唐代贖刑制度研究
發(fā)布時間:2018-02-15 02:29
本文關鍵詞: 唐代贖刑 身份贖 非身份贖 歷史地位 現(xiàn)代意義 出處:《南京師范大學》2011年碩士論文 論文類型:學位論文
【摘要】:先秦時期產生的贖刑制度經過歷代的發(fā)展在唐代趨于完善,并且為后世模本一直存續(xù)至清末。歷史久遠的贖刑制度起到了不容小覷的作用,它在一定條件下可以替換不仁道的五刑,它的長期存在證明了古代并不全是殘酷的刑罰,改變了古代刑罰的傳統(tǒng)形象,糾正了人們對傳統(tǒng)法律的固有觀念及心理。唐代贖刑有著可見的多樣的法律淵源和完善的法律規(guī)定,這是前代贖刑所無法比擬的。通過梳理各種淵源中有關贖刑制度的法律規(guī)定,可以得出唐代贖刑是一項結構化、體系化的法律制度,具備實體性規(guī)范,而且還具備可操作性的程序規(guī)定。它在實體上雖然依附于正刑但在程序上則是完全獨立的。唐代贖刑可以分為身份贖和非身份贖兩類,這一分類有利于區(qū)分出贖刑的合理內核以及不合理之處。身份贖主要是由議、請、減等貴族官員及其親屬即有“身份”的人所適用的贖刑,但不能因此斷定贖刑就是一種特權制度,因為身份贖本身存在不適用的例外,而且它在整個封建法特權體系中處于邊緣位置,司法實踐中也往往棄而不用,所以不宜夸大贖刑的特權色彩。相反,贖刑的特權性在非身份贖存在的情況下進一步被弱化了,非身份贖主要包含老幼疾贖、過失贖、疑罪贖等不以身份來決定適用與否的各種情形,可為普通人所適用,只要符合一定的條件。經比較,身份贖與非身份贖之間存在著發(fā)展歷程、歷史作用、實體、程序等方面的差異,而且非身份贖的影響力甚至要超過身份贖?傊,唐代贖刑制度所具備的詳細規(guī)定、合理分類集前代之大成且影響后世深遠,它的歷史地位可見一斑,因此更應該對其作出客觀公正地評價。唐代贖刑制度存在不合理的一面,即身份贖所具有的特權性,雖然有所減弱但有違現(xiàn)代法律理念,應予以剔除。除去身份贖之后的贖刑制度就只有非身份贖,它有著合理的一面,值得深入挖掘,其所蘊含的慎刑、罪過觀念以及量化技術也具有一定的現(xiàn)代意義。
[Abstract]:The foreclosure system produced in the pre-Qin period tended to be perfected in the Tang Dynasty through the development of the past dynasties, and continued to exist for later generations until the end of the Qing Dynasty. The foreclosure system with a long history played an important role. Under certain conditions, it can replace the unkind five punishments. Its long-term existence has proved that the ancient times were not all cruel punishments, and changed the traditional image of ancient punishments. It corrects people's inherent ideas and psychology about traditional law. In the Tang Dynasty, the foreclosure penalty had a variety of legal sources and perfect legal provisions. This is unparalleled by the previous foreclosure. By combing the legal provisions of the foreclosure system in various sources, it can be concluded that the Tang Dynasty foreclosure is a structured, systematic legal system with substantive norms. There are also operational procedural provisions. Although it is physically dependent on the proper punishment, it is completely independent in procedure. The Tang Dynasty foreclosure can be divided into two categories: identity foreclosure and non-identity foreclosure. This classification is helpful to distinguish between the reasonable core and the unreasonableness of the foreclosure. The foreclosure is mainly the punishment applicable to the nobility officials and their relatives who have "status". But it can not be concluded that foreclosure is a kind of privilege system, because there is an exception which is not applicable to the status redemption itself, and it is marginalized in the whole system of feudal law privilege, and it is often abandoned but not used in the judicial practice. On the contrary, the privilege of foreclosure is further weakened under the condition of non-status foreclosure. The non-status foreclosure mainly includes the atonement of the old and the young, the negligent foreclosure. All kinds of circumstances, such as guilt of suspicion, which do not decide whether it is applicable or not based on identity, can be applied by ordinary people as long as they meet certain conditions. By comparison, there is a course of development, a historical role and a entity between identity foreclosure and non-identity foreclosure. There are differences in procedures and other aspects, and the influence of non-status foreclosure is even greater than that of identity foreclosure. In short, the detailed provisions of the foreclosure criminal system in the Tang Dynasty are of great success in the previous generation and have far-reaching impact on later generations, and its historical status can be seen. Therefore, it should be evaluated objectively and impartially. There is an unreasonable aspect in the system of redeeming punishment in the Tang Dynasty, that is, the privilege of identity foreclosure is weakened, but it violates the modern legal idea. The system of foreclosure after removing the status foreclosure is only non-status foreclosure. It has a reasonable side and is worth digging deeply. The cautious punishment, the concept of sin and the quantitative technology contained therein also have certain modern significance.
【學位授予單位】:南京師范大學
【學位級別】:碩士
【學位授予年份】:2011
【分類號】:D929;D924
【相似文獻】
相關期刊論文 前10條
1 趙偉剛;;淺析唐代復仇與禮法的矛盾沖突[J];湖北經濟學院學報(人文社會科學版);2011年06期
2 王玉杰;;唐律共犯人類型對我國刑法的啟示[J];許昌學院學報;2011年04期
3 張欣;;中國法制與國之福祉的聯(lián)系——從唐代的官吏制度淺析[J];法制與社會;2011年21期
4 崔蘭琴;;中國古代法上的和離[J];法學研究;2010年05期
5 閔冬芳;;唐律“夜無故入人家”條源流考[J];法學研究;2010年06期
6 艾永明;郭寅楓;;《唐律》別籍異財之禁探析[J];法學研究;2010年05期
7 賈旗;;論唐律對孝德培養(yǎng)的法律化[J];中南大學學報(社會科學版);2011年04期
8 佚名;;唐朝對缺勤官員的處罰[J];政府法制;2011年17期
9 董昊宇;;西夏法律中的盜竊罪及處罰原則——基于西夏《天盛改舊新定律令》的研究[J];西夏研究;2010年04期
10 李成遠;;《大明律》在中國封建社會法制史上的地位及影響[J];社會科學家;2011年08期
相關會議論文 前10條
1 姚e,
本文編號:1512210
本文鏈接:http://sikaile.net/falvlunwen/falilunwen/1512210.html