本文選題：宋代　切入點：地方司法　出處：《西南政法大學(xué)》2012年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：宋興之時，為避免五代國家分裂、藩鎮(zhèn)割據(jù)之患，太祖趙匡胤聽從趙普的建議，漸次收節(jié)度政權(quán)、財權(quán)、軍權(quán)于中央，加強中央對地方的控制。同時，，采用“設(shè)官分職，分割事權(quán)”的方法，分割朝臣的權(quán)力，以防止大臣擅權(quán)。宋代地方司法分權(quán)制度，就是建立在行政分權(quán)的背景之下的。 有宋一代，在地方設(shè)有縣、州、路三級司法機構(gòu)。相對而言，縣級司法機構(gòu)的設(shè)置較為簡單，分權(quán)的特征并不十分明顯。但是，在其審判程序中有一項十分優(yōu)良的傳統(tǒng)，那就是負責(zé)捕盜的縣尉不得推鞫，從而形成了偵查與審判的分離。宋代州級司法機構(gòu)的設(shè)置可謂是內(nèi)部事權(quán)分散行使的完整表現(xiàn)。一方面，推鞫、錄問、檢斷分別由不同的部門獨立進行；另一方面，通判分割了知州的審判權(quán)，對其形成制約。宋王朝在路一級設(shè)置了安撫司、轉(zhuǎn)運司、提點刑獄司和提舉常平司四個并列的司法機構(gòu)，它們互不統(tǒng)屬、相互制約，共同行使審判權(quán)。 在司法事權(quán)分散行使的基礎(chǔ)上，宋王朝確立了一些相應(yīng)的分權(quán)制度。其中最值得稱道的是鞫讞分司制度。這項制度所體現(xiàn)的推鞫和檢斷分權(quán)的精神，被宋統(tǒng)治者和士大夫不遺余力地遵循。宋代繼承了前朝的錄問制度，將之推廣到各級司法機構(gòu)，并明確規(guī)定錄問官員應(yīng)當(dāng)遵循回避原則，保持其相對獨立性。為避免刑獄冤濫，宋王朝確立了翻異別勘制度，為當(dāng)事人提供了更為廣闊的救濟渠道，這亦是宋代獄訟淹延的根源之一。 宋代的司法分權(quán)制度是儒家“慎刑恤獄”思想的要求，也是士大夫階層推動的結(jié)果。這種司法分權(quán)不同于現(xiàn)代意義上的偵查權(quán)、檢察權(quán)、審判權(quán)的相互獨立，其實質(zhì)僅是司法事權(quán)的分散行使，并沒有從根本上脫離中國古代糾問式訴訟的窠臼。但是司法分權(quán)制度的確立，對于鞏固中央集權(quán)、避免刑獄冤濫起到了重要作用。然而，亦因為這一繁冗而周密的程序設(shè)計，不可避免地造成了獄訟淹滯。
[Abstract]:At the time of Song Hsing, in order to avoid the break-up of the five dynasties and the separation of the towns and cities, Zhao Kuangyin, too, listened to Zhao Pu's advice, gradually relegating the regime, financial power and military power to the central authorities, and strengthening the central government's control over the localities. At the same time, it adopted the principle of "setting up official posts." The method of dividing the administrative power, dividing the power of the courtiers in order to prevent the ministers from interfering with the power. The system of local judicial decentralization in the Song Dynasty was established under the background of administrative decentralization. In Song Dynasty, there were county, state and road judicial organs. Comparatively speaking, the setting up of county-level judicial organs was relatively simple, and the characteristics of separation of powers were not very obvious. However, there was a very good tradition in its trial procedure. That is, county officers in charge of arresting and stealing must not be pushed, thus forming a separation between investigation and trial. The setting up of state judicial organs in the Song Dynasty can be described as a complete manifestation of the decentralized exercise of internal powers. On the one hand, they are pushing and recording questions. On the other hand, it divided the jurisdiction of Zhizhou and restricted it. At the road level, the Song Dynasty set up a pacification department and a trans-shipment department. The four juxtaposed judicial organs of the Department of Prisons and the Department of Changping are mutually restricted and exercise judicial power. On the basis of the decentralized exercise of judicial power, the Song Dynasty established some corresponding systems of separation of powers. The rulers and literati of the Song Dynasty spared no effort to follow. The Song Dynasty inherited the previous system of interrogation and extended it to the judicial organs at all levels, and clearly stipulated that the interrogators should abide by the principle of recusal and maintain their relative independence. The Song Dynasty established the system of dissimilar exploration, which provided a broader relief channel for the parties, which was one of the roots of the Song Dynasty. The system of judicial decentralization in the Song Dynasty is the requirement of the Confucian thought of "careful punishment and compassionate prison" and the result promoted by the literati and officials. This kind of judicial decentralization is different from the investigation power, the procuratorial power and the judicial power in the modern sense, which are independent of each other. But the establishment of judicial separation system plays an important role in consolidating centralization of power and avoiding criminal injustice. But also because of this redundant and careful programming, inevitably caused the prison proceedings flooded.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號】：D929

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前8條

1 吳曉萍;宋代御史推鞫制度述論[J];安徽師大學(xué)報(哲學(xué)社會科學(xué)版);1991年04期

2 呂志興;宋代司法中的分權(quán)與監(jiān)督制度初探[J];中央政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報;2000年03期

3 苗書梅;宋代通判及其主要職能[J];河北學(xué)刊;1990年02期

4 曹�？�;;試論北宋初年的法制與吏治[J];蘭州大學(xué)學(xué)報;1987年04期

5 江曉敏;宋代中央政府對地方官員的任用、管理與監(jiān)察[J];南開學(xué)報;1994年01期

6 金圓;;宋代監(jiān)司監(jiān)察地方官吏摭談[J];上海師范大學(xué)學(xué)報(哲學(xué)社會科學(xué)版);1982年03期

7 陳玉忠;;論宋代刑事審判權(quán)的分散行使[J];學(xué)術(shù)界;2009年06期

8 殷嘯虎;試論北宋的審判復(fù)核制度[J];中州學(xué)刊;1991年04期

本文編號：1627983