清代「鬥毆及故殺人」的法律規制及其案例分析——以《刑案匯覽》為材料

Legal regulation and case analysis of“fighting and killing”in Qing Dynasty -- Take《Criminal Case Survey》as the material

古代的「鬥殺」與「故殺」在司法實踐中既難以區分，又多有爭議。通過研究清代的律例，並結合《刑案匯覽》中「鬥毆及故殺人」案例展開詳細分析後可以發現，清代的司法檢驗技術和水準有所提升，但是總體上還是較為落後的。而且，「原謀」對於查清案件事實或者正確審理一個共毆案件具有極其重要的意義，以及「餘人」與其他共毆案件中的下手應絞之人最重要的區別在於造成的傷勢，根據「餘人」所發揮的不同作用，量刑也是根據案件事實而變化。此外，在兩家各斃一人的案件中，如果有一些特殊的量刑情節，承審官員可以酌情再予以減刑，而非只能減刑擬軍。清代針對「故殺」主觀要件的改變，極大程度上影響司法官員對「鬥殺」或「故殺」判斷的難度，絕大多數情況下，清代的司法官員都無法有力地證明嫌疑人為「故殺」，只能退而求其次，定為「鬥殺」。而且清代立法中「知而犯之」與「有害心」這兩個判斷標準，實際上是從唐代的「故殺」規定中拆分出來的結果。因此，清代的刑制改革具有一定的合理性，但並不能實現其最初的立法目的。

In the judicial practice, it is difficult to distinguish between“fighting and killing”and“killing by death”in ancient times. Through the study of the statutes of the Qing Dynasty and the detailed analysis of the cases of“fighting and killing”in“Criminal Cases Overview”, it can be found that the judicial inspection technology and level of the Qing Dynasty have been improved, but on the whole, it is still relatively backward. Moreover, the“principal offender”has extremely important significance for finding out the facts of the case or correctly trying a common assault case, and the most important difference between the“accessory offender”and the person who should be hanged in other common assault cases is the injury caused, according to the different roles played by the“accessory offender”, sentencing is also based on the facts of the case. In addition, in the case of one death in each of the two families, if there are some special sentencing circumstances, the officer who handl ed the case can further reduce the sentence at his discretion, rather than only reducing the sentence. In the Qing Dynasty, the changes in the subjective elements of“killing”greatly affected the difficulty of judicial officials' judgment of“fighting to kill”or“killing to kill”. In most cases, judicial officials in the Qing Dynasty could not effectively prove that the suspect was“killing to kill”, so they had to settle for“fighting to kill”. Moreover, the two judgment standards of“knowing and committing crimes”and“harmful heart”in Qing Dynasty legislation were actually separated from the provisions of“killing”in Tang Dynasty. Therefore, the reform of penal system in Qing Dynasty was reasonable to some extent, but it could not achieve its original legislative purpose.