Hello, I am a water reduction student, with you to taste history, insight and speculation.
Today's case of Ah Yun is concluded.
The Ah Yun case is actually a simple attempted murder case. There is neither a hidden nor a no-doubt point. Even, from the occurrence of the case to the cracking of the case, it is not a twist.
But this small case is enough to be ranked in the major case file of China's history.
The reason is that the Ah Yun case shows in detail and profoundly the legal civilization of traditional China.
In ancient times, it was unattainable; in modern times, it is breathtaking. The Ah Yun case greatly expands the scope of our understanding: the legal style, in addition to various modern styles, also had the Song Dynasty style.
01. If in the Qing Dynasty, Ah Yun will undoubtedly die
In 1768, the Qing Dynasty compiled the "General Records of the Past Dynasties". For this official document, the Qianlong Emperor attached great importance to it and personally wrote tens of thousands of words of imperial criticism. Among them, with regard to the Case of Ah Yun, Qianlong instructed:
If a woman murders her husband, she is extremely evil, and although she is not wounded, but the plot is already done, how can she be born to kill her husband because of her luck? How can we open a clause of surrender as soon as we ask?
Although this sentence has two question marks, it is not a question but a rhetorical question.
The first rhetorical question is: How can the murder of a husband be exempted because of "luck" (procedure) because of the great subjective malignancy and the extremely serious evil deeds? In other words, Ah Yun's case is a vicious rebellion, not a murder. Even if the marriage procedure is invalid, it must be treated as a vicious theory. Therefore, Ah Yun must die.
PS: Evil rebellion, the fourth of the "ten evils", is a vicious and absolutely inhumane act, mainly refers to the beating and murder of direct and collateral respected relatives, specifically beating and murdering grandparents, parents, murder of uncles, aunts, brothers and sisters, maternal grandparents, husbands, husbands' grandparents, parents. Ah Yun's murder of her brother-in-law Wei Ada, that is, the murder of her husband, is of course a vicious rebellion.
The second rhetorical question: What is the ghost logic of the case question if you want to count the self-surrender and surrender to reduce the sentence? That is to say, the Qianlong Emperor completely did not recognize the rationale of this causal reasoning. Facts speak louder than words, experiences speak louder than reason, and positions speak louder than opinions. Therefore, without eloquence, without reasoning, without opinion, but only by relying on general experience and common human feelings, The Ah Yun case is not a voluntary surrender of the case, let alone a commutation of sentence due to voluntary surrender.
PS: "The case is about to be raised" refers to the time when the criminal investigation procedure has begun and the truth of the case is about to be revealed. The Song Dynasty law stipulates that "those who commit crimes, who know that others want to sue, and who surrender themselves according to the desires of the question, and those who flee and return to the tao, such incidents, each of the returnees may be reduced to the second class of guilt." Therefore, when the case was to be raised, he took the initiative to confess the crime, and in the Song Dynasty, he turned himself in and had to reduce the crime to the second degree.
Not the Qianlong Emperor was "selfless with an iron face", and the late Qing Dynasty jurist Shen Jiaben was also "just and upright": doubtful clouds, persistent and cross-examining, but spitting truth, is that the officials have been lifted, the sinners have arrived at the officials, there is no remorse, and according to the law, they will not be headed.
The Case of Ah Yun is not a case that is wanted to be raised, but that the officials have already cited it. Once the county-level judicial office has completed the investigation of the case and the arrest of the criminal, there should be no claim that the case is to be raised and turned in. Shen Jiaben's view is more in line with modern justice. Not catching and surrendering is called surrendering; being caught, to tell the truth, is called confession. Surrender and confession are not the same thing.
But in line with modern times, it may not be in line with the Song Dynasty. The judicial system of the Song Dynasty allowed for voluntary surrender. After Ah Yun was arrested, he confessed that the object of the confession was the county lieutenant. According to the judicial interpretation of the Zhenzong dynasty, the county lieutenant must not participate in the factual trial of the case. That is to say, the county lieutenant link is only counted as the criminal investigation link, not the judicial link. Therefore, Ah Yun's confession of the crime to the county lieutenant belongs to the accounting of the crime in the criminal investigation link. And this is precisely the voluntary surrender in the case of the desire to raise the case.
Therefore, in the Qing Dynasty, Ah Yun will undoubtedly die. The Qing dynasty people could not understand the delicacy of the Song dynasty. Even, it is thought that this delicacy is not only a superfluous move to paint a snake, but also a paranoid and arrogant appeasement.
It can even be said that the Northern Song Dynasty's handling of Ah Yun's case was the internal volume. There is no innovation in creating complexity, meaninglessly making things up, and consuming national strength without increments.
02. But in the Song Dynasty, Ah Yun became the lucky one in the inner volume
The Ayun case began in the summer of the fourth year of the Northern Song Dynasty, that is, in 1067 AD, and was concluded in August of the second year of the Northern Song Dynasty, that is, in 1069 AD. From the local to the central government, from the judiciary to the legislature, it lasted more than two years.
A simple criminal case can be "tried" into an "iron tree blossoming." This is the Northern Song Dynasty. The inner volume is like this, and there is no way to add it.
But Ah Yun, an ordinary Song Dynasty woman, is just the lucky one of this inner volume.
If, as Sima Guang said, "The prison of Ah Yun and the officials of The Middle Material can make a decision", then how will the "officials of the Middle Material" be judged?
First of all, the Dengzhou judicial yamen ruled that Ah Yun's crime was evil and should be sentenced to capital punishment; then, bowing his head and going through the process, the Criminal Division, Dali Temple, and the Trial Court reviewed without objection; finally, Dengzhou received the order and executed Ah Yun.
It's a bureaucratic process that's as rigorous as "backwater." Bureaucracy, bowing one's head and going through the process; bureaucrats, recognizing the law and not recognizing people; and the result is that Ah Yun must die.
But human nature injects the soul of bureaucracy.
The first is Xu Zun's selfish distractions, and it is sometimes difficult for human nature not to do evil.
In order to make a difference, Xu Zun must find the extraordinary in the ordinary, and create complexity in the uncomplicated. After grasping the premise that the marital relationship was invalid, Xu Zun characterized Ah Yun's relationship with Wei Ada as a mortal relationship. As a result, Ah Yun's murder of Wei Ada was transformed from a ten-heinous felony into a general murder.
PS: Mortal, an ancient legal term, refers to ordinary people, strangers. "If the maternal garment is not removed, it should be treated as a mortal." During the mother's funeral, marriage could not be married; between Yunwei, the marriage was invalid. Thus, the two are not husband and wife, but mortal.
The Dali Temple and the Inquisition, in fact, acquiesced to the invalidity of Yunwei's marriage. Because the focus of later discussions is whether murder can be surrendered, not whether marriage is valid.
Therefore, Xu Zun initially realized the "LiQi self-defeating". Without Xu Zun and Xu Zun's selfish distractions, the Ah Yun case would most likely be characterized as a rebellion, not a murder.
However, Xu Zun was still not convinced. Seeing that "turning himself in" could not reduce Ah Yun's sentence, he proposed "joint exemption from the crime of the cause". After becoming the governor of Dali Temple, Xu Zun went so far as to write to the emperor proposing to open a two-system discussion.
These operations are not achievable by a bureaucracy that bows its head and follows the process, but must be driven by human nature. Specifically, this human nature is Xu Zun's selfish distractions.
But human nature is not only selfish and distracting, but also realistic, or also has feelings.
Secondly, Wang Anshi's position is correct, and human nature is sometimes unreasonable.
Xu Zunqi's verdict and Xu Zun's complaint to the Three Laws Division were indeed deliberately looking for trouble with selfish thoughts. However, the four legal discussions from the two systems to the two governments are seeking truth from facts, and seeking truth from facts does not reject human nature.
In this discussion, Wang Anshi clung to the provisions of the law, that is, "those who commit murder and injury and surrender themselves will be spared the crime of causing the cause, and still kill and injure from the cause", while Sima Guang was awe-struck by righteousness, "Reasonable, what is there to be sorry for?"
PS: The sin of cause refers to the crime that became the cause of his sin. For example, in "Killing and injuring people for theft", killing and injuring others because of theft, this process of behavior includes two kinds of crimes: theft and homicide. Among them, the crime of theft is the cause of the crime, the cause of the crime of murder. According to the song dynasty law, if the criminal surrendered voluntarily, then the crime of theft for the crime would not be prosecuted, but only the crime of killing and injury. That is, "if a person surrenders himself for the purpose of stealing, or if he kills or injures a rich man by mistake, the crime of theft is exempted, so the crime of killing and injury is still punishable."
If the murderer turns himself in, he is exonerated from the crime of causation, that is, the crime of murder is not prosecuted for theft but only for murder. Similarly, if the murderer turns himself in, he can be exempt from the crime of causation, that is, not murder but only murder.
Wang Anshi's reasoning is strange enough, and the reasoning point is even more bizarre. However, in the second two-system negotiation law, Wang Anshi won. In the highest standard of the Second House Law, Wang Anshi was not defeated.
The reason is still human nature.
Sometimes, human nature doesn't make sense. And once this unreasonable human nature forms a position, it can crush the correct point of view, tolerate the wrong reasoning, and even challenge the common sense of man. At that time, the Northern Song Dynasty scholars were rejecting the harsh punishment and heavy law, and were trying to pursue the light punishment leniency law. Wang Anshi's claim that killing and injury can be surrendered is exactly in line with this position.
After that, the inquisition court was angry, the Dali Temple was angry, the punishment department returned the edict, and then there was Wang An Shizhi Zhan San Fa Division, Song Shenzong zhao Shen Shen Zhi Shen Shen Zhi
The gods are fighting, so who is the winner?
The biggest winner imaginable is Ah Yun. Ah Yun was beaten to a pulp and then punished for hard labor in the local government, and that was it. If there is no such inner volume, then Ah Yun will also be sentenced to hanging at the slightest.
03. If it were in modern times, how would we talk about the Fa?
Although they have discussed the law four times, Sima Guang and Wang Anshi have never been able to clarify one question, that is, can "murder" be dismantled into two crimes: "conspiracy" and "killing"?
If this problem is not solved, Ah Yun's case is still a confused account.
Sima Guang thought no, on the grounds that it was impossible to draw an analogy to stealing and killing. "If a person commits suicide by killing or injuring a person for the purpose of theft, or by mistake killing or injuring a rich man, the crime of theft is exempted, so the crime of killing and injury is still punishable." Among them, theft and murder can be disassembled into the crime of theft and homicide, so only the crime of killing and injury can be pursued, but not the crime of theft. But the crime of murder cannot be divided into the crime of "conspiracy" (intent) and "killing" (act), because there is no murder crime of "only conspiring and not killing". Therefore, the use of the "crime of immunity" for murder is not only illogical, but also impersonal.
Wang Anshi believes that it is possible, on the grounds that the law provides for it. "Whoever murders man shall be punished for three years; he who has been wounded shall be hanged; he who has been killed shall be beheaded." In this law, the crime of murder has been dismantled into three acts: "only murdered", "injured" and "killed", before it can be convicted and sentenced according to different acts.
If in modern times, the average person can make a correct judgment and give a strong explanation. For the crime of murder, the modern term is intentional homicide. Since it is intentional homicide, it cannot be dismantled into intentional crimes and homicide. Therefore, Wang Anshi was wrong and Sima Guang was right.
If this is the case, then why can't Sima Guang break Wang Anshi's rogue sophistry in one word? At the same time, Wang Anshi is also a great Confucian in the world, so why should he engage in such a rogue sophistry of "breaking the law"?
Because this problem is not a legal problem, nor is it a logical problem, but a language problem. At that time, Wang Anshi could argue like this, and Sima Guang could not point out the crux of it.
The human mind is subject to language.
The first was that there was no verbal expression of intentional homicide at that time, but only the language of murder. Therefore, the Northern Song Dynasty doctor could only use murder to correspond to the real incident of Ah Yun killing Wei Ada.
Secondly, traceable semantics often engage in analogies, and it is difficult to engage in abstract logical reasoning. Murder can only be placed in the context of the various "killings" of the language of the time. So how many kinds of "killing" were there at that time? There are as many as seven kinds that can be imagined (from the "Tang Law Neglect"), namely murder, robbery, killing, fighting, manslaughter, drama killing, and manslaughter.
Then, let's look at the proper nouns that these "kills" constitute, all of which are structures that kill for some reason. Therefore, it is not difficult to distinguish the sins caused. But murder alone is an exception, which makes no logical sense at all. But it doesn't make sense logically, but it makes sense in language. Thinking is limited by language. Therefore, whether Wang Anshi deliberately fell into the swamp of words or not, Sima Guang could not pull him up.
So what exactly does murder mean? Did the people of the Song Dynasty have to invent a "murder" that no one can say?
As far as "murder" is concerned, we cannot blame the Song Dynasty. The laws of the Song Dynasty were inherited from the Tang Dynasty, so the legal provisions copied the tang Dynasty operations. The laws of the Tang Dynasty precisely stipulate that "those who murder people shall be punished for three years; those who have been injured shall be hanged; those who have been killed shall be beheaded."
Therefore, if you want to complain, you must complain about the Tang Dynasty. What did the Tang Dynasty people really think?
Regarding murder, the Tang Dynasty judicial interpretation "Tang Law Neglect" has a special elaboration, and this exposition is very counterintuitive. Even the Song Dynasty could not understand this interpretation.
"Tang Law Neglect Discussion Thief": The murderer is said to have more than two people, and if the matter has been revealed, he wants to kill it, and although he is the only one, he will also conspire with the two people."
That is to say, murder must be a matter of two or more people, not one person. Today's "conspiracy", and even the "conspiracy" of the Song Dynasty, can basically be identified as some kind of psychological activity. Since it is a mental activity, one person can. However, the "conspiracy" of the Tang Dynasty was a specific act of negotiation and quantity, so it must be two people.
Therefore, according to the Tang Law, of course, murder can be disassembled into "conspiracy" and "killing". How a person thinks about "killing" in his mind is not a crime. But what if two people discuss "killing"? At least it's a crime preparation.
However, Sima Guang and Wang Anshi, as well as the Northern Song Dynasty scholars, have been cutting words in the "Song Penal System", but have not traced the source to the "Tang Law Neglect".
If the time is more generous, if the scope of the discussion is expanded, if the emperor attaches more importance to it, perhaps someone will come up with the "Tang Law Neglect" to point out the crux of the problem. But does pointing out the crux of the problem solve the problem?
Language ability, abstract thinking ability, and image thinking ability are the three most basic intelligences. However, intelligence is sometimes just a tool.
The process of serious thinking is to start from a standpoint, base on facts, and then use intelligence to get an opinion. But what if positions contradict facts? Ignore the facts and stand firm. What if positions and opinions contradict each other? Correct the point of view and support the position. What if positions are at odds with intelligence? It cannot be contradictory, it can only be that intelligence is not enough to maintain the position.
Therefore, whether or not the "Tang Laws" can be produced, the Northern Song Dynasty scholars and doctors headed by Wang Anshi must include "murder has been injured" into the category of self-surrender.
Because their position is that the legal system of the Great Song Dynasty must be strict and lenient.
04. What is the significance of The Ayun case?
The Northern Song Dynasty scholar discussed the Ah Yun case for more than two years, and the harvest was only one piece of legislation, that is, "murder has been injured, and those who want to turn themselves in in the case should subtract from murder to the second class."
Fifteen years later, Sima Guangbai became the chancellor of the Great Song Dynasty, and added a supplementary interpretation of this legislation, that is, "those who surrender themselves according to the question, do not need to reduce the number."
But what Sima Guang did was only supplement, not subvert. He only stipulated that the robbers did not apply the voluntary surrender and commutation of sentence provided for in this law, but did not reject Ah Yun's situation.
Even if Sima Guang's "new law" is added, the Ah Yun case will still be judged as it is. Because Ah Yun is not a robber, he belongs to the "case of wanting to surrender himself" and should be punished with "subtracting the second degree from murder".
Sima Guang did not kill the ordinary woman named Ah Yun.
So, what is the significance of Ah Yun's case?
If I had to give Ah Yun a performance appraisal, it would be that in nearly 20 years, the Northern Song bureaucrats only received a law that could surrender themselves after murder and injury, and a supplementary explanation that robbers did not apply this law. Barely two laws. Is a simple criminal case worth such an introspection?
For the law, it's worth it. A law is enough to stipulate the lives of many people and generations in the present and even in the hereafter. Isn't it worth it for this effect?
For human life, it is worth it. It was two years of judicial process and legislative debate that saved Ah Yun's life. Isn't it worth it for this human life?
For civilization, it's worth it. "Do one unrighteous, kill one without guilt, and gain the world, and the benevolent will not do anything", this is what civilization should look like. Isn't it worth it for this value?
Inner volume is not a good word. However, Ah Yun enjoyed the benefits of inner volume. The Northern Song dynasty people, like Ah Yun, also enjoyed the benefits of the inner volume. Of course, there is a cost to the inner volume. But we can't say that if there is a cost, it is meaningless to do it, and it is meaningless to roll it in. Some things, opinions and facts are not important, and cost is certainly not important. And the position and the values, feelings and beliefs behind the position are important.
For the Case of Ah Yun, the Qing Dynasty may not understand, but modern times should understand, and even should be moved by the inner volume of the Northern Song Dynasty.