本文選題：教唆詞訟 + 代寫呈詞�。� 參考：《中央民族大學(xué)》2011年碩士論文

【摘要】：“教唆詞訟”是《大清律例》中的一條法律,其淵源最早可以追溯到唐代《唐律疏議·斗訟》中的“為人作辭碟加狀”、“教令人告事虛”兩條；至《宋刑統(tǒng)》中則將唐律關(guān)于禁止訟師的兩條并為“為人作辭牒——教令人告事虛”；《大明律》始以“教唆詞訟”為名,重定刑罰；清代律文沿襲明律,而例的內(nèi)容在清代各朝略有損益,并且對教唆詞訟者的懲處也呈現(xiàn)日漸加重的趨勢。 本文共五章,第一章為緒論,主要是對本文研究對象和研究現(xiàn)狀的簡要概括,指明本文主要是對清代“教唆詞訟”條文及相關(guān)案例的研究。第二章是介紹“教唆詞訟”條的沿革,主要是對唐明律中的規(guī)定進行了詳細的梳理,并對各條進行文理解釋。著重對唐明律中對教唆詞訟者的不同規(guī)定以及處罰原則的不同進行比較,進而不第三章對清律中“教唆詞訟”的規(guī)定做好鋪墊。第三章是對清代“教唆詞訟”律例條文的詳細梳理,特別是打破《大清律例》中所勘定的例文的先后順序,按照雍正、乾隆、嘉慶三朝的時間順序的標準對教唆詞訟例文的增刪情況進行梳理,指明清代教唆詞訟律主要是在乾隆朝勒定；在對律例條文進行文理分析的基礎(chǔ)上,對唐清兩代的法律規(guī)定進行比較,指明清代立法者的核心旨趣——“律貴誅心,法重造意”。第四章是對司法檔案中與教唆詞訟相關(guān)刑案通過表格的形式進行歸納整理,結(jié)合其中的典型案例分析清代案件審理過程中是官方是如何認定教唆詞訟者的,歸納出其認定教唆詞訟者的主要標準有“斂財包訟”、“代寫呈詞”、“教唆誣告”和“教唆京控”,這四點只要居其一則必入清律之嚴懲,也反映出清代在案件審斷過程中對教唆詞訟者采取了一種入罪式的策略；同時,在簡要介紹清代的刑罰體系之后,通過數(shù)據(jù)的分類整理和分析,發(fā)現(xiàn)清代教唆詞訟案件的處罰呈現(xiàn)出高度集中于滿徒、軍流刑二者上,這也反映出清代對教唆詞訟者處罰地嚴厲程度。最后一章是本文的結(jié)論部分,在歸納出結(jié)論后,將結(jié)論與前人的研究成果進行了分析比對,發(fā)現(xiàn)其間的矛盾之處。在對前人的研究進行簡要分析后,指出其本身所存在的不足,并引述了蘇成捷的觀點對矛盾之處進行了簡要的說明。 教唆詞訟,是清代對唆訟者進行打擊的一項重要規(guī)定,雖然有人認為它打擊的主要對象是訟師,但從本文看來其面向的對象更為廣泛,遠遠超出了訟師的范疇；并且清代對唆訟者的懲罰的嚴酷程度,也難以讓人服膺清代法律存在“表達與實踐”的通說。本文嚴格遵循法律解釋及分析法學(xué)的研究方法,并未引入其他分析工具,雖然可能存在研究方法單一的不足,但這種簡單且直接的方法又何嘗不是直達真相的捷徑。
[Abstract]:"Instigating the lawsuit" is a law in the law of the Great Qing Dynasty. Its origin can be traced back to the Tang Dynasty "the law of the Tang Dynasty", "the lawsuit >" in the Tang Dynasty. "The order of the person is added", "the order of the decree of the decree" is two. In the name of "instigating the word case", the penalty was redefined, and the law of the Qing Dynasty followed the Ming Law, and the contents of the examples were slightly profit and loss in the Qing Dynasty, and the punishment of the instigator was also increasingly aggravated.
This article is a total of five chapters. The first chapter is the introduction, which is mainly a brief summary of the object of this study and the present situation of the study. The article indicates that this article is mainly the study of the "Instigation" articles and related cases in the Qing Dynasty. The second chapter introduces the evolution of the "instigator" article, mainly combing the provisions of Tang Minglv and entering into various articles. The article makes a comparison between the different provisions and the punishment principles of the instigator in the Tang and Ming laws, and then the third chapters make a good paving for the provisions of the "Instigation" in the Qing Dynasty. The third chapter is the detailed combing of the provisions of the law of the "Instigation" in the Qing Dynasty. According to the order of the time sequence of Yong Zheng, Qian Long and Jiaqing three dynasties, the order of the time sequence of the three dynasties was combed, which indicated that the law of the instigation of the Qing Dynasty was mainly in Qian Long's Dynasty; on the basis of the literary and rational analysis of the provisions of the laws, the legal provisions of the two dynasties in the Tang and Qing Dynasties were compared and the legislation of the Qing Dynasty was pointed out. The fourth chapter is to summarize and collate the forms of the criminal cases related to the instigation in the judicial archives through the form of the form, and analyze the typical cases in the process of the trial of the Qing Dynasty. The four points should be punished in the Qing Dynasty. At the same time, after a brief introduction of the punishment system of the Qing Dynasty, the data was classified and adjusted after a brief introduction of the Qing Dynasty's penalty system. It is found that the punishment of the instigation of cases in the Qing Dynasty is highly concentrated on the full apprentice and the two persons in the army, which also reflects the severity of the punishment to the instigator of the Qing Dynasty. The last chapter is the conclusion part of this article. After concluding the conclusion, the conclusion is compared with the previous research results and finds the contradiction between them. After a brief analysis of the previous studies, it points out the shortcomings of its own and gives a brief explanation of the contradiction in Su Chengjie's view.
Instigating a lawsuit is an important provision in the Qing Dynasty to attack the instigator. Although some people think that the main object of the attack is the lawsuit teacher, it seems to be more extensive in this article, far beyond the category of the lawsuit teacher; and the Yan Kucheng degree of the punishment of the instigator in the Qing Dynasty is also difficult to convince people to express the law of the Qing Dynasty. This article strictly follows the method of legal interpretation and analysis of jurisprudence, and does not introduce other analytical tools. Although there may be a single lack of research methods, this simple and direct method is not a shortcut to the truth.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：中央民族大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類號】：D929

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 馬作武;為訟師辯護——兼與梁治平先生商榷[J];比較法研究;1997年03期

2 修云福;論清朝訟師對司法秩序的維護功能[J];邊疆經(jīng)濟與文化;2005年09期

3 潘宇;中國傳統(tǒng)訴訟觀念辨析[J];長春師范學(xué)院學(xué)報;2005年03期

4 何邦武;中國古代的訟師及其與當事人的關(guān)系初論[J];西華師范大學(xué)學(xué)報(哲學(xué)社會科學(xué)版);2005年03期

5 鄧建鵬;清代訟師的官方規(guī)制[J];法商研究;2005年03期

6 鄧建鵬;;中國法律史研究思路新探[J];法商研究;2008年01期

7 鄧建鵬;;也論冤案是如何產(chǎn)生的──對《錯斬崔寧》、《竇娥冤》的再解析[J];法學(xué)評論;2010年05期

8 鄧建鵬;;清代州縣訟案和基層的司法運作——以黃巖訴訟檔案為研究中心[J];法治研究;2007年05期

9 鄧建鵬;;清代州縣訟案的裁判方式研究──以“黃巖訴訟檔案”為考查對象[J];江蘇社會科學(xué);2007年03期

10 霍存福;;唆訟、嚇財、撓法:清代官府眼中的訟師[J];吉林大學(xué)社會科學(xué)學(xué)報;2005年06期

相關(guān)重要報紙文章 前1條

1 鄧建鵬 中央民族大學(xué)法學(xué)院;[N];中國社會科學(xué)報;2010年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 白晶晶;清“教唆詞訟”律例研究[D];南開大學(xué);2007年

，

本文編號：2065863