This paper examines early nineteenth century legal cases in which Qing jurists had to determine a just way to punish a male offender who had murdered a man in order to defend himself against rape. Earlier, in the eigh...This paper examines early nineteenth century legal cases in which Qing jurists had to determine a just way to punish a male offender who had murdered a man in order to defend himself against rape. Earlier, in the eighteenth century, jurists judging such cases exhibited considerable skepticism that same-sex rape had occurred. They regarded the claim of rape as an excuse offered by the murderer, demanded an extraordinary measure of proof that there had been a rape, and pun- ished the murderers harshly. But over time, as illustrated in model cases gathered together in the Xing＇an huilan ~lj~ or Conspectus of Punishment Cases, various officials pursuing their judicial responsibilities came to acknowledge a broader range of possible circumstances in which same-sex rape might have occurred and hence showed greater leniency to males who claimed to have tour- dered because they had been raped or judicial practice came to a climax in 1825 threatened with rape. This evolution in when the Court of Revision petitioned the Emperor to approve even greater leniency but the Board of Punishments refuted the argument.展开更多
文摘This paper examines early nineteenth century legal cases in which Qing jurists had to determine a just way to punish a male offender who had murdered a man in order to defend himself against rape. Earlier, in the eighteenth century, jurists judging such cases exhibited considerable skepticism that same-sex rape had occurred. They regarded the claim of rape as an excuse offered by the murderer, demanded an extraordinary measure of proof that there had been a rape, and pun- ished the murderers harshly. But over time, as illustrated in model cases gathered together in the Xing＇an huilan ~lj~ or Conspectus of Punishment Cases, various officials pursuing their judicial responsibilities came to acknowledge a broader range of possible circumstances in which same-sex rape might have occurred and hence showed greater leniency to males who claimed to have tour- dered because they had been raped or judicial practice came to a climax in 1825 threatened with rape. This evolution in when the Court of Revision petitioned the Emperor to approve even greater leniency but the Board of Punishments refuted the argument.
