自理與解審之間──清代州縣層級中的命案處理實況

Between ‘Civil’ and ‘Criminal’ Procedure: Handling Homicide Cases at the District Level in Qing China

教科書中，常見有「戶婚田土之案為州縣自理；經解審者，則為命盜重案」的敘述。當讀者閱讀時，容易產生一種印象，即一開始時，案件的分類似乎已客觀分為二種。然而，無論何種案件，實際上皆先經由州縣審理；透過州縣審理，以決定案件為州縣自理或者解審，若係解審，則應處以何種刑責。由於《淡新檔案》中，並無解審案件，因此，有關州縣階段命盜重案處理的實況探討，仍未臻充分。本文透過《巴縣檔案》（同治朝）「命案部分」的七百餘件檔案史料，對以下進行探討：州縣階段所作成的解審事案文書內容、其背後的處理狀態，及未經解審（始於死者親戚要求驗屍，最後經歸類為意外死亡，而未審轉）的案件背後，所具備的社會實態（涉及金錢的私和居多）。並討論州縣對於多數紛爭案件，如何「立案」為解審事案（或者刑事事案）；刑事裁判（有罪無罪之認定）又如何立足於社會的基礎上等問題。

Regarding the judicial system of traditional China, there is a scholarly description that “Cases that were related to civil affairs (Huhun Tiantu) were concluded at the district level (Zhouxian, i.e., the lowest level of administration), whereas heavy criminal cases (Mingdao Zhong’an) were reported to higher officials [for the sake of review]”. This well-established characterization, which also frequently appears in Chinese legal history textbooks, leaves the impression that all cases were seemingly objectively divided into two categories (i.e., ‘civil’ and ‘criminal’) at the district level. However, in reality, any single case was initially heard at the district government and the decision as to whether to settle it locally or report it to upper organizations, and if so what kind of punishment should be appealed before the report, was made through a variable and complex procedure. Surprisingly, the real condition of handling a heavy criminal case at the district level, the most important stage in the whole judicial process for such a case, has not sufficiently been explored and discussed so far. One reason for this seems to be that there is no case that was reported to higher officials by the district government in the Danxin Archives (Danxin Dang’an), which have been the principal primary sources for the study of China’s traditional judicial system. In contrast, this paper is based on more than 700 homicide cases from the Baxian Archives (Tongzhi era), which allow the author to focus on cases that were reported to higher officials from the Baxian government. These shed light on (a) the judicial procedure of handling homicide cases at the district level, which was very closely similar to that of judging a civil case, including the procedures that were hidden behind the judicial documents themselves, and (b) the social background of the cases―most of which prove the existence of private monetary settlement. In order to reach these conclusions, the paper analyzes the contents of judicial documents in which cases were reported and initiated by the relatives of the dead by appealing autopsy but were finally judged as a death by accident, at the district level, without a report to the upper institutions. In doing so, this paper discusses how the ‘criminal cases’ were distinguished from the numerous cases that were accepted by district government and the social foundation upon which crimes were judged.