welfare state.
Another request for pardon came from female prisoners named Hemvendli Ayşe, Amine, Kalinhane, Saliha, and
Piruze, who were sentenced to exile in Rhodes. They stated that they were left alone with their orphaned children
and requested permission to return to their homeland with their children. They also requested that four or five
guards accompany them to ensure their safety if this request was granted. These requests were deemed
appropriate by the administration, and it was stated that there was no objection to five soldiers accompanying
them on their journey to ensure the safe return of the women and children to their homeland (DH. MKT. 817-
58). Firstly, we see that the administration took the situation of the children into consideration and aimed to
ensure the safety of the women and children and prevent any reactions that might arise in society by providing
military escorts for their journey. At the same time, the state's compassion and desire to maintain order are also
evident.
The request for assistance for the family of a prisoner from Yozgat is also noteworthy. Margosveled-i Karebent
was detained in Yozgat for a period of time before being sent to Rhodes, where he was sentenced to five years
of imprisonment. During this time, his family fell into severe economic hardship. Margosveled-i Karabent
requested financial assistance for his family and also asked to be pardoned (DH. TMIK. M. 103-69). As can be
Page 2512
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025
understood from the document, while the prisoner sought pardon on the one hand, he also tried to inform the
relevant state authorities about the financial difficulties his family was facing.
Another example concerning the situation of prisoners' relatives and the state's assistance policy is found in an
application document regarding the family of Yusuf oğlu Halid Efendi, who was sentenced to 10 years of
kalebent for forging military documents and sent to Mardin Castle. The document states the following: It was
stated that the prisoner's 61-year-old father, Yusuf Ağa, residing at No. 4 Dere Street in Feri Village, his
daughter-in-law Fatma Hanım, who had no income, and her 2-year-old child had no salaries or income from any
source, were in a very difficult situation, and were living in poverty in need of assistance. In this context, it was
requested that Fatma Hanım, the wife of Halid Efendi, be granted “an appropriate amount of salary” (DH. EUM.
1. Şb. 4-23).
A letter written to the province of Tripoli again draws attention to the economic difficulties faced by the
prisoner's family and their requests for assistance. At the beginning of the 1900s, two prisoners who were tried
for an incident that took place in Muş and sentenced to imprisonment were sent to Tripoli, where their sentence
was converted to hard labor due to the insecurity of the prison. This situation affected not only the prisoners but
also their families, plunging their children into misery. Misakveled-i Altram and Murat bin Bozo from Muş
wrote a petition to the authorities requesting that they be transferred to another castle that was safer and
accessible to their families instead of serving their sentence of hard labor (DH. TMK. M. 110-41). This was done
so that the prisoners' families could also go to Tripoli or the newly assigned fortress, allowing the families to be
reunited.
While the families of prisoners faced difficulties, some female prisoners who had no one to care for them were
forced to keep their children with them in prison. There were problems with caring for these children in prison
and feeding them. Hatice, a woman sentenced to 15 years in the Karahisar-i Sahip district, had no one to care
for her outside, so she was forced to keep her 4-year-old daughter with her in prison. This situation is noteworthy
in that it shows how children and family members were indirectly affected by the prisoner's sentence in the
Ottoman prison system. Hatice, a woman in prison, requested that the prison administration provide a loaf of
bread for her daughter because the food she was given was insufficient (DH. MKT. 2560-14). Undoubtedly, the
administrators tried to do what was necessary in line with these legitimate demands. As can be understood from
the document, the prisoner's family, especially young children, were not directly under state protection. The state
could reach the child through the mother.
We have noted that in the Ottoman Empire, the fact that female prisoners had to live directly with their children
in prison, as well as the family members they left behind, raised an important social issue. The question of where
pregnant prisoners would give birth and what would happen afterwards came to the fore. These issues
necessitated certain arrangements for female prisoners giving birth and childcare in the Ottoman Empire. In a
letter written to the Ministry of the Interior, it was stated that pregnant women imprisoned and detained in Nisa
prison due to criminal cases were sent to Nisa hospital to give birth, It was emphasized that these pregnant
women should be sent to the Gureba Hospital to give birth, that they should be able to return to prison with their
children after giving birth, and that prisoners who were required to stay with their children were being provided
with food on their behalf, but that regulations should be established regarding these matters and that action
should be taken in accordance with these regulations (MKT. 1273-21).As can be seen, the eating and drinking
habits of young children who are incarcerated with their mothers and are not provided with separate meals have
been the subject of numerous documents. This document clearly shows that female prisoners are forced to live
with the conditions of prison life while fulfilling their maternal duties, and that their children also suffer within
this system.
The state, while applying criminal sanctions to remedy these injustices, has taken care to ensure that women and
children are not victimized, with the aim of protecting social justice. One concrete example of this approach is
that, according to Article 15 of the Civil Registry Regulations, a newborn child must be registered in the
population registry within the same year. Those who fail to provide information about the birth are subject to a
fine ranging from 1 to 5 mecidiye. However, certain exceptional circumstances have necessitated a review of
this general rule. For example, in a letter written from Kastamonu to the Ministry of the Interior, it was asked
what would happen to children whose fathers had died and who remained with their mothers, as well as children
Page 2513
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025
whose fathers had been convicted of murder and were in prison, regarding whether there was any indication or
decision as to whether they would pay this fine, and whether the fine could be collected from a father in prison.
And it was asked what would happen to these children until their fathers were released. In the decision taken by
the Council of State upon this request, the principle of social justice was emphasized. It was stressed that the
fines should not be collected from children left with their widowed mothers and from children of prisoners
detained for murder. Furthermore, it was stated that these children should be registered directly by the General
Directorate of Civil Registration without waiting for their fathers' release (ŞD. 1664-19).
Particularly in the case of children, the prisoners' situations were reviewed, and if anything could be done, the
administration attempted to resolve the issue. For example, it was reported that Hatice, a resident of Sheikh
Ferhat Neighborhood, and Fatma Hatun, a resident of Cellad Çeşmesi, who were imprisoned in Nisa Prison for
the crime of strangulation, were left in misery because no one was with their daughters. In order to save the
children from misery, it was requested that the prisoners serve their sentences near their children, Fatma in the
district of Erdek and Hatice in Geyve, İzmir Sancağı (A.} MKT. MVL. 72-99). Similar requests appear in many
correspondence. Prisoners serving part of their sentences away from their families requested to be transferred to
prisons in the areas where their children lived so they could see them, as the children were struggling to survive
under difficult conditions. In another correspondence, Kemal, known as Celil, who was sentenced to 15 years
and is serving his sentence in Mosul, stated that he has not seen his children for nine years. He sent a petition to
the relevant authority stating that he wanted to serve the remainder of his sentence in the prison in Kirkuk, where
his children live (DH. MKT. 335-42).Keeping prisoners away from their families is undoubtedly not only a
security issue, but also causes social deprivation and psychological distress. The prisoner's desire to be close to
his children, whom he has not seen for nine years, can be seen as a demand for human sensitivity and the
preservation of family ties. It should also be noted that the prisoner's desire to connect with his family
demonstrates that the importance placed on family unity in the social structure of the time is also reflected in the
penal system.
The financial hardship experienced by the families left behind by prisoners who had been sentenced to severe
punishments (such as life imprisonment and oar punishment) was also addressed by the social assistance
mechanisms of the period. One such case occurred at the Sinop General Prison. It has been reported that some
prisoners who were released from Sinop Prison after serving life sentences, got married, and had children were
subsequently re-arrested and returned to prison, leaving their families in poverty and hardship. As these families
were unable to provide for themselves, an assessment was requested from the state on how this situation should
be resolved (DH. MKT. 2059-110). The families fell into financial hardship when the prisoners were re-arrested.
It is understood that the state intervened in the matter to alleviate the families' hardship.
One concrete example illustrating the Ottoman Empire's approach to prisoner families in the context of social
assistance is found in an archival document dating back to the early 20th century (Hijri 21.02.1321). In the
document in question, Haşimzade Nabi Bey, a soap merchant in Kandiye, was tried on charges of firing a rifle
during an incident at his soap factory and was sentenced to life imprisonment by the Ecnebi Divan-ı Harb-i
Muhtaliti (mixed international war court).Following his imprisonment, records indicate that Nabi Bey's mother
and his family of six suffered financial hardship and were left in a state of near destitution. In response to this
situation, the state assessed the family under the “needy persons scheme” and decided to grant them 250 kurush
in aid (BOE. 2071-155296). The phrase “by way of compensation” in the document refers to the allocation of
funds from the state treasury or the relevant fund for the assistance or payment to be made, meaning that the
necessary money for this purpose was found and set aside.
Another example found in Ottoman archival documents reveals the assistance provided to the family of a
prisoner named Kör Ali Haydar, who was sentenced to life imprisonment in Sinop Prison. The document states
that Ali Haydar's mother and family were experiencing financial hardship and, in response to this situation, the
state decided to allocate an “suitable daily allowance” for the purpose of “providing sustenance” (DH. MUİ. 7-
30).The term “temin-i iaşe” used here refers to the provision of food and basic necessities for the family.
“Münasip miktar yevmiye” indicates that a certain amount of financial assistance is provided on a daily basis.
Such assistance is generally provided under the “muhtaçlar tertibi” (needy persons' arrangement) and indicates
that the prisoner's family receives direct support from the state. One of the documents showing the Ottoman
Empire's sensitivity towards prisoners' families concerns the case of Kolonyalı Mustafa, who was sentenced to
Page 2514
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025
three years in prison by the Görice Criminal Court for assault. According to the document, Mustafa had been in
prison for about a year and a half, and during this time his family had been left in destitution. Taking this situation
into account, the relevant authorities requested that Mustafa's case be investigated as a matter of “the demands
of justice” (DH. MKT. 166-8).The phrase “the demands of justice” here reflects an understanding that aims to
ensure a fair outcome by re-examining the prisoner's situation due to his family's destitution, doing whatever
justice requires, and evaluating not only the legal but also the social and moral aspects of the case. It is understood
that the state intervenes in the case based on the idea that even if the prisoner's guilt is established, his family
should not be victimized independently of the punishment. However, it should also be noted that an investigation
is conducted before direct assistance is provided, demonstrating that such assistance is not arbitrary but is based
on a process of examination and verification.
Sometimes, having both parents in prison creates greater difficulties for the children left behind. In such cases,
the state's responsibility to ensure the safety and education of these children has come to the fore. Established in
1895 by order of Sultan Abdülhamid II, Darülaceze stands out as an important institution. Its goal was to meet
the housing needs of people who were homeless and in need. It served people of different religions within the
Empire, such as Muslims, Christians, and Jews. The institution is supported by donations. Not only the elderly
are accepted here, but also children who have been left without guardians and are in need of protection. The state
has extended its protective hand, particularly to ensure that these children do not end up on the streets, are not
drawn into crime, and have their educational and housing needs met (Gümrükçüoğlu, 2025, p.516). Families
also entrusted their children to these places when they found themselves in difficult circumstances. Ali Rıza
Efendi, who was sentenced to 91 days in prison along with his wife Hasibe Hanım due to debt issues and was
imprisoned in the General Prison, requested that his two children, 11-year-old İbrahim Hakkı and 9-year-old
Hasan Sami, who were living in extreme poverty, be provided with food and clothing and be admitted to the
Darülaceze during the period they were in prison. According to the correspondence, in response to this legitimate
request, it was deemed necessary to keep the children at the Darülaceze, and it was decided that they would be
registered and admitted (DH. MB. HPS. 83-73).
As can be seen, the most significant problems faced by children whose parents are in prison are financial
hardship, education, and housing. Whether children are in prison with their mothers or remain outside, they need
state support to meet their basic needs, primarily nutrition. The state has protected and cared for children left
behind by offenders by occasionally appointing guardians for them, enabling them to grow up with other families
(Yılmaz, 2021, p.38).
The Ottoman Empire sought to avoid victimizing the families of individuals who opposed the state order while
punishing those individuals. In this context, following the 31 March Incident, it was accepted that the families
of political opponents involved in the events, individuals considered a threat to the throne, and prisoners and
defendants punished or tried by the Military Court should be supported and assisted, and that women whose
husbands had been executed or sentenced to death should be considered divorced. Thus, women were granted
social and legal status. Close attention was also paid to the situation of orphaned children, and a decision was
made to place these children in boarding schools and have their education expenses covered by the state (MV.
130-26). As can be seen, while the state tried, executed, and exiled individuals involved in the events in the
capital city, which was experiencing political turmoil in 1909, it tried not to victimize the families left behind by
these individuals and supported them with a number of humanitarian and administrative measures.
In 1913, during a period of intense political pressure when the Committee of Union and Progress was in power,
Salih Sırrı Bey was sentenced to 10 years of imprisonment and sent to Bodrum Castle, likely because he fell out
of favor with the government during a cabinet reshuffle. His wife, Afife Hanım, found herself in a difficult
situation due to the lack of property and income. Consequently, Salih Efendi requested financial assistance from
the state to cover the daily living expenses of his family in need. If this request is deemed appropriate, it will be
settled from the “masarif-i gayr-ı melhuz tertibinden tesviyesiof the finance budget” meaning this payment will
be covered from the finance budget's unforeseen expenses item (DH. EUM. MH. 67-6).This document also
shows us that in the final years of the Ottoman Empire, the families of civil servants or officials who were
punished for political reasons suffered hardship, and the state intervened in the situation to mitigate this hardship
by implementing a support mechanism. At the same time, we can say that the concept of the welfare state began
to develop, and that the burden was shared by the public, even if it meant using extra-budgetary resources.
Page 2515
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025
We see that the Ottoman Empire provided social protection not only to ordinary prisoners but also to the families
of state officials who were executed for committing crimes. A document addressed to the Directorate of Public
Security states that the mother and three children left behind by Ömer, a police officer from Sivas who was
hanged, were struggling to survive in poverty, and requests that they be allocated an appropriate amount of
salary. As a result of the official investigation, it was determined that the family in question was indeed poor and
in need of assistance (DH. EUM. THR. 12-12). The state provided the necessary support based on the innocence
and neediness of Ömer Efendi's surviving mother and children. The state has endeavored to fulfill its
responsibilities in terms of social responsibility, particularly the protection of the family institution. The effort
to minimize the suffering of the surviving family members, even in cases of the most severe penalties such as
execution, can be considered an important example reflecting the state's sensitivity in this regard.
During the final years of the Ottoman Empire, political and social unrest increased. Parallel to this increase,
many people were tried and punished in courts with extraordinary powers, such as the Divan-ı Harb-i Umumi.
For example, the families of individuals convicted by the Divan-ı Harb-i Umumi due to events that occurred in
and around Istanbul and Antakya found themselves in difficult economic circumstances. The allocation of
salaries to these families was brought to the agenda. However, it was not deemed possible to allocate salaries
directly to these families. The same document proposes that this injustice be remedied by using the “cerâim-i
aidiyye mahkûmîn-işulû hapishaneler tahsisatı” (allocation for prisoners serving long sentences). This item is a
payment set aside for the sustenance and maintenance of prisoners who have received long sentences for criminal
offenses. Thus, aid can be delivered to these families indirectly, rather than directly. In fact, this situation shows
us how the Ottoman bureaucracy was able to produce pragmatic solutions when necessary. The document also
includes an education policy for children. It was ordered that the children of prisoners' families be enrolled in
mekâtib-i leyliye (boarding schools) free of charge (DH. MUİ. 7-4). This practice was in line with the social
welfare state understanding of the period. Indeed, after the Tanzimat, significant steps were taken regarding the
education of orphans, abandoned children, and children without guardians. Boarding schools were also part of
this effort.
Although the Ottoman Empire continued to exist after the Armistice of Mudros, the Allied Powers began actual
occupations in Anatolia and Thrace. Although Istanbul was officially occupied on March 16, 1920, the city had
been under the control of the Allied Powers since 1919. British soldiers were active in Istanbul. Control of the
city was left to these officers. At the same time, Greece's plans to advance in Western Anatolia were put into
action, and Greek soldiers began patrolling Izmir and its surroundings, causing tensions in the region to escalate.
An extraordinary process is unfolding in Istanbul, where the Allied forces are directly trying and punishing
Ottoman citizens. In this context, the issue of providing assistance to the destitute families of Arif and Hamdi,
who were exiled to Thessaloniki without trial by the General Headquarters of the Allied Forces in Constantinople
on the grounds that they had fired on a Greek patrol and were also fined heavily (200 British pounds each), has
come to the fore (DH. EUM. ECB. 23-19). This situation is an important example showing that even under the
conditions of occupation, when the Ottoman Empire's sovereign power had weakened, it still made efforts to
meet the needs of the relatives of prisoners.
On December 16, 1918, the first Military Court of Appeals was established in Istanbul by a decision of the
Council of Ministers, and its members were appointed. The court's task was to try Ottoman war crimes and
irregularities during the Armenian deportation. The first case heard by the court was the Yozgat deportation case,
which began on February 6, 1919, and many people were tried on charges of deportation or massacre in
connection with this case until 1922 (Ata 2005, pp. 521-544).The former commander of the Yozgat
Gendarmerie, Tevfik Bey, was also tried in this court for the Armenian deportation and the deaths that occurred
during this period. Tevfik Bey was not found guilty of the main crime, but was sentenced to 15 years of hard
labor for being an accomplice to the crimes committed. In accordance with state practice, his family was not
held responsible for the crime, and a salary of 1000 kurush was allocated from the “Bidemat-ı Vataniyye Tertibi”
to prevent his two children and wife from suffering (Republic Archive, 4-40-13). Here, too, it can be seen that
the state sought to strike a balance between punishment and social equilibrium.
Page 2516
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025
CONCLUSION
This study aims to analyze the socio-economic difficulties faced by the family members left behind by prisoners
and the state's approach to these situations based on Ottoman archival documents. The documents clearly reveal
that imprisonment was not merely a punitive measure but also caused serious economic and social hardship,
particularly for family members. Particularly in families whose livelihood depends on the income of the
incarcerated individual, significant impoverishment is observed following the sentence. This situation is
reflected in numerous requests for assistance documented in archival records. These records clearly show that
family members, primarily the spouses and children of prisoners, directly request financial support from the state
due to financial hardship. Among these requests are periodic or ongoing assistance requests, as well as
applications for the prisoner's family to receive a salary if the prisoner is a civil servant. Indeed, some examples
show that these requests have been positively received and that the state can take on a protective role for the
family under certain conditions.
Another noteworthy aspect of the study is the situation of children. During the process that began with the
Tanzimat, the importance given to the education and protection of orphans and homeless children was extended
to include the children of convicted families. Requests were frequently made for children who could not be
cared for by their families due to the imprisonment of the head of the family or both parents to be placed in
boarding schools, and the state was asked to provide education and accommodation. Institutions such as
Darülaceze and boarding schools were put into operation. Moreover, the state continued to provide this
humanitarian aid even in difficult circumstances created by political turmoil (the March 31 Incident) and even
under occupation conditions (after the Armistice of Mudros) when its sovereign power was weakened. Therefore,
this situation indicates that the state intervened in a limited but meaningful way for social risk groups. However,
the approach towards prisoners' families in the Ottoman Empire was shaped more by individual appeals and
often by the initiative of local authorities than by an institutionalized and systematic social policy approach.
Nevertheless, the documents show that the state regarded the family as a social unit and activated social support
mechanisms under certain conditions.
Archival Documents
BOA. A.) DVN. Yer: 23-15, Tarih: 13.03.1263.
BOA. A.) MKT. UM. Yer: 511-79, Tarih: 25.04.1278.
BOA. MV. Yer: 132-14, Tarih: H.16.08.1327.
BOA. MV. Yer: 137-114, Tarih: H. 27.02.1328.
BOA. BEO. Yer: 3720-278927, Tarih: H. 05.03.1328.
BOA. MV. Yer: 130-26, Tarih: H.11.07.1327.
BOA. MF. MKT. Yer: 1144-50, Tarih: 21.11.1327.
BOA. Şer’iye Sicili, İstanbul 1301/17.
BOA: ZB. ,Yer: 477-99, Tarih: R. 15.05.1323.
BOA. DH. MKT. Yer: 1329-27, Tarih: H. 29.01.1297.
BOA. ZB. Yer: 333-98, Tarih: R- 31.03.1325.
BOA. DH. TMIK. M. Yer: 103-69, Tarih: H. 24.01.1319.
BOA. DH. TMK. M. Yer: 110-41, Tarih: H. 06.06.1319.
Page 2517
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025
BÖA. DH. MKT. Yer: 2560-14, Tarih: H. 12.08.1319.
BOA. DH. MKT. Yer: 1273-21, Tarih: 29.06.1326.
BOA. HR. ŞFR. Yer: 04, 824-2, Tarih: M. 11.04.1908.
BOA. ŞD. Yer: 1664-19, Tarih: H. 21.10.1316.
BOA. BOE. Yer: 987-74019, Tarih: H. 05.03.1315.
BOA. DH. MTK. Yer: 439-42, Tarih. 18.08.1313.
BOA. HR. ŞFR. 04, Yer: 510-41, Tarih: M. 01.07.1896.
BOA. DH. MKT. Yer: 817-58, Tarih: H. 06.11.1321.
BOA. A.(MKT. MVL. Yer: 72-99, Tarih: H. 18.09.1271.
BOA. DH. MKT. Yer: 335-42, Tarih: H. 24.07.1312.
BOA. DH. MKT. Yer: 2059-110, Tarih: H. 19.08.1310.
BOA. BOE. Yer: 2071-155296, Tarih: H. 21.02.1321.
BOA. DH. MUİ. Yer: 7-30, Tarih: 24.01.1328.
BOA. DH. MKT. Yer: 166-8, Tarih: 29.11.1311.
BOA. DH. MB. HPS. Yer: 83-73, Tarih: 20.11.1339.
BOA. MV. Yer: 130-26, Tarih: H.11.07.1327.
BOA. DH. EUM. MH. Yer:67-6, Tarih: H. 01.11.1331.
BOA. DH. EUM. 1. Şb. Yer: 4-23, Tarih: 21.10.1334.
BOA. DH. EUM. THR: Yer: 12-12, Tarih: H. 02.11.1327.
BOA. DH. MUİ. Yer: 7-4, Tarih: H. 01. 06. 1328.
BOA. DH. EUM. ECB. Yer: 23-19, Tarih: 07.07.1337.
REFERENCES
1. Altınöz, İ. (2023), “Hukuk Tarihi Açısından Kalebent Defterleri” Türkiye Adalet Akademisi Dergisi
(TAAD), yıl:14, Sayı:53, s. 2.
2. Ata, F., (2005), “Divân-I Harb-i Örfi Mahkemelerinde Ermeni Tehciri Yargılamalarına istatistiksel bir
Bakış (1919-1921)”, Atatürk Araştırma Merkezi Dergisi, Cilt: 21 Sayı: 6207, Temmuz 2005 ss. , 521 –
544.
3. Avcı, M. (2016), “Osmanlı Hukukunda Cezaların Tasnifi”, Editör Prof. Dr. Fethi Gedikli, II. Türk Hukuk
Tarihi Kongresi Bildirileri, Türk Hukuk Tarihi Kongresi, İstanbul, On iki Levha yayıncılık, s.640.
4. Baytimur, S. O. (2016), “Osmanlı Devletinde Kalebent ve Sürgün Cezalarının Uygulamaları İle
Mahkumların Serbest Bırakılmaları (1789-1839)”, Editör Prof. Dr. Fethi Gedikli, II. Türk Hukuk Tarihi
Kongresi Bildirileri, Türk Hukuk Tarihi Kongresi, İstanbul, On iki Levha yayıncılık, s.832.
5. Dönmezer, S., Erman, S., (1997), Nazari ve Tatbiki Ceza Hukuku, İstanbul. II/590, No:1373.
6. Ekinci, M. A., (2020), “Osmanlı Devleti’nde Aile’nin Hukuki Yapısı Üzerine Bir Çözümleme”, Kesit
Akademi Dergisi (The Journal of Kesit Academy) Yıl/Year: 6, Sayı/Number: 22, 339 Mart/March, s.340.
Page 2518
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025
7. Ergenç, Ö. (2006), Osmanlı Toplumunda Aile ve Kadın, İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, Çadırcı,
M. (1991).Tanzimat Döneminde Anadolu Kentlerinin Sosyal ve Ekonomik Yapısı, Ankara: Türk Tarih
Kurumu,
8. Gümrükçüoğlu, S. O. (2025), “Osmanlı’dan Cumhuriyet’e Kimsesiz Çocukların Himayesine İlişkin
Politikalar”, Sosyal Politika Çalışmaları Dergisi Aile Özel Sayısı Cılt-2 Haziran, s. 516.
9. Kılınç, A. (2015), “Klasik Dönem Osmanlı Devleti’nde Uygulanan Kürek Cezasının Hukuki Tahlili”,
Belleten, cilt:79, sayı: 285,s.534.
10. Sak R., Şahin Sak İ.T., Öneren Şendil Ç. Ve Nas E. (2021). Bir Araştırma Yöntemi Olarak Doküman
Analizi, Kocaeli Ünv. Eğitim Dergisi, 4 (1), 227-250.
11. Yılmaz B. (2021), “Osmanlı Hapishanelerinde Ailesi Veya Kendisi Mahkûm Olan Çocuklar”, Gelecek
Vizyonlar Dergisi (fvj: Future Visions Journal) 5(3), s. 38.