本文關(guān)鍵詞：試論明代朝審制度　出處：《天津師范大學(xué)》2010年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

  更多相關(guān)文章： 朝審 會(huì)審 君主專制 死刑復(fù)核 慎刑

【摘要】： 明代的朝審制度在明代的會(huì)官審錄體系中占有重要的地位,要研究明代的朝審制度,就必須了解朝審制度的思想淵源和制度淵源。西周時(shí)期,中國(guó)古代的政治家便闡述了慎刑的觀念對(duì)于司法的重要性,此后,經(jīng)歷代的思想家、政治家的不斷發(fā)展完善,慎刑思想在司法制度中得到了充分的體現(xiàn)。朝審制度在組織形式上屬于會(huì)審制度,在程序方面屬于死刑復(fù)核制度。明代在朝審制度形成之前,皇帝經(jīng)常會(huì)派三法司(刑部、大理寺、都察院)官員會(huì)同其他各部門官員對(duì)死刑案件進(jìn)行復(fù)核,經(jīng)逐漸的發(fā)展和完備,朝審制度正式于天順二年(1459年)成為定制,于天順三年(1460年)開始正式實(shí)施。朝審的對(duì)象主要為京師地區(qū)已定案的死刑囚犯,參與審錄的官員中除三法司官員外,還包括了中央其他部門的官員。朝審制度的確立,有助于皇帝控制生殺大權(quán),是明代君主集權(quán)制度在司法上的重要體現(xiàn)；朝審制度也使得明代京師地區(qū)死刑案件的法律適用得到統(tǒng)一,保證了法制完整的同時(shí),令死刑慎用制度更加完備化制度化。朝審程序一般于霜降后進(jìn)行,經(jīng)過(guò)對(duì)死囚的審錄,做出情真罪當(dāng)或可矜可疑等判決后上奏皇帝,由皇帝做最終的裁決,一般情況下,情真罪當(dāng)?shù)那舴副粓?zhí)行死刑,可矜可疑的囚犯被減等發(fā)戍。明代朝審制度的特點(diǎn)主要表現(xiàn)為兩方面,首先是君主專制集權(quán)的表現(xiàn),其次是慎刑思想的表現(xiàn)。但在此制度的實(shí)際運(yùn)作中,雖然在一定程度上達(dá)到了減少死刑適用的效果,但朝審在程序上往往會(huì)流于形式,且朝審的舉行實(shí)際上也被政治所影響。不論制度運(yùn)行的實(shí)際效果與制度設(shè)置的目的之間存在多大差異,朝審仍不失為明代會(huì)審制度中的重要一環(huán),并為清代的秋審及朝審制度所借鑒。此外,明代朝審制度對(duì)于當(dāng)代的死刑復(fù)核程序建設(shè)也具有很重要的參考價(jià)值,其中,使死刑復(fù)核標(biāo)準(zhǔn)一致,保障法律的統(tǒng)一適用；廣泛進(jìn)行討論,慎用死刑；規(guī)范死刑復(fù)核程序,保障當(dāng)事人的訴訟權(quán)利得到充分行使；保障司法權(quán)的獨(dú)立行使,確保司法審判不淪為政治的附庸等四大方面尤其值得當(dāng)今司法所重視。
[Abstract]:The Ming Dynasty court system plays an important role in the Ming Dynasty, in order to study the Ming Dynasty court system, it is necessary to understand the ideological and institutional origin of the system. In ancient China, politicians expounded the importance of the concept of careful punishment to the administration of justice, since then, experienced generations of thinkers, politicians continue to develop and perfect. The thought of careful punishment has been fully reflected in the judicial system. The system of court trial belongs to the system of assembly in the organizational form and the system of death penalty review in the aspect of procedure. The Ming Dynasty was before the formation of the system of the court of justice. The emperor often sent three law departments (the Department of torture, the Dali Temple, the Capital Court) together with other officials to review the death penalty cases, after gradual development and completion. The court trial system was formally customized in Tianshun two years (1459) and officially implemented in Tianshun three years (1460). In addition to the officials of the three legal departments, they also included the officials of other central departments. The establishment of the court system was helpful for the emperor to control the power of birth and death, which was an important embodiment of the centralization of the monarch in the Ming Dynasty. The court trial system also unified the application of the law of capital punishment cases in the Ming Dynasty, guaranteed the integrity of the legal system, and made the death penalty system more complete and systematized. The court trial procedure was generally carried out after Frosts Descent. After the trial of death row, after making the judgment of the true crime or doubt, the emperor will make the final decision. In general, the prisoner who is guilty of the crime will be executed. The characteristics of the trial system in Ming Dynasty are mainly in two aspects: the first is the expression of autocratic monarchy and the second is the expression of the thought of careful punishment, but in the actual operation of this system. Although to some extent achieved the effect of reducing the application of the death penalty, but the court trial in the procedure will often become a mere form. And the holding of the court trial is actually influenced by politics. No matter how much difference exists between the actual effect of system operation and the purpose of system setting, the court trial is still an important link in the Ming Dynasty trial system. In addition, the Ming Dynasty trial system for the contemporary construction of the death penalty review procedure also has a very important reference value, which, so that the death penalty review standards are consistent. To guarantee the uniform application of the law; Extensive discussion and careful use of the death penalty; Standardizing the procedure of death penalty review to ensure that the litigant's rights are fully exercised; The four aspects of ensuring the independent exercise of judicial power and ensuring that judicial trial does not degenerate into political vassal are especially worthy of our attention.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：天津師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2010
【分類號(hào)】：D929

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)會(huì)議論文 前3條

1 孔志國(guó);;制度規(guī)避[A];2005中國(guó)制度經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)年會(huì)精選論文（第二部分）[C];2005年

2 馬青連;;清代理藩院司法功能研究——以清代蒙古地區(qū)為中心的考察[A];民族法學(xué)評(píng)論（第七卷）[C];2010年

3 金波;呂晶;萬(wàn)紹文;;我國(guó)檢察制度歷史溯源——古代御史制度與當(dāng)代檢察制度比較研究[A];第二屆國(guó)家高級(jí)檢察官論壇論文集[C];2006年

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前7條

1 龔汝富;古代的“法”與“情”[N];人民法院報(bào);2003年

2 王 勇;清朝死刑復(fù)核制度——秋審[N];人民法院報(bào);2003年

3 周國(guó)均 鞏富文;中國(guó)古代死刑復(fù)核程序的四個(gè)特點(diǎn)[N];檢察日?qǐng)?bào);2005年

4 崔永東 中國(guó)政法大學(xué)法學(xué)院;中國(guó)古代司法中的“善制”[N];中國(guó)社會(huì)科學(xué)報(bào);2011年

5 王 爽;駁案與司法公正和公開[N];人民法院報(bào);2003年

6 宋亞平;朝廷“六部”與縣衙“六房”[N];中國(guó)縣域經(jīng)濟(jì)報(bào);2010年

7 通訊員 林亮 記者 王成;城市規(guī)劃合理優(yōu)化 建設(shè)項(xiàng)目上天入地[N];杭州日?qǐng)?bào);2005年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 王一鳴;試論明代朝審制度[D];天津師范大學(xué);2010年

2 李卿;明代“三法司”制度述論稿[D];安徽師范大學(xué);2002年

3 晏一立;雍正朝內(nèi)閣三法司檔案中的詞匯研究[D];四川大學(xué);2006年

4 康秋巖;明代恤囚制度研究[D];西北師范大學(xué);2011年

5 曾峗文;中國(guó)古代死刑復(fù)核制度研究[D];華南理工大學(xué);2010年

6 祝家堯;論明代熱審制度[D];遼寧師范大學(xué);2011年

7 林寧;清代死刑案件審理程序研究[D];南京師范大學(xué);2011年

8 王繼堯;論中國(guó)古代司法制度的演變及特點(diǎn)[D];對(duì)外經(jīng)濟(jì)貿(mào)易大學(xué);2004年

9 趙晨鵬;清代刑訊制度的歷史考察[D];西南政法大學(xué);2011年

10 張強(qiáng);司法行政權(quán)配置的歷史演進(jìn)與現(xiàn)實(shí)選擇[D];山東大學(xué);2011年

，

本文編號(hào)：1438903