|
|
|
| Legislative Analysis and Transformation of Traditional Crimes Handled Only upon Complaint |
| Wu Jie |
| Law School, Fuzhou University, Fuzhou 350116, China |
|
|
|
|
Abstract Recently, crimes handled only upon complaint have attracted considerable scholarly attention, resulting in extensive research findings. Their traditional forms have largely faded from historical memory and remain insufficiently explored. However, investigating the traditional crimes handled only upon complaint is still necessary, as it can help us reexamine, fully understand, and even improve today’s legislation on such crimes from a historical perspective.The systematic establishment of crimes handled only upon complaint in traditional Chinese law traces back to the Code of the Tang Dynasty. Successive dynasties later adopted and revised these provisions. All traditional crimes handled only upon complaint were minor crimes occurring among relatives. Except for the crime of a husband beating his wife or concubine, where the wife or concubine could initiate a complaint, in other crimes handled only upon complaint, the right to file a complaint belonged to the senior family members, reflecting the traditional law’s emphasis on maintaining hierarchical distinctions. In traditional law, relatives generally lacked the right to report or lodge complaints against each other. The laws of “concealment among family relatives”, “voluntary surrender”, and “the crime of denouncing a superior relative” together established a system forbidding private prosecutions and denunciations between relatives. The central issue is whether the self-surrender rules, which grant mitigation or immunity to relatives who report crimes, apply to intra-family offenses. This question sparked considerable debate among Ming and Qing legal scholars. Wang Kentang and Xue Yunsheng believed that the exemption or reduction of punishment under the law of voluntary surrender for relatives who report crimes included intra-family crimes, while Lei Menglin and Shen Zhiqi held the opposite view. Upon analyzing the arguments of both sides, Lei and Shen’s reasoning proves more convincing.Due to differing understandings of whether the exemption or reduction of punishment under the law of voluntary surrender for relatives who report crimes includes intra-family crimes, Ming and Qing jurists also reached widely divergent interpretations on the legislative intent of crimes handled only upon complaint. Wang Kentang believed that “private accusation” conferred a right on family members to lodge criminal complaints, thus excluding the possibility of immunity based on voluntary surrender. Shen Zhiqi, however, argued that “private accusation” was primarily intended to preserve familial bonds. A careful review of the arguments presented by the two jurists reveals that Wang’s theory is largely flawed. According to the provisions of the separate crime provision law, once a specific crime committed between family members is separately established as a criminal offense, the principle of concealed crimes becomes invalid. Any violations will be adjudicated in accordance with the relevant provisions of the applicable provisions of the existing law. Therefore, the “private accusation” system did not grant family members the right to lodge accusations. In traditional societies, where the family and the state were structured on the same model, crimes handled only upon complaint acted as a mechanism by which the state transferred part of its governing authority to the family, so as to better protect ethical and familial bonds.During the late Qing reforms, the 1907 Draft Great Qing Criminal Code, partially influenced by the Japanese Criminal Code, incorporated provisions for crimes handled only upon complaint. Influenced heavily by the theory of legal interests, these reformed provisions deviated markedly from their traditional counterparts. Nonetheless, remnants of traditional thought persisted, as the late Qing legislation on crimes handled only upon complaint continued to emphasize the protection of family ethics. It follows that, under the legal interest theory, morals or ethics are generally not treated as protected objects in criminal law, as the legal interests safeguarded by criminal law should align with contemporary social values. If familial ethics remain a value upheld by that society, then criminal law should also provide protection for it. At present, family ethics remains an important issue in China’s legal framework. The Constitution explicitly recognizes the family as a fundamental value in its provisions. In this context, it is appropriate to treat family ethics as a legal interest protected by China’s criminal law. Defining family-related crimes as private offenses will help resolve conflicts, mend family ties, and prevent criminal law from undermining family ethics.
|
|
Received: 15 July 2024
|
|
|
|
1 张明楷：《刑法学》（第五版），北京：法律出版社，2016年。
2 刘俊文点校：《唐律疏议》，北京：法律出版社，1999年。
3 田涛、郑秦点校：《大清律例》，北京：法律出版社，1999年。
4 薛允升：《唐明律合编》，怀效锋、李鸣点校，北京：法律出版社，1999年。
5 沈约：《宋书》第六册，北京：中华书局，1974年。
6 吴坤修等编撰：《大清律例根原》，郭成伟主编，上海：上海辞书出版社，2012年。
7 高汉成编著：《〈大清新刑律〉立法资料补编汇要》，北京：中国社会科学出版社，2016年。
8 班固：《汉书》第一册，北京：中华书局，1962年。
9 王肯堂：《律例笺释》，顾鼎重编，清康熙三十年（1691）刻本。
10 雷梦麟：《读律琐言》，怀效锋、李俊点校，北京：法律出版社，2000年。
11 沈之奇：《大清律辑注》，怀效锋、李俊点校，北京：法律出版社，2000年。
12 郑克编撰：《折狱龟鉴译注》，刘俊文译注、点校，上海：上海古籍出版社，1988年。
13 刘俊文：《唐律疏议笺解》，北京：中华书局，1996年。
14 李立景：《亲告罪要论——告诉才处理的犯罪的研究新视角》，北京：中国人民公安大学出版社，2003年。
15 郭卫：《刑法学总论》（修正六版），上海：上海法学编译社，1932年。
16 王觐：《中华刑法论》，姚建龙勘校，北京：中国方正出版社，2005年。
17 黎宏：《日本刑法精义》（第二版），北京：法律出版社，2008年。
18 日］西田典之：《日本刑法总论》（第2版），王昭武、刘明祥译，北京：法律出版社，2013年。
19 冯尔康：《国法、家法、教化——以清朝为例》，《南京大学法律评论》2006年第2期，第165-180页。
20 怀效锋主编：《清末法制变革史料》（上卷），李俊、王为东、叶士东等点校，北京：中国政法大学出版社，2010年。
21 孟宪范：《家庭：百年来的三次冲击及我们的选择》，《清华大学学报（哲学社会科学版）》2008年第3期，第133-145，160页。
22 张龑：《论我国法律体系中的家与个体自由原则》，《中外法学》2013年第4期，第699-717页。
23 鲁昕：《新中国亲属相盗问题研究——以家庭伦理为背景的展开》，《甘肃政法学院学报》2011年第6期，第77-84页。
24 王聘珍：《大戴礼记解诂》，王文锦点校，北京：中华书局，1983年。
25 日］田口守一：《刑事诉讼法》（第5版），张凌、于秀峰译，北京：中国政法大学出版社，2010年。
26 姜涛：《刑法如何面对家庭秩序》，《政法论坛》2017年第3期，第32-47页。 |
| [1] |
. [J]. , 2008, 38(4): 30-. |
|
|
|
|
2026, Vol. 56 
