本文選題：唐代訴訟 + 出土文獻(xiàn)�。� 參考：《陜西師范大學(xué)》2009年博士論文

【摘要】： 本文是從歷史文獻(xiàn)角度對(duì)唐代訴訟制度進(jìn)行的專題研究,全文參照現(xiàn)代法學(xué)邏輯架構(gòu),依據(jù)訴訟程序進(jìn)展的不同階段,共分設(shè)十章： 第一、二、三章圍繞起訴制度,討論起訴方式、拘捕與強(qiáng)制措施、保釋制度等問題。研究結(jié)果表明：唐代私人控告是啟動(dòng)各類訴訟程序的基本途徑,書面呈訴的法律規(guī)定經(jīng)過長期實(shí)踐,已為普通民眾所認(rèn)可,并逐漸形成持狀論事的訴訟習(xí)慣。法司立案的標(biāo)志則是長官在訴狀上的受案批示,批示內(nèi)容又因訴訟請(qǐng)求和案件情況的差異有所不同。司法實(shí)踐中,緝捕事務(wù)由基層法吏承辦,官府有權(quán)對(duì)緝捕嫌犯和收禁囚徒采取械系、綁縛等強(qiáng)制措施,官府還可褫奪人犯巾帶,收禁關(guān)押,以示困辱。緝捕官吏地位卑下,時(shí)常因緝捕未果、緝捕誤期、錯(cuò)緝?nèi)朔傅仍蛟馐芴幜P。此外,村坊鄉(xiāng)里等基層組織廣泛參與訴訟活動(dòng),協(xié)助官府接受舉報(bào)和報(bào)案、拘傳被告和證人、以及緝拿義務(wù)人。唐人筆記小說中冥司追攝、械系人犯的相關(guān)描述,多據(jù)唐代訴訟固定程式演繹而成。唐律從恤刑親倫等人道觀念出發(fā),規(guī)定罪囚拷滿不承、臨產(chǎn),以及居喪者,可予以保釋。由于各級(jí)司法機(jī)關(guān)普遍存在滯獄問題,遂使大量系囚難以通過保釋得到疏決。 第四、五、六三章研究審判活動(dòng),探究唐代庭審程序、同職連署審判以及證據(jù)制度。唐人小說中關(guān)于陰司法庭設(shè)置格局的描述本于唐代州、縣衙門結(jié)構(gòu),六曹合署辦公,法官據(jù)案庭審的場景經(jīng)由文人移錄,遂成為陰陽兩界通行的法庭固定格局�？疾熠ぴA故事和出土案卷可知,唐代刑事案件庭審程序大致包括原告陳訴、吏卒傳喚、法官訊問,被告答辯、兩造對(duì)質(zhì)、檢狀勘察等具體環(huán)節(jié)。各級(jí)法司官吏審判案件過程中,分工負(fù)責(zé),連署文案,并承擔(dān)連帶法律責(zé)任。分析出土文獻(xiàn)可知,同職連署審判制度在唐前期得到了相當(dāng)程度的貫徹。中唐以后,為了適應(yīng)訴訟程序趨于簡明高效的發(fā)展趨勢(shì),連署審判制度發(fā)生了明顯變化,其中最主要的表現(xiàn)即為通判官副署程序的略省。唐人冥訟故事多無通判官押署,或正與此時(shí)連署審判制度改革相關(guān)。唐代獲得證據(jù)的手段與前代比較未見長足進(jìn)步,從獲得證據(jù)的途徑而言,唐代法官斷案主要堅(jiān)持“以五聲聽獄訟”的傳統(tǒng)審判模式,強(qiáng)調(diào)庭審之時(shí)法官通過訊問當(dāng)事人獲得相關(guān)信息。受當(dāng)時(shí)科技水平的限制,多數(shù)案件證據(jù)的獲得仍主要經(jīng)驗(yàn)積累和傳統(tǒng)手段進(jìn)行,而對(duì)于取證方法的理論總結(jié)亦顯不足。為獲得口供,唐律允許對(duì)犯人進(jìn)行刑訊。非法拷掠并非唐代特定歷史時(shí)期的個(gè)別現(xiàn)象,而是實(shí)踐中長期存在的司法痼疾。 第七、八兩章以訴訟審級(jí)為中心,研究唐代訴訟級(jí)別管轄、代訴與直訴,以及中晚唐司法權(quán)諸司分掌現(xiàn)象。唐代訴訟復(fù)審級(jí)分上訴復(fù)審和奏報(bào)復(fù)審兩類,前者是以逐級(jí)上訴申理為線索,是由訴事詞狀啟動(dòng)的申訴制度；后者是以法司申報(bào)復(fù)核為依據(jù),是由法定職責(zé)啟動(dòng)的復(fù)核程序。二者在受案機(jī)關(guān)和審級(jí)層次方面存在一定交叉重合關(guān)系,卻又具有本質(zhì)差異。唐代親屬代訴現(xiàn)象十分普遍,并成為平反冤案和監(jiān)督司法的重要方式。受儒家宗法親倫觀念的影響下,親屬代訴作為義舉時(shí)常受到時(shí)人推崇和輿論褒獎(jiǎng)。唐律明確認(rèn)定的直訴方式有邀車駕、撾登聞鼓、上表、立肺石、投匭等五種方式,現(xiàn)有自訴案例中,尤其以撾鼓訴冤者居多。唐代自訴案件中,訴事人自殘耳目的現(xiàn)象十分常見,并可能對(duì)案件進(jìn)程和審判結(jié)果產(chǎn)生一定影響。御史臺(tái)受狀問案制度的確立,使得唐代訴訟審級(jí)發(fā)生微妙變化,臺(tái)司與尚書省在事實(shí)上成為并列的上訴機(jī)關(guān),詣臺(tái)訴訟成為訴事人進(jìn)京告訴的首選途徑。唐代軍司審判管轄權(quán)的獲得與安史亂后禁軍勢(shì)力的不斷滋長直接相關(guān),普通司法機(jī)關(guān)的管轄權(quán)力受到嚴(yán)重侵害,軍司恣意妄為,干涉州縣司法機(jī)關(guān)正常審判,普通司法機(jī)關(guān)在與軍司爭奪訴訟權(quán)力的較量中常居守勢(shì)。唐代“三司受事”是常設(shè)上訴機(jī)構(gòu),“三司推事”是接受差遣推鞠大案的臨時(shí)組織。前者主要作為常設(shè)的最高上訴機(jī)構(gòu)存在,必要時(shí)可以奉詔理問要案；后者自始至終是接受差遣審斷重大案件的臨時(shí)機(jī)構(gòu),終唐之世并未有承擔(dān)上訴審職能的明確授權(quán)。 第九、十兩章探討審判監(jiān)督,重點(diǎn)考釋唐代司法監(jiān)察和死刑覆奏制度的發(fā)展和運(yùn)行。研究結(jié)果表明：唐代尤其重視京畿附近的司法監(jiān)察,中書門下、御史臺(tái),及京城百司是參與慮囚疏獄的重要力量。唐代設(shè)置中央職官充使慮囚和地方分道遣使慮囚兩大系統(tǒng),按覆地方刑獄。前者又有常設(shè)型與臨時(shí)型之分,常設(shè)型使職出自刑部和御史臺(tái),包括刑部覆囚使和慮囚御史；而臨時(shí)型使職則多由中央臣僚充任。分道遣使慮囚系統(tǒng)則主要指派駐各地之巡察、按察、觀察等地方監(jiān)察使臣的慮囚活動(dòng)。按察、觀察等慮囚使臣多因時(shí)差遣,分道疏獄�！爸T獄禁囚,五日一慮”乃各級(jí)司法機(jī)關(guān)疏決系囚之常制,州府長吏一般通過查閱案卷和錄問囚徒兩種途徑監(jiān)督地方司法審判。唐代地方州縣法吏除進(jìn)行常規(guī)定期慮囚以外,還需按照中央臨時(shí)發(fā)布的詔敕,對(duì)轄內(nèi)系囚進(jìn)行即時(shí)處置。唐初百余年間,帝王親慮、遣使慮問和有司自慮等司法監(jiān)督手段經(jīng)常交叉并行,開元天寶以后,帝王親囚的記載開始逐漸減少,取而代之的是頻繁的遣使慮囚和有司自錄。至中晚唐,有司自錄發(fā)展成為最為常見的司法監(jiān)察方式。死刑覆奏是唐代訴訟法制中彰顯慎刑思想的一項(xiàng)重要制度,唐代司法實(shí)踐中形成了中書門下參與重大案件審判和死刑詳覆的慣例,死刑案件須經(jīng)刑部覆奏、中書門下詳覆,方可奏報(bào)皇帝裁決。中唐以后,貫徹死刑覆奏制度的最大干擾正來自帝王制敕,死刑覆奏制度幾經(jīng)興廢,扭曲運(yùn)行,正可作為封建君主恣意變亂法度的典型例證。
[Abstract]:This article is a special study on the litigation system of the Tang Dynasty from the historical literature. The full text refers to the logical framework of modern law, and ten chapters are divided according to the different stages of the progress of the procedure.
The first, second, the three chapter focuses on the prosecution system, discusses the way of prosecution, the arrest and compulsory measures, and the bail system. The results show that the private accusation in the Tang Dynasty is the basic way to start all kinds of litigation procedures. The legal provisions of the written complaint have been accepted by the ordinary people after a long period of practice, and gradually form the habit of litigation. The symbol of the law case is marked by the approval of the chief executive on the pleadings. The approval of the case is different because of the difference between the litigation request and the case. In judicial practice, the arrest is carried out by the grass-roots law officials. The government has the right to take arms and bind, bind and bind the suspects and prisoners. In order to show the disgrace and disgrace, the arrest of officials is low, often due to the arrest of the arrest, arrest and misuse of the people, and other reasons for the punishment. In addition, the village and village and other grass-roots organizations are widely involved in litigation activities to assist the government to accept reports and reports, and to arrest the defendants and witnesses, as well as the arrest of the obligor. As a result, the Tang law, based on the humanitarian concept of the Tang Dynasty, set out from the humanitarian concept of the pro - Lun of the Tang Dynasty, and stipulates that the prisoners can be released on bail because of their disengagement, labor and bereavement. As the judicial organs at all levels generally have the problem of prison detention, a large number of prisoners are difficult to be released on bail.
The fourth, fifth, the 63 chapter studies the trial activities, explore the procedure of the court trial, the trial of the same office and the evidence system in the Tang Dynasty. The description of the setting pattern of the court court in the Tang people's novels is based on the Tang Dynasty, the county yamen structure, the six office of the Cao department, the scene of the judge's case trial, which became the tribunal of the two circles in Yin and Yang. It is known that the proceedings of the criminal cases and unearthed files show that the procedure of the court trial of the Tang Dynasty includes the plaintiff's prosecution, the summons of the officials, the judge's interrogation, the defendant's reply, the two contests, the inspection, and so on. In the process of the judicial cases of the officials at all levels, the division of labor is responsible for the division of labor, the copywriting, and the joint and several legal responsibilities. The analysis of the unearthed documents can be seen The trial system of the same office was carried out in a considerable degree in the early Tang Dynasty. After the middle of the Tang Dynasty, in order to adapt to the concise and efficient development trend of the procedure, the trial system has changed obviously. The main manifestation is the brief province of the procedure of the Deputy Officer's deputy office. The means of obtaining evidence in the Tang Dynasty has not made considerable progress compared with the previous generation. From the way of obtaining evidence, the judge of the Tang Dynasty mainly insisted on the traditional trial mode of "listening to prison in five voices", emphasizing the judges' obtaining relevant information by interrogating the parties at the time of trial. The acquisition of the evidence of the case is still the accumulation of main experience and the traditional means, and the theoretical summary of the methods of obtaining evidence is also insufficient. In order to obtain the confession, the Tang law allows the prisoners to torture. The illegal torture is not a particular phenomenon in the specific historical period of the Tang Dynasty, but a chronic judicial chronic disease in practice.
The seventh, the 82 chapter, taking the lawsuit trial level as the center, studies the litigation level jurisdiction of the Tang Dynasty, the prosecution and the direct prosecution, and the judicial power of the middle and late Tang Dynasty. There are two categories of appeals retrial and memorial retrial in the Tang Dynasty. The former is the appeal system initiated by the lawsuit, and the latter is the vengeance of the law. On the basis of nuclear power, it is a review procedure initiated by legal duties. There are certain intersecting and overlapping relations between the two parties in the subject and the level of the trial level, but they have the essential difference. In the Tang Dynasty, the phenomenon of the relatives' prosecution is very common, and it has become an important way to counter the cases of injustice and to supervise the judiciary. Under the influence of the Confucian patriarchal patriarchal affinity, the relatives act as a representative. It is often admired and praised by the people. There are five ways of direct prosecution in the Tang Dynasty. In the case of the Tang Dynasty, there are very common phenomena in the case of the Tang Dynasty. The establishment of the censor system has made a subtle change in the litigation trial level in the Tang Dynasty, and the Taiwan and Shang Shu provinces are in fact a parallel appellate organ, and the attainments litigation becomes the first choice for the prosecution to enter Beijing. Relevant, the jurisdiction of the ordinary judicial organs is seriously infringed, the military division is unscrupulous, interferes with the normal trial of the state judicial organs, the ordinary judicial organs often live on the defensive in the contest with the military department for the litigation power. The "three divisions" in the Tang Dynasty is a permanent appellate body, and the "three divisions" is the temporary organization to accept the big case. As a permanent supreme appellate body, it is possible to ask for an important case when necessary; the latter is a temporary institution that has been accepted to judge major cases from beginning to end, and the end of Tang Dynasty does not have a clear authorization to undertake an appeals trial function.
The ninth, twelfth chapter discusses the judicial supervision, focusing on the development and operation of the judicial supervision and the death penalty overlay system in the Tang Dynasty. The results show that the Tang Dynasty especially paid attention to the judicial supervision near the capital, under the middle books, the imperial court and the capital of the Beijing city. The former has a permanent and temporary type. The former has the permanent type and the temporary type. The permanent type makes the office from the Ministry of punishment and the imperial court, including the prison department and the prisoner's history, while the temporary type makes the job more appointed by the central staff. The state government officials generally supervised the local judicial trial by two ways of checking the files and asking the prisoners to supervise the local judicial trial. According to the imperial edict issued by the central government, the prisoners should be treated immediately. In the past hundred years of the Tang Dynasty, the emperors' care, the consideration of the emperors, and the judicial supervision of the judicature were often crossed. After the Kaiyuan Tianbao, the records of the emperor's prisoners began to decrease gradually. It has become the most common way of judicial supervision. The death penalty overlay is an important system to highlight the thought of prudence in the legal system of the Tang Dynasty. In the judicial practice of the Tang Dynasty, the practice of taking part in the trial and death of the death penalty was formed under the judicial practice of the Tang Dynasty. After the middle of the Tang Dynasty, the greatest interference in the execution of the death penalty system came from the imperial edict, and the death penalty overlay system was a typical example of the arbitrariness of the feudal monarchs.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：陜西師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2009
【分類號(hào)】：D929;D925;K242

【引證文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 馬晨光;唐代司法研究[D];南京理工大學(xué);2011年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 徐凌男;唐代大理寺的功能考察[D];黑龍江大學(xué);2013年

，

本文編號(hào)：1894171