Qing Dynasty, "the Complaint" Statutes Study

“Irregularity Indictment·Indictment·Criminal Law·Great Qing Legal Code",one of the twelve indictment rules, was listed as the top one, which indicated thatIrregularity Indictment was the uttermost issue among all twelve. Although therewere only103characters of the content and its small notes, it regulated fromIrregularity Indictment to Appeal, and Direct Litigation, was closely connected tolitigation procedures.The Great Qing Dynasty legal system consisted of laws (Lv), statutes (Li),instances (Shili), rules (Zeli), constitutions (Zhangcheng), leadingcases (Chengan)and Ban notices etc. Different legal norms have different stability and effectiveness,and the functions are also different. Therefore, systematically revisiting all relatedstatutes (Li), instances (Shili), rules (Zeli), leading cases (Chengan) and Ban noticesis the key to study Irregularity Indictment. From historical point of view,irregularity indictment of Qing Dynasty was mainly based on Ming legal system;from social development point of view, the quantity of the statutes (Li), instances(Shili), rules (Zeli), leading cases (Chengan) of indictment in Qing Dynasty was waymuch larger than in Ming Dynasty.After re-organizing the related laws and regulations of irregularity indictment, itcan be divided into basic crime, extended crime and expanded crime according to thecontent of laws and regulations. Accusation and its logical arrangement reflectedthe legislative level of an era, influenced the enforcement of law, and also were thebase to understand “irregularity indictment” comprehensively.Irregularity indictment skipped the normal process which different from Appealand Direct Litigation, especially from Complaint. There has no clear cut definitionfor Zhisu (Direct Litigation) in Qing legal documentary, most common seen termsare Kouhun (indictment to the emperor)、Jingkong (indictment to the central body)and Shangkong (indictment to superior magistrate). Contemporary research didn’treally dig in depth on this topic, even states:“Kouhun is same as Jingkong, alsocalled GaoYuZhuang (appeal to the emperor) informally". Discussing Jingkong(the indictment to the central body) as part of the Direct Litigation, treated them samewith no difference is apparently a misunderstanding. In "QingShiGao(The historyof Qing Dynasty·Criminal Law Volume3", Jingkong and Kouhun(indictment to thecentral body or the emperor) were defined separately. On top of that, the trialprocedures of Jingkong and Kouhun (indictment to the central body or the emperor)were also different. This thesis will discuss in respect of the trial procedure,sentencing and conviction, analys the differences of the trial procedures of Kouhun、Jingkong (indictment to the central body or the emperor)、Irregularity indictment(including appeal to superior magistrate). Therefore, clear out all previousmisunderstanding, so get both Jingkong (indictment to the central body) andKouhun(indictment to the emperor) redefined.Irregularity indictment was common seen in Qing Dynasty. Although therewere laws and regulations to regulate them, but they were still existed. At the time,people tried every possible way head to the capital for indictment, lawmakers wereintended to impose restrictions by setting strict laws and regulations. However, themiscarriage of justice aroused, people could not bear it and chose to irregularityindictment by overacting, even to fight for resolving disputes by themselves for moreunjust cases occurred and there were no method to protect their legal rights.Admittedly, irregularity indictment rule played a very crucial role of regulatingjudicial litigation. It not only facilitated governors to supervise officers’ behaviorsfrom top to bottom, but also shaped the “Mighty King’s image” by correcting wrongcases. Furthermore, it helped to buffer all the tension against law enforcement.To a great extent, the laws and regulations in Qing Dynasty were controlled bymonarch bureaucratic, but the interests between imperial power and bureaucracyalways confronted which led to the conflict during the process of making andexecuting the irregularity indictment rules. The emperor had to set layers ofregulations, to control officials; officials had to adopt various means to conceal anddeceive, hence the errors were unavoidable during the process of dealing with theirregular indictment cases.In short, the characteristics of irregularity indictment rules in Qing Dynasty weremainly rooted from the monarchy political system. The violation of the laws was unavoidable. The contradiction in the litigation system, the governors’ wrongdecision-making based on accepting wrong information, as well as obstruction withother systems, were the main factors affecting the serious implementation of theirregularity indictment rules.How to handle irregular indictment was an important assessment aspect for theemperor or the central government to evaluate local governors, so irregularityindictmen played as a monitoring role and had constraint effect on the construction ofthe local government team to some extent. In the respect of the relation betweenlegal system and governing system, as part of legal system construction,"IrregularityIndictmen" reflected the imperial rulers’ need to strengthen power and standardizesocial order. The enhancement of power and standardization of social order closelyrelated to the Empire rulers’ legal and political philosophy.