清代“越诉”律例研究

【作者】 卢红妍；

【导师】 柏桦；

【作者基本信息】 南开大学 ， 中外政治制度， 2012， 博士

【摘要】 《大清律例·刑律·诉讼·越诉》条，为“诉讼”12条之一，而列在该门之首，可以说是“诉讼”门的首要问题。该条律加上小注，不过103个字，却含括越诉、上控、直诉的内容，与诉讼程序密切相关。清代的法规体系，是由律、条例、事例、则例、章程、成案、禁约告示等组成，不同种类的法律规范稳定性不同、效力不同，所起的作用也不相同。因此，梳理与“越诉”律相关的条例、事例、则例、成案、禁约告示等，就成为研究越诉法规的首要问题。从历史沿革来看，清“越诉”律基本沿袭于明代；从社会发展来看，“越诉”的条例、则例、事例、成案数量较多。在梳理有关越诉的法规之后，按照法规的内容，区分为基本罪名、延伸罪名、扩展罪名。罪名及其内在的逻辑，是全面认识“越诉”问题的基础，也是当时当代立法水平的表现，也深刻地影响着法律的实施。越诉是越级控诉，它不同于上控和直诉，更不同于申诉。在清代文献中，没有直诉之名，而多见的是叩阍、京控、上控。当代的研究并没有加以细致分析，甚至讲：“叩阍，又称京控，俗称告御状”。不但将京控纳入直诉来论述，而且不加区别，其误解是明显的。因为《清史稿·刑法志三》将京控与叩阍分别定义，而且京控与叩阍的审理程序也不相同，本文就这个问题，从审理程序及量刑定罪方面展开论述，并且通过叩阍、京控、越诉（含上控）案件的审理过程，分析其中的不同，以期在更正前讹的基础上，重新认识京控与叩阍的问题。清代越诉已经成为当时社会的痼疾，虽然有“越诉”律例对越诉进行规范，但不能够消除越诉。在人民千方百计上京城的情况下，统治者期望通过制定严格的律例加以限制，却也是一法立一弊生，不但有大量的冤案，更造成冤狱难伸，人民忍无可忍，往往以过激的行为进行越诉，甚至以械斗、打冤家的方式寻求自我解决纠纷。因此对“越诉”律例的法理分析，来理解该律例的真正内涵；从社会反映，来看民众越诉成功的主客观有利条件；从“冤”的塑造及其经济资本、文化资本和社会资本，来分析民间对待越诉的态度；从专制制度、司法制度来探讨越诉案件不断增加的原因。应该承认，“越诉”律例起到规范司法诉讼的作用，不但给统治者提供监督各级官吏违法乱纪的行为提供方便，也可以通过一些冤案的处理，塑造“天王圣明”的形象，部分缓解对法律执行抵触的内在张力。清代法律在很大程度上是君主控制官僚的规则体系，但皇帝与官僚们的利益诉求往往相悖，君与臣的对立，也使得“越诉”律例的制订、实施形成冲突。君要防臣，而臣也定要欺君。因此在越诉案件处理上冤案在所难免。总之，清“越诉”律例的诸多特点是由这种皇帝官僚体制所决定。官僚营私无可防止，诉讼制度本身的矛盾，统治者在接受错误信息基础上的决策失误，以及与其他制度衔接的不畅，都是影响“越诉”律例认真贯彻执行的主要原因。越诉案件的办理还是皇帝或中央考核地方的重要内容，因而在客观上起着监察的作用，对地方的官吏队伍形成了一定的约束作用。在法律制度与统治制度的关系上，“越诉”作为清代法制建设的一环，它既体现了统治者加强权力的需要，也是为了规范社会秩序。这种权力的加强与秩序的规范，是与统治者的法律政治哲学与理念分不开的。更多还原

【Abstract】 “Irregularity Indictment·Indictment·Criminal Law·Great Qing Legal Code",one of the twelve indictment rules, was listed as the top one, which indicated thatIrregularity Indictment was the uttermost issue among all twelve. Although therewere only103characters of the content and its small notes, it regulated fromIrregularity Indictment to Appeal, and Direct Litigation, was closely connected tolitigation procedures.The Great Qing Dynasty legal system consisted of laws (Lv), statutes (Li),instances (Shili), rules (Zeli), constitutions (Zhangcheng), leadingcases (Chengan)and Ban notices etc. Different legal norms have different stability and effectiveness,and the functions are also different. Therefore, systematically revisiting all relatedstatutes (Li), instances (Shili), rules (Zeli), leading cases (Chengan) and Ban noticesis the key to study Irregularity Indictment. From historical point of view,irregularity indictment of Qing Dynasty was mainly based on Ming legal system;from social development point of view, the quantity of the statutes (Li), instances(Shili), rules (Zeli), leading cases (Chengan) of indictment in Qing Dynasty was waymuch larger than in Ming Dynasty.After re-organizing the related laws and regulations of irregularity indictment, itcan be divided into basic crime, extended crime and expanded crime according to thecontent of laws and regulations. Accusation and its logical arrangement reflectedthe legislative level of an era, influenced the enforcement of law, and also were thebase to understand “irregularity indictment” comprehensively.Irregularity indictment skipped the normal process which different from Appealand Direct Litigation, especially from Complaint. There has no clear cut definitionfor Zhisu (Direct Litigation) in Qing legal documentary, most common seen termsare Kouhun (indictment to the emperor)、Jingkong (indictment to the central body)and Shangkong (indictment to superior magistrate). Contemporary research didn’treally dig in depth on this topic, even states:“Kouhun is same as Jingkong, alsocalled GaoYuZhuang (appeal to the emperor) informally". Discussing Jingkong(the indictment to the central body) as part of the Direct Litigation, treated them samewith no difference is apparently a misunderstanding. In "QingShiGao(The historyof Qing Dynasty·Criminal Law Volume3", Jingkong and Kouhun(indictment to thecentral body or the emperor) were defined separately. On top of that, the trialprocedures of Jingkong and Kouhun (indictment to the central body or the emperor)were also different. This thesis will discuss in respect of the trial procedure,sentencing and conviction, analys the differences of the trial procedures of Kouhun、Jingkong (indictment to the central body or the emperor)、Irregularity indictment(including appeal to superior magistrate). Therefore, clear out all previousmisunderstanding, so get both Jingkong (indictment to the central body) andKouhun(indictment to the emperor) redefined.Irregularity indictment was common seen in Qing Dynasty. Although therewere laws and regulations to regulate them, but they were still existed. At the time,people tried every possible way head to the capital for indictment, lawmakers wereintended to impose restrictions by setting strict laws and regulations. However, themiscarriage of justice aroused, people could not bear it and chose to irregularityindictment by overacting, even to fight for resolving disputes by themselves for moreunjust cases occurred and there were no method to protect their legal rights.Admittedly, irregularity indictment rule played a very crucial role of regulatingjudicial litigation. It not only facilitated governors to supervise officers’ behaviorsfrom top to bottom, but also shaped the “Mighty King’s image” by correcting wrongcases. Furthermore, it helped to buffer all the tension against law enforcement.To a great extent, the laws and regulations in Qing Dynasty were controlled bymonarch bureaucratic, but the interests between imperial power and bureaucracyalways confronted which led to the conflict during the process of making andexecuting the irregularity indictment rules. The emperor had to set layers ofregulations, to control officials; officials had to adopt various means to conceal anddeceive, hence the errors were unavoidable during the process of dealing with theirregular indictment cases.In short, the characteristics of irregularity indictment rules in Qing Dynasty weremainly rooted from the monarchy political system. The violation of the laws was unavoidable. The contradiction in the litigation system, the governors’ wrongdecision-making based on accepting wrong information, as well as obstruction withother systems, were the main factors affecting the serious implementation of theirregularity indictment rules.How to handle irregular indictment was an important assessment aspect for theemperor or the central government to evaluate local governors, so irregularityindictmen played as a monitoring role and had constraint effect on the construction ofthe local government team to some extent. In the respect of the relation betweenlegal system and governing system, as part of legal system construction,"IrregularityIndictmen" reflected the imperial rulers’ need to strengthen power and standardizesocial order. The enhancement of power and standardization of social order closelyrelated to the Empire rulers’ legal and political philosophy.更多还原