跳到主要內容區塊
選單
中文

法制史研究

宋代判決斷由中「檢法擬筆」的原則 The Principle of "Citing Enactments to Draft Judgment Texts" in Court Verdicts in Song Dynasty

  • 作  者:

    劉馨珺 Liu, Hsin-Chun

  • 期別頁碼:

    11:1-60

  • 出版時間:

    2007/06

  • 引用 全文下載

摘要

本文探討宋代獄訟結案的程序,歸納「檢法擬筆」相關 的法規及要件,分析斷由與擬筆的作用與訴訟風氣,進一步 考察地方行政官僚的審判方式、職能,從中瞭解行政官僚的 司法業務及其角色。

宋代獄訟判決最後一道程序,稱為「結絕」。不論刑獄 或民訟的結案,都必須交付當事人一件具備「情與法」的判 決文。官員書寫判決時,可以透過行政作業,取得歷來相關 的「擬筆」,作為結絕的重要參考。如果案涉入獄推鞫,獄 官的擬狀和法司的檢斷皆屬擬筆文書。而獄官的鞫狀只能書 寫入獄者的口供,不可預設事狀招供;法司的檢擬則必須具引與事狀相關的法令條文,但不可妄下判斷。與其說宋代的 判決是由「檢法官」協助讞罪,不如說各部門中「擬筆官」 的看法,更有助於審判官員的結絕斷案。

宋代以下,中國民間社會爭訟頻繁,官府並未採取科罰 的處理態度,反而在受詞追證程序上改進,朝向有「理」可 循的發展,當人民愈發流行以投牒告狀解決紛爭,因而產生 若干互動性的審判制度。南宋高宗以後,朝廷規定「婚田差 役」一類的訴訟必給「斷由」。斷由相當於重罪「議法斷 刑」的讞狀,亦即某一衙門的結絕判語。審判官員結絕時, 受「斷罪引律令格式」的法律制約,亦即針對犯罪事實,必 須援引相關法條。宋朝法律多如牛毛,「戶婚差役」案件的 審理,並非以懲罰為最終目的,國法也不是用來支持審判官 員科刑而已。因此,宋代地方衙門為了因應健訟風氣,避免 行政錯失,於是加強「檢法擬筆」的機制。

就「檢法擬筆」的作用而言,一是優秀的擬筆者檢用法 令,會將儒學經典發揮於法意運用。二是擬筆者僅能查錄法 條,不能做斷刑處分。三是反覆釐清案情,擬出若干處置情 況,提供長官定奪。四是擬判重點不在於定罪,而是注重案 情分析,並且提供證據與法理充分的意見。五是檢具「不受 理法條」,阻止健訟者「不應為」的妄訴行為。

地方幕職州縣佐官處理「獄訟」時,連帶負責「檢法擬 筆」職能。各級地方衙門 倘 能要求屬官到公廳 「集眾較量」,有助於議斷疑案,解決滯訟。在宋代官制設計中,訂定「檢法擬筆」原則,促使地方官僚歷經各種審判程序的訓 練,有助於提升地方知州、縣令等長官的素質。「檢法擬 筆」的規範也影響了縣衙吏人的職能趨向專職、分工化。固然宋代的吏治中,有墮落的官員,還有胥吏管理問題叢生, 但是「檢法擬筆」的實施,應是宋代法制發展史上,不可忽 略的一環節。

 

This article investigates  the procedure  of settling a  lawsuit and the function of court verdicts  and judgment  drafts as well as the practice of  litigations by  analyzing the legal documents pertaining  to the system  of “jianfa nibi”  (Citing Enactments  to Draft  Judgment Texts) in  Song Dynasty.   This  article also examines  the local administrative   bureaucrats in terms of their role and function in handling judicial cases.

The final procedure of handling legal cases in Song Dynasty was called “Jiejue,” in which the officials concluded  a verdict by taking human sympathy and laws into account.  When rendering the verdict of both criminal and civil  cases,  the officials would consult all  past related judgment drafts as   references.  If imprisonment  was involved in  an inquisition by torture, both prison officers’  interrogations  and judges’ prosecution  reports were regarded  as “judgment drafts.”   Theoretically the previous recorded only prisoner’s affidavit without being adulterated with guided confession, and the later cited applicable laws and decrees without being compromised by personal opinions.  In this regard, the settlement of a lawsuit in Song Dynasty  relied heavily upon the opinions of thee “legal drafters” from all departments rather than the judgments of judicatory officials.

Though the  exercise of  litigation  appeared   booming in Chinese  society since the Song Dynasty, the government didn’t invoke penalty to prevent it. Instead, the government endeavored to   improve  legal   procedures and  nomological  reasoning. Consequently  the conditions of  people tending to  solve their disputes by means of lawsuits  became several interactive  judging systems..  After Emperor  Gaozong of Southern  Song, the Court stipulated that the court verdicts should be provided on disputes pertaining to marriage, grounds, and employment. Court verdicts equal to the count of the felony: “Resolving Laws to Sentence”, namely a judgment wording  of settling a lawsuit  at certain district Yamens (the government offices).In order to conclude  a verdict, judges were required to quote related enactments according  to corpus delicti. However, as  innumerable   as  the enactments  in Song Dynasty were, the purposes   of  judging cases   such as marriage,  grounds,  and employment  weren’t aiming at penalty, and even the national laws were not merely supporting  judge officers  to   sentence. In   order  to   prevent  litigiosity   and administrative  errors as well, the system of “Citing Enactments to Draft Judgment  Texts” was thus put into practice in the local Yamens.

 

As far as  the function of “Citing Enactments  to Draft Judgment Texts” to be concerned, ideally efficient drafters would citing  and elaborating related arguments  from  the Confucian classics.  Drafters could only consult the laws, and have no right to conclude verdicts.  They should instead examine every detail of the cases and offer solutions to all possible scenarios for their superiors to decide.  The key function of the draft judgment was, instead of concluding   a verdict, to provide analysis of the cases with  all  nomological considerations. Last but not least, the complaint-rejected  ordinances could be used to prevent litigiosity.

Local officials like prefects and county magistrates also took charge of the exercise of “Citing Enactments to Draft Judgment Texts” while  dealing with  criminal and civil  cases. It  was helpful for  the officials  of  local  Yamens to  gather their subordinates   and  deliberate together on  those doubtful  and disputed cases.     The practice of  “Citing  Enactments  to Draft Judgment Texts” could help training local officials by going through  these legal procedures and therefore  enhance their ability as  local prefects and county magistrates. Arguably such practice also resulted in specialization and departmentalization of the local governments.  To sum up, even though there have always been management problems  of corrupt bureaucrats and petty officials, the practice of “Citing Enactments to Draft Judgment Texts” was, by any means, an essential part that could never be overlooked in the development of legal systems in Song Dynasty.

關鍵詞

斷由、檢法擬筆、鞫讞、脫判、不受理法條

Court verdict, Drafting judgment texts referring to enactments, To interrogate  and adjudicate, False court verdict, Complaint-rejected ordinance

引用

引用書目為自動生成,僅便於讀者使用,
可能不完全準確。

引用書目

註腳
劉馨珺,〈宋代判決斷由中「檢法擬筆」的原則〉,《法制史研究》11(2007):1-60。
Hsin-Chun Liu, “The Principle of "Citing Enactments to Draft Judgment Texts" in Court Verdicts in Song Dynasty,” Journal for Legal History Studies 11 (2007): 1-60.

書目
劉馨珺
2007 〈宋代判決斷由中「檢法擬筆」的原則〉,《法制史研究》11:1-60。
Liu, Hsin-Chun
2007 “The Principle of "Citing Enactments to Draft Judgment Texts" in Court Verdicts in Song Dynasty.” Journal for Legal History Studies 11: 1-60.
劉馨珺. (2007). 宋代判決斷由中「檢法擬筆」的原則. 法制史研究, 11, 1-60.

Liu, Hsin-Chun. (2007). The Principle of "Citing Enactments to Draft Judgment Texts" in Court Verdicts in Song Dynasty. Journal for Legal History Studies, 11, 1-60.
劉馨珺. “宋代判決斷由中「檢法擬筆」的原則.” 法制史研究, no. 11 (2007): 1-60.

Liu, Hsin-Chun. “The Principle of "Citing Enactments to Draft Judgment Texts" in Court Verdicts in Song Dynasty.” Journal for Legal History Studies, no. 11 (2007): 1-60.
劉馨珺. “宋代判決斷由中「檢法擬筆」的原則.” 法制史研究, no. 11, 2007, pp. 1-60.

Liu, Hsin-Chun. “The Principle of "Citing Enactments to Draft Judgment Texts" in Court Verdicts in Song Dynasty.” Journal for Legal History Studies, no. 11, 2007, pp. 1-60.
複製

匯出格式

下載 下載 下載 下載
⟸回上頁
返回頂端