In the forty-third year of Qianlong, Yanting County, Sichuan.
On this day, two nine-year-old boys, Liu Yanzi and Li Zixiang, were herding sheep in the river dam together. During the lunch break, Liu Yanzi asked Li Zixiang for lunch gourds, but Li Zixiang was not stingy and distributed his gourds to Liu Yanzi.
Liu Yanzi finished eating but asked Li Zixiang again, Li Zixiang did not give it, Liu Yanzi was angry and began to insult and beat Li Zixiang, and in the entanglement between the two, Li Zixiang was pushed down, and his waist and eye accidentally hit a stone, and he died on the spot.
The above is a case recorded in Zhu Qingqi’s “Criminal Case Review Part III” in the Qing Dynasty. It stands to reason that murder pays for life, and the crime of murder in ancient China has always been sentenced to heavy sentences for “six killings” (murder, intentional killing, fighting killing, manslaughter, manslaughter, and playful killing), but the suspect is a 9-year-old child, and it should not be directly sentenced to “six kills”, so how should this nine-year-old boy murder case be judged?
Different judgments in child homicide cases
According to the “Qing Laws”, minors under the age of ten enjoy the privilege of legal leniency, and their murder cases can be appealedemperorverdictpunishmentHowever, for the case of Liu Yanzi beating Li Zixiang to death,QianlongHowever, the local governor’s petition to “reduce the rank to 100 strokes and exile 3,000 miles, redeem it as usual, and recover 20 taels of burial silver” was rejected, and Liu Yanzi was sentenced to hanging in prison in accordance with normal law.
Qianlong statue
The so-called hanging is one of the four death penalties in the Qing Dynasty, which is equivalent to the modern suspended death penalty, which is not executed immediately after being sentenced to hanging, but temporarily imprisoned, and then sentenced to “immediate execution of hanging” or “reduced release” according to the crime at the autumn trial.
Qianlong’s ruling on Liu Yanzi’s case not only did not follow the previous policy of leniency for minors under the age of 10, but also began to set restrictions on the death penalty for children under the age of 10 because of this case:
“In cases of brawl and death under the age of ten, if the deceased is older than the murderer who is more than four years old, he is allowed to apply in accordance with the law. If the director is only under three years old, he is proposed to be hanged and imprisoned, and no petition can be made in general. ”
It can be seen that the ancient law did not blindly punish juvenile crimes, but considered the facts of the case and decided according to the circumstances.
During the Yongzheng period before Qianlong, there was also a case opposite to the verdict of Liu Yanzi’s case. In the tenth year of Yongzheng, fourteen-year-old Ding Qi Sanzai and his eighteen-year-old clan brother Ding continued as usualdogThe son picks up the soil together. On the way to pick up the soil, Ding Paparazzi bullied Ding Qi Sanzai when he was young, forced Ding Qi Sanzai to carry a heavy basket, and smashed Ding Qi Sanzai with a clod of soil, Ding Qi Sanzai couldn’t bear it, picked up the soil clod back and smashed Ding Paparazzi, but unexpectedly the clod hit Ding Paparazzi in the lower abdomen, and Ding Paparazzi died.
Ding Qi Sanzai was fourteen years old, not a special group under the age of ten, and there was no petition for leniency, and he should be directly sentenced to hanging in prison in accordance with the “Brawl and Intentional Murder” article of the “Qing Laws”, but after reading the case, Emperor Yongzheng believed that Ding Qi Sanzai’s behavior of rising up to resist was excusable, and the final judgment still referred to the leniency policy for crimes committed by minors under the age of ten, and sentenced him to “be spared from death, reduce his sentence as usual, and still pursue the burial of silver to pay the family of the deceased”.
After the Ding Qi San Zai case, the Ministry of Justice stipulated that if the murder crime of a minor over the age of ten in various places has a reason similar to that of Ding Qi Sanzai, they can apply for a reduction in sentence. However, the age of petitions for the crime of homicide of minors over the age of ten varies in various places, and there are both fourteen and fifteen, until September of the tenth year of Qianlong, when the initial rule was formed that “those who commit murder under the age of fifteen and declare that they are actually equal to the crime of love between Ding Qi and Sanzai, are allowed to apply for passage”.
Definition of the age of criminal responsibility in ancient China
For the issue of juvenile crime, the punishment of each dynasty has been quite different, but one of them has been consistent with the principle of “showing respect for the weak and caring for the young” for minors.
Showing compassion for the weak requires that when adjudicating criminal acts:
Special groups such as widows, widows, loneliness, the elderly, the young, the sick and disabled, and extenuating criminals should be sympathetic to their predicament and helplessness, and a certain degree of leniency should be given for their crimes.
In the Western Zhou Dynasty, age was used as the basis for determining the criminal responsibility of minors. Strictly speaking, there was no clear law in the Western Zhou Dynasty to explain the crimes of minors and their leniency, but the Western Zhou Dynasty ruled the country with etiquette, and ritual was law, so the records in the Book of Rites and Zhou Li can also be regarded as the law of the Western Zhou Dynasty.
The “Book of Rites: Qu Li” records that “eighty or ninety are old, seven years are mourning, mourning and old age, although guilty, no punishment is added”, that is, eighty or ninety years old and seven-year-old children are not sentenced even if they commit crimes. The meaning of “young and weak” and “old mao” is similar to that recorded in the “Book of Rites”, that is, neither young children nor older criminals are criminally punished.
In the Qin and Han dynasties, height and age were used as the basis for determining the criminal responsibility of minors. Take the three cases contained in Qin Jian’s “Legal Q&A” as examples:
“A steals a cow, when he steals a cow, he is six feet tall, tied for one year, and is six feet and seven inches high. be a city guard; ”
“A is less than six feet small, and there is a horse herding himself, and now the horse is defeated by people, eating people’s crops once, should it be judged? It is not appropriate to discuss rewarding (tasting) crops. ”
“A plotted to send B to steal and kill, received ten coins, and asked B to be less than six feet tall, can A be punished? He should be crucified. ”
In the above three articles, “A” is the main subject, which is equivalent to the current suspect, and “Chengdan” and “crucifixion” are both punishments for criminals, so the meaning of the above three articles is obvious, the suspect is sentenced to so-and-so when he committed so-and-so, so the suspect was sentenced to so-and-so, which is obviously the standard for defines sentencing based on height.
Mr. Pu Jian, a legal historian, believes that the Qin Dynasty also had:
“The servant and the city dan are less than six feet five inches tall, and the concubines and pounds are less than six feet and two inches high, all of which are small; He was five feet two inches tall and made of it. ”
It is certain that Qin Shi determined criminal responsibility based on height.
The Han Dynasty returned to age as the standard for dividing criminal liability, but the division of criminal age was different in different periods. For example, in the first year of Emperor Cheng of Han’s Hongjia era, specific legal provisions were made for the first time on the crime of homicide of minors:
“If a thief is under the age of seven and kills or commits a death sentence, he shall be reported to the court and may be sentenced to death.”
In the early years of the Eastern Han Dynasty,lightEmperor Wu Liu Xiu issued an edict:
“Anyone under the age of eight or over 80 years old will not be convicted if they kill without their own hands.”
The criminal age for the former is under seven years old, and the criminal age for the latter is under eight years old.
Tang dynastyIt was the period when ancient Chinese law matured, and Tang law was the first law in ancient China to systematically stipulate juvenile crime. The “Old and Sick Offenders” article of the “Tang Law Commentary” stipulates:
“All those over 70 years old, under 15 and disabled, who commit exile and less, will be redeemed. Those over 80 years old, under 10 years old, and those with serious illnesses who commit treason, rebellion, or murder should be sentenced to death. Those who stole or injured others were also redeemed for their crimes. The rest is not discussed. those over 90 and under 7 years old, even if they are sentenced to death, will not be punished; If someone orders them, they will be punished for their orders. If there are stolen goods, the person receiving the stolen goods should be prepared. ”
Compared with the previous distinction between the old and the young, the Tang Law subdivides the old and the young by specific age groups, and sentences and punishes according to the age group. Among them, the criminal age for minors is divided into 10 to 15 years old; 7 to 10 years old (excluding 10 years old); Under seven years old. Juvenile offenders in these three age groups have different conditions and degrees of leniency when sentencing.
In addition, Tang Law also proposed three legal privileges applicable to juvenile crimes, such as exoneration, petition, and redemption, to protect the interests of minors to the greatest extent. Exoneration means directly not imposing a penalty; Petition is to report cases that should be sentenced to heavy punishment, such as murder, to the central government, and the central government will make the final ruling on the case; According to the provisions of the “Tang Law Commentary”, “those over 70 years old, under 15 years old and disabled, and below the crime of exile, can be exempted by the method of redemption”.
The “Song Criminal Code” and “Daming Law” inherit the “Tang Law Commentary”, and the provisions on the age division of criminal responsibility for juvenile crimes are similar to the “Tang Law Commentary”. It is worth mentioning that during the Ming Dynasty, juvenile criminals were detained and imprisoned in solitary confinement based on the age of crime, and special juveniles were developedjail。 The Ming Huidian contains:
“Prisoners over 70 years old, under 15, disabled, scattered, and light are not allowed to mix”
That is, special care and separate management of juvenile offenders under the age of 15, which is very similar to the juvenile detention centers opened for juvenile crimes in modern times.
The definition of criminal responsibility of minors in the Qing Dynasty was based on age, but it was not limited to age, but fully considered the particularity of the case itself. According to the “Great Qing Regulations” “Redemption of the Old and Young Disabled”:
“Anyone over 70 years old, under 15 years old and disabled, who commit the crime of exile or less, shall be redeemed. those over 80 years old, under 10 years old, and those who are seriously ill and deserve the death penalty for murder should be reported to the court, which shall be taken from the upper judgment. Those who robbed or injured others were also redeemed for their crimes, while others were not punished. Those over ninety and under seven years old, even if they are sentenced to death, will not be punished. If someone has a command, they will be punished for their orders. If there is stolen goods that should be repaid, the recipient of the stolen goods should compensate. ”
It can be seen that the general principle of leniency in the Qing Dynasty is that minors under the age of seven are not punished; Minors under the age of ten shall be sentenced to death for murder.
The special judgment of the Qing Dynasty on the murder of a minor
The Qing Dynasty was the most mature and perfect stage of the ancient our country “caring for the weak and caring for the young”, although its legal provisions were almost completely inherited from the Tang Dynasty, but the cases of deprivation of life were especially “moral and prudent” compared to the previous dynasty.
Specifically, for the crime of murder of a minor, Qinglu needs to first convict in accordance with the “six killings” system of murder, intentional killing, fighting killing, manslaughter, and playful killing in traditional criminal law, and then reduce the punishment according to the legal leniency privileges such as petition, reduction, and redemption.
According to Chen Qiyuan’s book “Notes on Yongxianzhai”, there was a case of Wu San’s red eyes during the Shunzhi period. Fourteen-year-old Tuesday eggs sold cakes, and fifteen-year-old Wu Sanhongyan owed Tuesday egg cakes money on credit. Later, when Tuesday Egg met Wu San’s red eyes, he asked Wu San’s red eyes for cake money, and Wu San’s red eyes promised to come to Tuesday Egg the next day to pay back the money. However, the next day, Wu San’s red eyes did not pay back, and he ate three cakes on credit again after Tuesday Egg agreed.
When paying on credit, Wu San’s red eyes promised to return the money the next day. But unexpectedly, when Wu Sanhongyan finished eating the cake, Tuesday Egg asked him to return all the cake money immediately. Tuesday Egg insisted on repaying the debt, and Wu San’s red eyes also insisted that there was no money to repay. During the quarrel between the two, Tuesday picked up a stone on the road and threw it at Wu San’s red eyes. Wu San’s red eyes were anxious, and he snatched the stone in anger and smashed it on Tuesday Egg’s head, and Tuesday Egg died on the spot.
According to the laws of the Qing Dynasty, beating another person to death was sentenced to hanging. Although Wu Sanhongyan, who killed the man in this case, was over fourteen years old, he was only one year old, and considering that Tuesday Dan did not keep his promise to ask for money immediately and Wu San’s red-eye credit account was wrong, the judgment in this case should be treated as a juvenile beating, and the policy of leniency should be implemented, and finally Wu Sanhongyan was sentenced to hanging.
In addition to the Wu Sanhongyan case, the above-mentioned murder case of Liu Yanzi, a nine-year-old boy, should be lenient if Liu Yanzi under the age of ten is pardoned according to the “Qing Laws”, but in fact, the judgment of the case has never been lenient; In the case of Ding Qi Sanzai during the Yongzheng period, he was over ten years old but enjoyed leniency at the final verdict, which was a judgment made based on the facts of the case and a manifestation of the maturity of the juvenile crime law.
The laws of the Qing Dynasty mostly adopted the principle of “comparison and invocation”, that is, in the absence of clear legal provisions, the facts of the case can be invoked for judgment in cases similar to the present case. The Liu Yanzi case and the Ding Qi Sanzai case, because of their typicality, have both been used as objects of comparison and invocation.
For example, the Xiong Zhao case during the Jiaqing period recorded in Zhu Qingqi’s “Criminal Case Review III” in the Qing Dynasty is a reference to the Ding Qi Sanzai case. In Xiong Zhao’s case, the main case was that Xiong Zhao stabbed Lin Feng to death. The case originated from Lin Feng borrowing money from Xiong Zhao to buy itwineAfter being rejected, Lin Feng insulted and pushed Xiong Zhao, and when he saw him get up and fight back, he picked up a stone to attack the other party. Xiong Zhao was afraid of being injured, so he took a sharp knife and poked it randomly to scare Lin Feng, but unexpectedly, the sharp knife stabbed Lin Feng in the right back rib, and Lin Feng was killed. In this case, Xiong Zhao was 15 years old and Lin Feng was 19 years old, and the age was applicable to the rules formed after the Ding Qi Sanzai case, which was similar to the Ding Qi Sanzai case, all of which began with the other party insulting and hurting others, but this case was rejected after the petition was rejected on the grounds that it was:
“It is not true that the deceased in this case started a dispute because he borrowed money to buy wine…… It seems that it is not immediately necessary to invoke the example of Ding Qi Sanzai to request a reduction in exile, and it should be handed over to the museum for inspection and other investigations. ”
In the end, the normal judgment was upheld and no leniency was granted.
It can be seen that when the Qing Dynasty compared and cited juvenile crime cases, it not only looked at the similarity between the cases judged and the cited cases, but also focused on the deep reasons why the cited cases were pardoned. In the Ding Qi Sanzai case, Ding Qi Sanzai was pardoned because he was indeed beaten, and he was indeed impatient, which is similar to the current manslaughter caused by legitimate defense, and before Xiong Zhao stabbed with a sharp knife, Lin Feng did not really attack with stones, and he was not really anxious to beat him, so he rejected this request and did not treat it in the same way as the Ding Qi Sanzai case.
