《淡新檔案》中姦拐案件：法律傳統的重新檢視

Cases of Adultery and Abduction in Tan-Hsin Archives: Re-examining Legal Traditions in Qing Taiwan

目前臺灣討論通姦除罪化時，贊成對通姦維持刑事處罰者，往往訴諸傳統。但是在臺灣法律現代化之前的實踐中，通姦或者（被）拐逃者究竟會受到官府力量如何的懲罰，則未必清楚。向來的傳統中國法研究大多以《大清律例》或者《刑科題本》等中央層級司法文書素材，分析姦拐相關的律例以及其在各種案例中的討論適用。但是這類進入清帝國中央層級的案例，未必能夠反映當時地方衙門的一般情況。本文試圖將通姦罪的法律傳統加以歷史化，以《淡新檔案》中涉及姦拐情節之案件為基礎史料，重新評估最接近民間社會的地方官府處理姦拐案件之實況。結果發現，在十九世紀後半，身處帝國官僚機制末端、臺灣北部廳縣衙門的一般訟案中，姦拐控訴往往不了了之，從而姦拐相關律例縱使不是形同具文，其實效性也十分微弱。本文透過以類型化與時序化分析的方式，進一步探討實效性微弱的原因。在大部分的案件中，在姦拐指控的背後，往往存在其他的目的。本文由打官司之行動者的策略角度出發，發現在家族或家產糾紛中，姦拐指控常常用來打擊主動參與訴訟，或是與「外人」結盟對抗夫家的女性之形象；在賣妻糾紛中，姦拐訴訟則成為賣妻者事後「找價」的策略。即便訴訟過程中揭露出誣告、勒索、賣妻等情事，若當事人不再爭執姦拐情事而針對背後真正利益協商後遞出和息，官方實質上不會多加追究，而毋寧會無保留地接受。此外，資源有限的官府衙門，在面對當事人的呈控時，不僅無心無力追捕人犯，其調查事實的能力也不佳。大部分案件中，被指稱拐逃的婦女並未被官方或民間尋獲或到案。而在少數有到庭的人犯中（包括拐逃者以及被拐逃之婦女），也只有少數是經由官府捕獲，大部分乃由家族自行調查後捕獲後送官。最後，在犯人或者關係人得以到案者的極少數個案中，就算得以當庭訊問，地方官員仍然難以確定究竟是確有「姦情」抑或「誣姦」，只能以情理作為判斷事實真偽的憑藉或者說理表達，並且傾向大事化小、息事寧人。一方面，資源有限的地方官府，在認識到當事人往往以姦拐為名誣控聳聽的情況下，雖然受理此種案件，但以消極的態度加以處理，並容認當事人和解。另一方面，人們在認識到地方官府的態度後，也靈活地以提出與放棄姦拐控訴，作為行動策略。綜觀《淡新檔案》的姦拐案件可以發現，在個人行動與整體制度交織共構下，清帝國底下的臺灣，雖然官方對於姦拐為犯罪行為，在中央層級的案件中也的確有依律處罰的案件，但絕大部分停留在地方衙門姦拐案件，最終受到懲罰的案件十分稀少。清代臺灣官方對於姦拐的懲治，並非被普遍實踐的法律傳統。 Local legal traditions, as opposed to global trends, serve as the main reason against the decriminalization of adultery in contemporary Taiwan. To further understand the past traditions, this paper examines the legal sanction of adultery and abduction (of women) in Qing Taiwan. Related existing studies on legal history of China rely mainly on judicial documents of the central authority, such as the Great Qing Legal Code, also known as the Qing Code, or the Penal Memorials to the Throne. This study focuses more on the legal traditions related to such cases at the local government level. Re-examining the adultery and abduction cases recorded in the Tan-Hsin Archives revealed that these cases were often unresolved, and the prevailing related laws were rarely or not put into effect. Further exploring the reasons behind such situation showed that in litigations among families, chastity of female members was often called into question, and bringing a false charge of abduction was a common strategy by ex-husbands in disputes of wife-selling. When the litigants dropped the charges, the magistrates would then stop the investigation and close the cases without reservation. Even when the litigants would like to probe and pursue further, limited resources and capability of the local court made in-depth investigation difficult, and the truth behind the cases was seldom uncovered. Of the “abducted” women, most remained missing; and those brought into courts were usually arrested by their relatives, rather than the authority. Going beyond “law in book” to examine “law in action” would show that legal sanction of adultery and abduction was arguably not a tradition commonly practiced in Taiwan under Qing rule.