發(fā)布時間：2018-05-30 01:36

  本文選題：清代 + 枷號�。� 參考：《中國政法大學》2010年碩士論文

【摘要】： 枷號是一種獨立于五刑之外的特殊刑種,其由刑具發(fā)展演變成為一種獨立的刑罰制度經歷了漫長的過程。特別是枷號發(fā)展到清朝,已然從明朝時期的酷刑演變成為一種具有優(yōu)待性質的替代刑及附加刑,對這個變化過程及其法律實踐進行研究,我們可以從微觀角度去探究清朝的法律制度,全面的了解具有少數民族統治特點的清朝刑罰體系。本文擬在清代史料的基礎上對這一具有清朝統治特色的刑罰作一較為全面的闡述。 本文在寫作中運用了文獻研究方法,以相關立法史料為基礎考察清代枷號發(fā)展、清代枷號條例的制定及其在司法實踐中的實際運用情況,同時也運用比較研究方法,將《大清律例》及《讀例存疑》中的枷號條例作為考察對象加以比較,據此分析清代枷號緩慢的發(fā)展變化過程。 全文以清代枷號發(fā)展變化的過程以及其在清朝的立法實踐和司法適用為線索,分為前言和正文及結論三個部分對這一問題分別進行闡述。 前言主要是敘述了本文寫作的背景,目的以及意義。對現在枷號研究的成果作一簡要總結,提出本文寫作的目的及意義在于從微觀角度對清朝的法律制度進行探討,研究其作為少數民族統治政權的法律活動,補充對清代枷號研究不夠全面的空白。 正文分為三個部分。 第一個部分從枷號的淵源著手,對枷號的產生與演變進行了概括與總結。追述了枷從農具發(fā)展成刑具后又演變成為獨立刑種的過程,及在這個過程中所發(fā)生變化的內因,主要集中梳理和考證了清代枷號的形成及特點,初步勾勒出清代枷號的整體框架和發(fā)展演變的基本過程。 第二部分闡述了清代枷號的立法實踐。以清代枷號條例的立法實踐為出發(fā)點,以《大清律例》(乾隆五年)和《讀例存疑》(同治九年)為藍本,對其中的枷號條例進行對比,以此為依據分析了清代枷號立法的背景及意圖,對枷號條例實際執(zhí)行的規(guī)定進行了探討,揭示其在清代成為獨立刑種的原因。 第三部分以清代枷號刑在“旗”、“民”之間的司法實踐不同為主,從宗室覺羅、普通旗人、民人及特定民人適用枷號刑的不同法律規(guī)定出發(fā),通過研究清朝作為少數民族統治者在維護政權方面所采取的法律措施,了解清代“旗民異制”的刑罰表現。 結論部分總結了清代枷號的特點,通過對以上內容的研究分析,進一步明確枷號作為替代刑及附加刑在清代刑罰制度中所起到的特殊作用以及清代刑罰體系的發(fā)展是一個從“旗民異制”向“趨于畫一”的緩慢進程。
[Abstract]:Flail horn is a special kind of punishment which is independent of the five punishments. It has gone through a long process from the development of torture equipment to an independent penalty system. In particular, the development of the flail sign to the Qing Dynasty has changed from torture in the Ming Dynasty to a kind of substitute punishment and supplementary punishment with preferential nature. This change process and its legal practice have been studied. We can explore the legal system of the Qing Dynasty from the micro perspective, and understand the penalty system of the Qing Dynasty with the characteristics of the ethnic minority rule. On the basis of the historical data of Qing Dynasty, this article makes a comprehensive exposition of this penalty with the characteristics of Qing Dynasty ruling. This article uses the literature research method in the writing, based on the related legislation historical data, inspects the Qing Dynasty flail number development, the Qing Dynasty flail number regulation formulation and the actual application in the judicial practice, at the same time also uses the comparative research method. This paper compares the flail number regulations in Qing Dynasty and doubt in Reading, and then analyzes the slow development and change process of the flail number in Qing Dynasty. The full text takes the Qing Dynasty flail number development process and its legislation practice and the judicial application in the Qing Dynasty as the clue, divides into the preface, the text and the conclusion three parts carries on the elaboration to this question separately. The preface mainly narrates the background, purpose and significance of this paper. This paper makes a brief summary of the achievements of the present research on the flail number, and points out that the purpose and significance of this paper is to probe into the legal system of the Qing Dynasty from a micro perspective, and to study its legal activities as a minority ruling regime. To supplement the study of the Qing Dynasty flail number is not comprehensive blank. The text is divided into three parts. The first part generalizes and summarizes the origin of the flail number. This paper recounts the process of the development of the flail from agricultural tools to criminal implements and the internal causes of the changes in this process, mainly combing and researching the formation and characteristics of the flail number in the Qing Dynasty. Outline the whole frame and the basic process of development and evolution of the flail number in Qing Dynasty. The second part elaborated the Qing Dynasty flail number legislation practice. Taking the legislative practice of the regulations of the Qing Dynasty as the starting point, and taking the "Qing Dynasty Law" (five years of Qianlong) and the "doubt of Reading regulations" (nine years under the same rule) as the base version, the article makes a comparison of the flail number regulations among them. Based on this, this paper analyzes the background and intention of the legislation of the flail number in Qing Dynasty, probes into the provisions of the actual execution of the regulations on the flail number, and reveals the reasons why it became an independent punishment in the Qing Dynasty. The third part focuses on the different judicial practice between the "flag" and "people" in the Qing Dynasty, starting from the different laws and regulations of applying the flail number punishment to the religious clans, the ordinary flag people, the people and the specific people. By studying the legal measures taken by the Qing Dynasty as the rulers of ethnic minorities in maintaining political power, we can understand the penalty performance of the "banners and people's different system" in the Qing Dynasty. The conclusion part summarizes the characteristics of the flail number in Qing Dynasty, and through the research and analysis of the above contents, It is a slow process that the flail number as a substitute punishment and supplementary punishment plays a special role in the penalty system of Qing Dynasty and the development of penalty system in Qing Dynasty is a slow process from "the different system of flag and people" to "drawing one".
【學位授予單位】：中國政法大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2010
【分類號】：D929;D924

【參考文獻】

相關期刊論文 前9條

1 姚e，

本文編號：1953344