中国古代审判中的狱贵初情

To Think Much of the Evidence Collected in the Beginning of Proceedings in Chinese Ancient Trial

"狱贵初情"是指在案件受理之初认真调查证据,并在事实认定时重视采信此类证据。"狱贵初情"观念萌芽于先秦时期,历经秦汉至隋唐的发展,到宋代时成型,元明清时期继续深化。"狱贵初情"对中国古代的立法与司法实践都产生了深远的影响,而部分司法者对初情采信的偏面强调在一定程度上导致了"狱贵初情"观念与实践的异化。

In Chinese ancient judicial process, it was a very should think much of the evidences collected in the beginning important idea that the judicial official of the proceedings. The idea required that the judicial official should investigate and take of the evidences personally, rapidly and in detail, and admit the evidences collected in the beginning of the proceedings rather than during the late sta- ges if the later could not be confirmed more admissible than the former. The above idea emerged during pre-Qin period, when ＂five observing＂ and ＂examining the in- consistency in the confession＂ requested that the trial should be carried out rapidly and personally by the judicial official. During the period from Qin-Han to Sui-Tang dynasties, the notion of attaching great importance to the evidence investigation in the beginning of the proceedings become more and more conscious, and the idea of the priority of the initial evidences also appeared. The idea was con- ceptualized in the Song Dynasty, when it was approved and discussed by many judicial officials, and was further deepened and refined during the period from Yuan to Ming-Qing dynasties, when the judi- cial officials were more convinced about the role of the initial evidences. The idea had profound influence on Chinese ancient legislation and judicial practice, such as the systems of locking up separately and interrogating separately, postmortem examination, first reporter, etc. Furthermore, the system of giving books in the Song Dynasty, and the systems of reporting de- tailed in the beginning of the proceedings and the clerks＇ drafting of the oral confession for the offi- cials in the Qing dynasty, were all related to such idea, with the help of which many judicial officials succeeded in finding the truth of the case. However, there were also some judicial officials who over- emphasized the notion in the proceedings and made the notion deviate from its essence.