【作者】 冯红；

【导师】 汪圣铎；

【作者基本信息】 河北大学 ， 中国古代史， 2010， 博士

【摘要】 唐代刑法原则考论——以《唐律疏议》为中心,主要讨论唐代刑法原则的形成、发展和变化。对唐代刑法原则的研究以《唐律疏议》为主要依据,其他律、令、格、式为补充。唐代刑法原则既协调、又完整,各原则既有总则性规范、又有分则性具体规定,各原则之间各自对立、又相互联系。同时,唐代刑法原则具有历史继承性与创新性并存、一致性与矛盾性并存的双重品格。重刑原则主要指唐代律典之严刑峻罚的制度与思想,集中体现在“十恶”犯罪中。以“十恶”为中心的重刑原则主要是针对同时期、同一性质其他犯罪而言,是一种横向比较。在结构安排中,“十恶”犯罪列在众罪之首。在量刑上,“十恶”之重刑表现在:不适用减刑、罪不分首从、缘坐亲属、误犯处死刑、不为害者也处罚、言辞归罪、预谋犯与实行犯量刑相等、起刑点低、扩大刑法调整的范围等方面。同时,入“十恶”各罪之间也轻重不等,体现了“尊尊”为主、“亲亲”为辅。从纵向比较,唐代规定“十恶”之罪刑与前代相比处罚较轻,体现在罪名进一步细分、量刑减轻以及缩小缘坐的亲属范围。此外,对“十恶”犯罪处重刑,但在执行中未必重罚,这主要源于立法的特殊规定和执法中皇帝的权断。以“八议”为主的轻刑原则的本质是维护君主专制统治,表现官僚贵族的司法特权,是中国古代刑法等级性的表象和外部特征。“议”“请”“减”“赎”“官当”就像一根链条将官僚贵族及其亲属分层次纳入法律优待的范围。在审判程序与量刑中,官僚贵族可以凭“议”“请”“减”而减轻处罚,在执行过程中还可以通过“赎”“官当”易刑,用钱、物以及官爵代替实际的刑罚。唐代以“八议”为主的轻刑原则具有等级性与广泛性。所以,唐代较前代对官僚贵族的保护更全面,表现为扩大减刑范围、扩大“官”的界定范围、扩大“官”的溯及力、扩大法律的优待以及实行有条件的连续减等。同罪异罚原则的本质是刑罚适用不平等,是以“十恶”为中心的重刑原则和以“八议”为主的轻刑原则中的一重一轻的综合体现,表现为贵贱有等、尊卑有差、良贱有别,其刑等之差在四等至十一等间。在贵贱中,对皇亲的保护甚至超过五服,对官僚的保护也是严格治官与赋予特权相结合;在尊卑中,对亲属相犯不仅是不同辈分间尊卑有差量刑不等,而且同一辈分间也因长幼有差而量刑不等;在良贱中,同罪异罚还延伸至亲属和已死亡之人。所以,《唐律疏议》中的同罪同罚是在同等身份之间且没有隶属关系之下的同罪同罚。可见,《唐律疏议》处罚的不仅是行为人的“行为”,还包括行为“人”。恤刑原则是对老、幼、妇、疾的悯恤,体现了尊长怜幼、体恤残疾、宽仁慎刑,是国家利益、社会利益、个人利益三者的结合。唐代恤刑原则较前代处刑更轻,表现在恤刑原则的适用范围、适用的罪名、恤刑的方式、缘坐的亲属范围、老幼疾的认定时间等方面。但律文虽有减轻处罚的规定,但执法中也有例外,同时对老幼、妇孺、残疾的宽免有时也被用来规避刑罚。此外,《唐律疏议》规定的年龄、生理、性别是影响量刑的因素,而非定罪的因素,它表明《唐律疏议》中存在一种不追究刑事责任的犯罪。在刑罚的适用原则中,自首减免刑罚原则表现为不同时间自首减免幅度不同、余罪自首免刑、亲属代首与捕告的免刑、官犯公罪自首的特别免刑、共犯逃亡自首的免刑。自首减免刑罚的关键在“原”字上、为什么“原”、什么情况下“原”以及“原”的幅度有多大,这更多地取决于“功利”二字。所以,自首减免刑罚体现的是法律的功利性。但唐代自首减免刑罚的必减主义,将法律的功利性绝对化,可谓得之功利、失之公正。更犯与数罪虽同是再次犯罪,但二者有所不同,对更犯的处罚重于数罪。较前代,唐代刑法原则对此规定更系统、更完善:区分了主刑和附加刑,对何罪为重、何罪为轻又有更深入的评价标准,注意到对漏罪、一事分为二罪、连续犯的处罚。在《唐律疏议》的502条律文中,表述主观过错的法律用语多达13种,可分为两类:故意犯罪与过失犯罪。《唐律疏议》中的故意犯罪包括现代刑法中故意犯罪和过于自信的过失犯罪,过失犯罪包括现代刑法中的疏忽大意过失与意外事件。这表明唐律对无犯意的行为也处罚,是一种客观结果归罪。故意与过失量刑有别:在官员失职犯罪中,过失犯罪轻于故意犯罪二至三等。在一般人犯罪中,由于同罪异罚原则的存在,过失犯罪的减轻处罚依据不同的身份而有不同的减轻幅度。尊长过失犯卑幼比照故意犯罪的减等幅度大,卑幼过失犯尊长的减等幅度小。此外,涉及军事利益的故意犯罪与过失犯罪处刑相同,没有刑等之差。在共同犯罪中,主观因素、客观因素、血缘关系和职务身份影响主从关系的认定。在主犯与从犯区别量刑中,分为三种情况:主犯重于从犯、从犯重于主犯、主犯与从犯处罚相等。它一方面表现了《唐律疏议》在法条竞合中贯彻特别法优于一般法的原则,另一方面也反映了宗法等级社会下的同罪异罚原则。类举原则包括类推原则和不应得为罪。唐律中的类推原则可类推为有罪、罪重,或类推为无罪、罪轻。后者是现代刑法所提倡的有利于被告人的类推。类举原则的设立表现了立法者已经认识到法律的滞后性与有限性,但常造成罪刑擅断,其症结在于“无类而推”“无类而举”。但是,不能因为类举原则的存在就否认中国古代法制对罪刑法定的追求,限制中国古代法制之罪刑法定的根本原因在于君主专制主义,它是罪刑法定的“瓶颈”和“枷锁”,是罪刑擅断的根源。更多还原

【Abstract】 This article, principally based upon A Modest Discussion of the Laws in Tang Dynasty, while reading other laws, orders, standards, and rituals, mainly investigates the formation, development and changes of the principles of the Criminal Law in the Tang Dynasty. The principles of the Criminal Law in Tang Dynasty are both coordinating and complete. Every principle has both general principle and sub specification. Every principle is both independent and inter-related. It has the characteristics of historical inheritance and creativeness, coherence and contradiction.The principle of severe punishment refers to the institution and thought of strict laws and severe punishment in the Tang Dynasty. It is mainly reflected in the punishment of the“ten evils”. The principle of severe punishment is said mainly in parallel comparison with other crimes with a similar nature in the same period. In the structure of Criminal Law,“ten evils”head the list of other crimes. In sentencing, the severe punishment for the“ten evils”is reflected in, not suitable for commutation, no distinguishing for the chief criminal or accomplice, implicating relatives, capital punishment for fault crime, punishment for those who have done no harm, speech crimes, the same sentencing for premeditation and practitioner, low point of getting sentenced, and enlarging area of criminal law adjustment. At the same time, the“ten evils”are distinguished between heavy and light crimes, elders and youngsters. Vertically comparing, the sentencing of“ten evils”is lighter than the previous dynasty. It is reflected in the detailed division of the names of crimes, light sentencing of the same kind of crimes, limiting the implicating relatives. In legalization, heavy punishment for“ten evils”, while in practice, light punishment. This is mainly due to special specifications in legalization and power over law in practice.The nature of the light sentencing by mainly reading“eight discussions”is to safeguard to the monarchical institution, to represent the legal privileges of the aristocracy, and is the representation and outer features of the ancient Chinese legalization.“Discussions”,“requests”,“reductions’,“ransoms”,“title-forsaking”, are like chains to make the officials and their relatives serve light punishment. In legal procedure and sentencing, official aristocracy can get light punishment for heavy crimes, through“discussion”,“requests”, and“reductions”. In legal practice, they can also escape from punishment through“ransoms”and“title-forsaking”( i.e. by giving some money or forsaking one’s official title, instead of getting the legal punishment). Therefore,“eight discussions”and other principles of light sentencing have the nature of classification and universality. Hence, the safeguarding of the officials in the Tang Dynasty is more universal than the previous dynasties, embodying in enlarging the scope of light sentencing,“officials”definition and their privileges and the conditional consecutive reduction of legal punishment.The nature of different punishment for the same crime is the un-equality of legal punishment. It is embodied in the principles of heavy punishment for the“ten crimes”and light punishment for the officials and their relatives with“eight discussions”. It is represented as the distinguishing of high and low social position, and different ages, with the sentencing varying from the fourth category to the eleventh category for the same crime. In high social positions, the protection of the royal family can be extended to five generations. The protection of the officials is also strict rule combined with privileges. In the sentencing of commoners, different generations will receive different punishment for the same crimes. Even in the same generation, the older will get heavier punishment than the young for the same crimes. Among good and bad citizens, different punishment for the same crime is extended to relatives and the already dead. Therefore, same punishment for the same crime only refers to persons with the same social status without the relationship of seniority and subordination. From this we can infer that the punishment in A Modest Discussion of the Laws in Tang Dynasty is not only the crimes but also the person who commits the crimes.The principle of legal sympathy is reflected in the sympathy for the old persons, the under-aged, the ill and the disabled. It embodies in respect for the old, cherish for the young, sympathy for the ill and the disabled, and in forgiveness and cautious sentencing. It is the unity of the interests of the nation, the society and the individual. The principle of sympathy is lighter than the previous dynasties, and is embodied in the appropriate scope, the appropriate names of the crimes, the methods of sympathy, the scope of implicating relatives, and the affirmation of the old, the young and the disabled. In the written law, although there are provisions for the reduction of legal punishment, there are exceptions in legal practice, and the reduction of punishment for the old, the young, the ill and the disabled, sometimes is used to forgive them and giving up persecution at all. Besides, A Modest Discussion of the Laws in Tang Dynasty stipulates that age, physical condition and sex are elements affecting sentencing, not for conviction. If this understanding stands, there exist in A Modest Discussion of the Laws in Tang Dynasty crimes which do not get punishment.In the principle of amnesty, if a person reports his own crime within a certain time, he can get certain amount of reduction in punishment. He can get amnesty if he is an accomplice, if his relatives report him. Officials can get amnesty if he commits crime for the public good. An accomplice can get amnesty if he reports himself while on the run. The key to amnesty is“forgiveness”, why it is“forgiven”, in what condition it is“forgiven”, and how much should it be“forgiven”, all depend upon utilitarianism. Therefore, amnesty based upon self-report embodies utilitarianism in law. The reductionism in the Tang laws carries to the extreme. It can be said that justice is lost in utilitarianism. Re-commitment of crimes and commitment of several crimes are treated differently. Re-commitment gets heavier punishment than commitment of several crimes, although they are all committing crimes again. Comparing with previous dynasties, the principles of Tang law are more systematic and complete. They are embodied in the detailed standards of the distinguishing of principal punishment and supplementary punishment; in the decision of heavy or light crimes; and in paying attention to the punishment of series crimes. In the 502 provisions of A Modest Discussion of the Laws in Tang Dynasty, 13 provisions belong to subjective crimes, and can be divided into intentional and unintentional. The intentional crimes include the intentional crimes and unintentional crimes due to too much confidence in modern criminal law. Its unintentional crimes include crimes of negligence and accidents. It indicates that Tang law gives punishment for unintentional behaviour. It attributes crimes to objective results. In sentencing, there is difference between intentional and unintentional crimes. In the crimes of negligence of officials, unintentional crimes will get lesser punishment than intentional crimes, with two or three levels less. In the crimes committed by commoners, because of the existence of the principle of different punishment for the same crime, the reduction of punishment for unintentional crimes will depend upon a person’s social status. The extent of reduction for elders who commit unintentional crimes against the young is larger than that for the young who commit crimes against the elder. Punishment for military crime is the same no matter it is intentional or unintentional. In co-committed crimes, the subjective elements, objective elements, blood relations and social status will affect the identification of the main criminal and the accessory criminal. In the sentencing of the main criminal and the accessory criminal, there are three types: heavier punishment for the main criminal, heavier punishment for the accessory criminal and equal punishment for both. It reflects in the provisions of A Modest Discussion of the Laws in Tang Dynasty that special laws are superior than the ordinary laws,and it also embodies in the principles of different punishment for the same crime in stratified patriarchal system. The principle of inference includes the principles of analogy and undue punishment. The principles of analogy in the Tang law can be used to decide whether a person has committed crimes or not, and whether the crimes are heavy or light. The analogy for light punishment is used in modern criminal law for the benefits of the accused. The principles of analogy reflect that the legislators have realized the limitation and lagging of the law. However, the defects of this principle is to”analogue without precedents to follow”and to judge arbitrarily. Therefore, we cannot deny the pursuit in ancient society for lawful punishment of crimes due to the existence of the principles of analogy. The fundamental reason for limiting the lawful punishment of crimes lies in the dictatorship of the monarchy. It is the“bottleneck”and the“yoke”for the principle of lawful punishment of crimes and the arbitrary judgement of crimes.更多还原