Successive dynasties and dynasties have gradually created a system of death penalty review and death penalty repetition in judicial practice. The two cooperate with each other, implementing the ideological concept of prudent killing and retribution, and also ensuring judicial justice. The death penalty review is to determine the death penalty, which is the premise of the death penalty review, without the death penalty review, there is no need for the repetition; the death penalty review is approved by the emperor for execution, without the death penalty review, it is difficult to implement the death penalty review. So, how did the death penalty nuclear system develop?
During the Qin and Han dynasties, local governors directly had the right to kill, and did not have to ask the emperor for approval, but only needed to declare to their superiors afterwards. During the Qin and Han dynasties, there are records of local officials cutting first and playing later. The imperial court allowed the death penalty to fall on the prefectures and counties, but only required that no unauthorized or indiscriminate killing should be allowed. In order to prevent unauthorized killing, the Han Dynasty also designed strict trial procedures and an appeal correction system for cases sentenced to imprisonment or above. For example, after the conviction of a serious case, the prisoner is informed of the facts of the case and the sentence in person, and if the prisoner claims to be unjust, an appeal is allowed for a retrial; the imperial court and local governors will regularly or irregularly inspect the prisons in various places, interrogate the detained prisoners, especially the death row prisoners, and if they find grievances, they will be held accountable; the officials also need to submit the local prison files to the imperial court for review by the imperial court. These regimes all carry some elements of the original death penalty nuclear system. However, the real power of the judiciary is still in the hands of local officials, and the discretion of assassinating history and taishou is extremely large. Especially during the Southern and Northern Dynasties of the Wei and Jin Dynasties, local feudal towns killed at will and imposed heavy punishments, and the imperial court was almost unable to contain or even interfere. Even if there are a few cases of court interference, it is also an after-the-fact intervention, more like the accountability of the abuser.
After the Sui Dynasty ended the chaotic world and unified the whole country, the three-fold system of the death penalty was officially established. By placing the right to confirm the death penalty in the hands of the emperor, the local government was in fact deprived of the actual power to impose the death penalty. Because of the presence of the emperor, the ultimate decision-maker and censor, officials became stricter and more serious about the death sentence. Unfortunately, the second generation of the Sui Dynasty died, and many good systems were too late to be truly implemented. The death penalty repetition system has not been well implemented, and Tang Taizong's five repetitions are a reaffirmation and development of the Sui Dynasty system. The formal establishment of the death penalty repetition system in the Tang Dynasty was promoted by the Zhang Yungu case.
After the Tang Dynasty until the Ming and Qing dynasties, the law stipulated that the death penalty should strictly implement the review and repetition system, and only the procedures for review and the details of the repetition were different. Generations have added their own wisdom to make the system more complete. The death penalty system eventually became a major innovation in the ancient Chinese judiciary.
The Song Dynasty judiciary stipulated that the division of cases and judgments was separated, and different officials were in charge. The adjudicator is not responsible for the judgment, the adjudicator does not have to solve the case, and the two must not exchange information and negotiate to handle the case, which to a large extent avoids the drawbacks of the trial link. Regrettably, this system of separation of checks and balances has not been inherited by future generations. In the field of judicial review, the Song Dynasty inserted a procedure for recording questions after the trial and before the prosecution. Criminal cases cannot be sentenced without questioning; even if a judgement is rendered, it cannot take effect; if questioning is discarded and takes effect, the magistrate will be punished as perverting the law.
In the review of the death penalty in the Ming and Qing dynasties, the most distinctive system design is the autumn trial and the court trial. The autumn trial is that every autumn, the princes and ministers of the imperial court and the officials of various ministries and departments concentrate on reviewing the death row prisoners reported by the provinces. The court trial refers to the retrial of cases decided by the Punishment Department and the death penalty prison cases of the Beijing Division. There are roughly four types of results in the two types of audits: the facts of the case are clear, the conviction is appropriate, and the emperor is requested to personally collude in the process of repeating the death penalty; the deferred decision, although the facts of the case are true, are not harmful, and can be mitigated to exile or military service, or they can be re-detained for trial. If three consecutive suspensions of sentence are granted, the death penalty can be exonerated and the sentence reduced; In addition, after the middle of the Qing Dynasty, the review result of "retaining and inheriting the ancestors" was added, which meant that the death row prisoners were only children, and there were respected elders who needed to be supported, and they could apply for retention, and generally changed the sentence to a heavy staff and attached a shackle to the public. In addition, systems such as appeals for grievances and triage by the three law divisions are also protecting the rights and interests of death penalty suspects. All the death penalty cases in the Qing Dynasty and the Qiu Trial Cases classified as facts had to be applied for approval by the emperor three times in theory. The system of triplets a thousand years ago still existed in the Qing Dynasty. The emperor used a Zhu pen to tick the name of the death row prisoner in the case of the death penalty in order to execute the prisoner.
For suspects of felonies with special status, there has been an eight-opinion system in successive dynasties. The eight deliberations are divided into eight categories of deliberation objects: deliberative relatives, that is, deliberating on the emperor's relatives and relatives of the state; deliberating on the past of the emperor; deliberating on the sages, that is, people with high moral cultivation; deliberating on ability, that is, people with outstanding talents; deliberating on merit, that is, people with outstanding merits; deliberating on nobles, that is, deliberating on some nobles or high-ranking officials with three or more pins; deliberating on the qin, that is, people who have worked hard and diligently; deliberating on the guests, that is, the descendants of the former monarchs of the former dynasty who are respected as the guests of the state of the dynasty, including the descendants of kong mengsheng and others. When these eight types of people are suspected of capital crimes, no judicial organ can try them, but must directly report to the emperor, explain the facts of the case and the types of responses, and request a meeting of the princes and ministers. The result of the consultation was handed over to the Emperor for holy judgment. The eight subjects of the eight deliberations can generally be treated leniently. This system is more practiced on the issue of violations of the law by relatives of the emperor and the state.
Although the actual effect of the death penalty is debatable, the starting point of the system design is good. The death penalty repetition system reflects the importance of the emperor, so officials will be more cautious when sentencing the death penalty. The death penalty review system will hold the perpetrators of unjust, false and wrongly decided cases accountable, and will also force the presiding judge to act in accordance with the law. Moreover, the main body of the death penalty verification system is the central government, and the applicable standards of the death penalty can be unified, and the sentencing is relatively fair.
The death penalty nuclear system has provided the possibility of rehabilitating many unjust cases in history. For example, in the case of Yang Naiwu, who was sensational in the late Qing Dynasty, if there was no nuclear performance and autumn trial, there was absolutely no possibility of overturning the case under the circumstance that officials at all levels in Zhejiang Province were complicit and the judicial procedures were complete. It is precisely because of the existence of the death penalty nuclear performance that any death sentence is a "royal approval case", making it possible to overturn unjust, false and wrongly decided cases. This system provides the common people with a weapon against judicial power, giving everyone theoretical equality in justice. This system avoids the worst-case scenarios such as indiscriminate killing of innocents by local officials and reckless killing of people. The death penalty system is an important system of ancient Chinese justice, which ensures judicial fairness to a certain extent, and is also a major manifestation of the continuous strengthening of the autocratic imperial power.