This is part of a series on nonviolent protest methods, which explains approaches and provides inspirational examples from history. For additional resources, please explore the Museum of Protest’s activist guides and view items in the collection.

A prisoners’ strike is a form of nonviolent resistance in which incarcerated individuals collectively refuse to cooperate with prison authorities, typically by refusing to work, eat, or follow prison routines.

For example, during the 1970 Folsom Prison strike in California, over 2,400 inmates initiated a work stoppage and hunger strike to protest racial discrimination, overcrowding, and inhumane labor conditions. Such actions leverage the prisoners’ own hardship as a form of moral and economic pressure, making the prisoners’ strike a powerful tool of civil resistance even behind bars.

How a Prisoners’ Strike Works as Nonviolent Resistance

In a prisoners’ strike, those behind bars collectively refuse to participate in the normal functioning of the prison as a protest. This can take several forms depending on the circumstances:

Refusal of Labor: In many prison systems, inmates are required (or expected) to perform labor – from prison maintenance work to industrial jobs. In a strike, prisoners stop working, denying the institution the economic benefit of their labor. This form of noncooperation directly targets the prison’s operations and can even disrupt revenue streams if prisons profit from inmate labor. It highlights the inmates’ objection to what they often describe as exploitative or “slave” labor conditions.

Hunger Strikes: Another common form is for prisoners to refuse food (hunger strike), sometimes at great risk to their health. Hunger strikes are a dramatic way to protest when other avenues are closed – the prisoners essentially put their bodies on the line to draw attention to grievances. A hunger strike can create a moral crisis for authorities: if prisoners grow weak or face death, the public may hold officials responsible. This was evident in early 20th-century Britain, when imprisoned suffragettes adopted hunger strikes; authorities responded by force-feeding them, a practice that caused public outcry and ultimately forced the government to change its approach (via the 1913 “Cat and Mouse Act”). Hunger strikes, therefore, function as a powerful moral appeal in addition to being a tactic of noncooperation.

Refusal of Orders and Other Noncooperation: Beyond work and food, prisoners’ strikes can include disobeying daily routines or regulations without engaging in violence. For instance, striking prisoners might refuse to leave their cells (“lockdown” or sit-in within the prison), boycott prison commissaries, or decline to participate in mandated programs. By uniformly withdrawing compliance, prisoners assert their agency and make it harder for the institution to operate normally.

Crucially, a prisoners’ strike is coordinated and collective. A single inmate refusing to eat or work might be easily ignored or punished, but when done en masse, the protest becomes a statement of unity and purpose. Even though prisoners have severely restricted freedom, acting together in large numbers gives them a form of leverage. It also signals to society that their grievances are serious enough to warrant such extreme measures. In this way, a prisoners’ strike turns the very conditions of incarceration – isolation and powerlessness – into a stage for resistance, making the public and authorities take notice of issues that are usually hidden behind prison walls.

Strategic Purpose and When It’s Effective

Prisoners typically resort to strikes when other channels of redress are blocked. Behind bars, individuals lack access to regular protest tools like demonstrations, voting, or lobbying. A strike becomes a strategy of last resort to make their voices heard. The strategic purposes of a prisoners’ strike include:

Drawing Public Attention: One of the primary goals is to shine a light on prison conditions or political injustices that would otherwise remain invisible. By creating a crisis (such as a mass hunger strike or a labor shutdown), prisoners generate news that can leak to the outside world through lawyers, family visits, or activist networks. Public awareness is a powerful weapon for the oppressed – it can galvanize support and put pressure on officials. For example, during the 1981 hunger strike in Northern Ireland’s Maze Prison, the fact that ten men were willing to starve to death for their cause captured global media attention and rallied massive public support (over 100,000 people attended the funeral of strike leader Bobby Sands). This attention often forces authorities to respond in some way, if only to manage their public image.

Forcing Negotiations or Concessions: A well-timed prisoners’ strike can push authorities to the negotiating table. The implicit threat is that if the situation escalates (prisoners getting very sick or the prison workforce grinding to a halt), it could lead to political fallout or unrest. Thus, officials may prefer to offer partial concessions or enter dialogue rather than face a deeper crisis. In some cases, such strikes have led to tangible changes. A notable example is the mass hunger strike by Palestinian prisoners in 2017: after 41 days, the strike was ended when Israel offered a compromise deal meeting some of the prisoners’ demands – including improved family visitation rights. Despite authorities initially vowing not to bend, the sustained strike forced them into an agreement, illustrating how prisoners can extract concessions on key issues.

Economic and Functional Disruption: In prisons where inmate labor is integral (for maintaining facilities or generating profit through contracts), a strike directly undermines the economic functioning of the institution. If enough prisoners refuse work, basic services (kitchen, laundry, factory outputs) may halt. This puts immediate pressure on prison administrators and, by extension, the government to address the prisoners’ grievances in order to restore normal operations. Organizers of prison labor strikes often frame their protest in economic terms – for instance, prisoners in recent U.S. strikes protested being paid pennies per hour for their work, comparing it to “modern slavery,” and their work stoppages were aimed at forcing reforms in pay and conditions.

Solidarity and Empowerment: The very act of striking can build solidarity among disparate prisoner groups (across racial or gang lines) and connect their struggle to outside movements. It gives prisoners a sense of collective empowerment and can inspire supportive protests on the outside. A strike that unites inmates in common cause may also draw support from civil rights organizations, labor unions, or religious and community groups, further amplifying its impact. In turn, this broadens the base of a movement for change. The 1970 Folsom Prison strike, for example, saw prisoners of different backgrounds – including members of the Black Panther Party and the Brown Berets – join together, which helped the protest gain nationwide attention and solidarity from outside activists.

A prisoners’ strike tends to be most effective under certain conditions. Unity and numbers are important – the more prisoners participate, the harder it is to suppress the action quietly. Communication with the outside world is crucial as well: effective strikes often have conduits (lawyers, family, advocacy groups) to broadcast their demands and updates, ensuring the issue doesn’t stay behind prison gates. Timing and context can make a difference, too. Some strikes are deliberately timed to coincide with political moments or public events when officials are sensitive to controversy. For instance, the Folsom Prison strike was announced one day before a statewide election, a tactical move that heightened political attention on the inmates’ demands. Likewise, prisoners have chosen symbolic dates (such as the anniversary of other prison uprisings or historical events) to launch strikes, thereby tapping into existing public sentiment. In summary, the strategic purpose of a prisoners’ strike is to exert influence where the prisoners seemingly have none – by creating a moral, political, or economic dilemma for those in power. When employed under the right conditions – broad participation, outside awareness, and strategic timing – this method of nonviolent resistance can compel authorities to address issues that would otherwise be ignored, from abusive prison conditions to broader political grievances.

Risks and Challenges of Prisoners’ Strikes

While prisoners’ strikes can be powerful, they also come with significant risks and challenges for those involved. By defying prison rules, inmates expose themselves to potential punishment and even life-threatening consequences:

Harsh Reprisals: Prison authorities often respond swiftly and severely to strikes. Incarcerated people have very few legal protections when they deliberately break prison regulations, even for protest. Common reprisals include solitary confinement, transfer to distant facilities, loss of visitation or communication privileges, and disciplinary action. Strike leaders are frequently singled out – as one report on a recent U.S. prison strike noted, “leaders were picked off, one by one, and thrown into solitary” in an attempt to quash the protest. These tactics aim to break the solidarity of the strikers and deter others by making an example of organizers. Retaliation can undermine a strike’s effectiveness and poses a personal toll on those who dared to speak out.

Physical and Mental Health Dangers: Particularly in the case of hunger strikes, prisoners put their health on the line. Extended refusal of food (and sometimes water) can lead to organ damage, long-term disabilities, or death. During the famed 1981 Irish hunger strike, ten prisoners starved to death for their cause, an extreme sacrifice that underscores how deadly this method can be. Even when fatalities are avoided, participants may suffer chronic health issues as a result of prolonged fasting or unsanitary conditions during the strike. The psychological strain of a life-and-death protest, and of enduring punishment like isolation, is also immense.

Force-Feeding and Medical Interventions: Authorities might attempt to forcibly end a hunger strike through medical coercion. Force-feeding – inserting tubes to feed prisoners against their will – has been used in various contexts and is highly traumatic. British suffragette prisoners who hunger-struck in 1909–1914 were notoriously force-fed by prison doctors, a practice the women described as a form of violence and torture. The public revulsion at these force-feedings ended up fueling sympathy for the suffragettes’ cause, but the immediate effect on the prisoners was injury and humiliation. In more recent times, force-feeding of hunger strikers (for example, at Guantánamo Bay or among Palestinian detainees) has raised serious ethical and human rights concerns. Thus, prisoners on strike face the risk that their protest will be countered by invasive procedures that can be physically and mentally scarring.

Lack of Visibility and Credibility: A more general challenge is ensuring that the strike is noticed and taken seriously. Prison officials may try to censor information, keeping news of the strike from reaching outside media. They might downplay the prisoners’ grievances by portraying them as criminals who deserve their fate, thus undermining public sympathy. In some cases, if a strike is small or short-lived, it might end without anyone on the outside even knowing it happened. This is a constant threat to the effectiveness of a prisoners’ strike – the protest occurs in an inherently closed environment, so breaking through that barrier is difficult. Strikers must often rely on sympathetic lawyers or family members to relay messages, or even resort to clandestine methods (like smuggled letters or illegal cell phones) to get the word out. Without external awareness, a prison strike can be suppressed internally with little consequence for the institution.

Escalation to Violence: Although the intent of a prisoners’ strike as a nonviolent method is to avoid violence, the situation can deteriorate. There is a danger of a violent crackdown by guards or riot squads if the protest is seen as a security threat. In a worst-case scenario, what begins as a peaceful strike could trigger a prison uprising or confrontation. History provides grim examples, such as the Attica prison revolt in 1971, which started as a protest for better conditions but escalated and ended in a deadly retaking of the prison (though Attica was not a nonviolent strike, it shows the potential for violence once tensions boil over). Strikers must carefully maintain nonviolent discipline to keep moral high ground, yet they cannot control how authorities respond. The power imbalance is stark: unarmed prisoners against armed guards, all within a closed facility. This imbalance means any prisoner protest faces the latent threat of force at any moment.

Despite these challenges, prisoners often weigh the risks against the urgency of their cause. When conditions are truly desperate or a political principle is at stake, they may decide that a strike is worth the personal cost. The bravery of those who undertake prisoners’ strikes is notable – they resist in one of the most restrictive and punitive environments imaginable. Their nonviolent action carries a dual message: it protests the immediate issue at hand, and it appeals to the conscience of the public by demonstrating a refusal to submit quietly to mistreatment or injustice.

Notable Historical Examples of Prisoners’ Strikes

To understand the impact of prisoners’ strikes, it’s helpful to look at several historical examples across different eras and regions. These cases show how, even under harsh constraints, prisoners’ collective action has led to significant outcomes – from policy changes to increased public awareness and solidarity movements.

Suffragette Hunger Strikes in Britain (1909–1914): Imprisoned women fighting for the right to vote in the UK famously used hunger strikes as a protest against being treated as ordinary criminals rather than political prisoners. Starting with Marion Wallace Dunlop in 1909, suffragettes would refuse food for days on end. The British authorities responded with forcible feeding, which the suffragettes reported as a brutal and painful ordeal. The public was scandalized by images and accounts of women being force-fed, generating sympathy for the suffrage movement. The government eventually passed the Prisoners’ Temporary Discharge for Ill-Health Act 1913, nicknamed the “Cat and Mouse Act,” as a direct response to the hunger strikes. This law allowed prisons to release hunger-striking women when they became very weak and re-arrest them once they recovered, in an attempt to avoid deaths in custody. While it was a cynical tactic by authorities, its enactment acknowledged the power of the protest – the suffragettes’ strike had forced the issue into the open. Moreover, the spectacle of frail women being repeatedly released and re-imprisoned kept the spotlight on the injustice they were fighting, contributing to eventual reforms. Impact: The suffragette strikes succeeded in raising public awareness worldwide about women’s rights and pressured the government to find a less confrontational approach (the Cat and Mouse Act). The outrage over force-feeding also helped shift public opinion in favor of the suffragettes’ cause, an important factor leading up to women’s partial suffrage in 1918.

Folsom Prison Strike (USA, 1970): On November 3, 1970, inmates at Folsom State Prison in California launched a 19-day strike that became a landmark in the prisoners’ rights movement in the United States. Over 2,400 prisoners refused to leave their cells (a form of work stoppage and sit-in) and many also engaged in a hunger strike. They issued a bold “Prisoners’ Manifesto of Demands” detailing grievances about racial discrimination, overcrowding, inadequate medical care, and forced labor. What made Folsom notable was the unified front: prisoners of various racial and political groups participated together, something unheard of in an environment often divided by race and gang allegiances. This unity, aided by outside supporters like the Black Panthers and Brown Berets, amplified the strike’s visibility. The strike was timed just before a gubernatorial election, which increased political attention on their demands. Although the Folsom strike did not immediately win all its 31 demands, it had a clear impact on public awareness and solidarity. It was one of the first times the general American public heard directly from prisoners en masse about their conditions. The manifesto’s language comparing prisons to “fascist concentration camps” and calling for the right to form labor unions in prison was startling and resonated with the era’s broader civil rights and anti-authoritarian movements. Impact: The Folsom strike is credited with galvanizing the prisoners’ rights movement. It set the stage for subsequent prison protests (just a year later, the infamous Attica uprising would occur in New York). Folsom’s example also led California prison officials to start addressing some inmate grievances to prevent further unrest. More broadly, the strike built solidarity among prisoners (across racial lines) and between prisoners and outside activist groups, planting the seeds for advocacy organizations like the Prisoners’ Union. Even though repression was heavy, the legacy of Folsom can be seen in later reforms and the emergence of prisoner-rights as a recognized social issue in the 1970s.

Irish Republican Prisoners’ Hunger Strike (Northern Ireland, 1981): Perhaps one of the most dramatic and politically significant prisoners’ strikes in history, the 1981 hunger strike in Northern Ireland involved convicted Irish republican militants (paramilitaries) protesting the British government’s refusal to recognize them as political prisoners. These inmates, held in the Maze Prison (also known as Long Kesh or the H-Blocks), had already been protesting via a “blanket strike” (refusing to wear prison uniforms) and a “dirty protest” (refusing to wash and smearing cells) since 1976, after their special status was revoked. In 1981, they escalated to a full hunger strike. Led by Bobby Sands, who was the first to stop eating, a sequence of prisoners joined the strike, staggering start times so that they would potentially die one after another, to prolong pressure on Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s government. During the strike, Bobby Sands was elected to the British Parliament in a surprise upset, showing massive outside support for their cause. Despite international appeals, the strike continued until ten prisoners died of starvation, finally ending in October 1981. The immediate demands (such as the right to wear civilian clothes, not do prison work, free association among prisoners, etc.) were partly met in the months after the strike – the British government quietly restored many of the lost privileges except formal “political status”. But the broader impact on society and politics was profound. The strike radicalized the Irish nationalist community; as historians note, it became the “driving force that enabled Sinn Féin to become a mainstream political party” in subsequent years. Indeed, anger and momentum from the prisons translated into electoral gains for Sinn Féin, shifting the Irish republican struggle from primarily armed conflict to a dual strategy of armed and political engagement. Internationally, the 1981 hunger strike brought attention to the Northern Ireland conflict, sparking protests and sympathy actions in Europe, the US, and beyond. Impact: The Irish prisoners’ strike achieved a moral victory and political shift. While it exacted a tragic human cost, it forced concessions on prison conditions and reshaped the conflict’s dynamics by injecting new energy into constitutional politics. To this day, the hunger strikers are remembered as martyrs in Ireland, and their protest stands as a stark example of the lengths to which people will go to protest perceived injustice – and how such sacrifice can alter the course of a political movement.

National Prisoners’ Strike (USA, 2018): In the summer of 2018, incarcerated people across at least 17 states in the U.S. organized an unprecedented nationwide prison labor strike. This strike – one of the largest of its kind in American history – was largely coordinated by prisoner-led groups like the Incarcerated Workers Organizing Committee and sparked by a deadly riot in a South Carolina prison earlier that year. Starting on August 21, prisoners engaged in work stoppages, hunger strikes, and boycotts of prison commissaries, with the protest lasting for 19 days (through September 9). Their list of 10 demands ranged from an end to unpaid or extremely low-paid labor, to sentencing reform and the restoration of voting rights for felons. Reports indicated that actions took place in multiple facilities – from California (where inmates at Folsom Prison joined a hunger strike) to Nova Scotia in Canada in solidarity. Because of the difficulty of communication, much of the strike’s extent was learned through activist groups and social media videos smuggled out by inmates. The impact of the 2018 strike was felt in the public discourse even though meeting the demands proved challenging. The strike put a spotlight on prison labor practices, with opinion pieces and news coverage openly debating the analogy of prison labor to slavery. It also brought the issue of felony disenfranchisement (loss of voting rights) into greater focus – notably, Florida voters that November passed a ballot initiative to restore voting rights to most people with felony convictions, a cause the strike had highlighted. Organizers cited the strike’s greatest achievement as prisoner solidarity across state lines – inmates in different prisons acting in concert for common goals. This unity was unprecedented and has since fueled ongoing advocacy. Impact: Although no immediate policy overhaul occurred at the federal level, the 2018 prisoners’ strike succeeded in raising national awareness about prison conditions and injustices (like exploitative labor and disenfranchisement). It demonstrated that even in the 21st century, prisoners could coordinate large-scale peaceful resistance. The strike’s momentum carried into voter initiatives and reform campaigns, and it signaled to prison authorities that inmates could not be seen merely as a voiceless, compliant workforce. In the words of one ACLU observer, “organizing across states for the strike has mobilized prisoners as a unified voice to an extent we have never seen before”, a development that may have lasting implications for the prison reform movement in America.