Newsletter No. 545

法 律學院於2014至16年間舉辦「中國習慣法研討會 系列」，功成圓滿，進而推出「大中華法律史研討會 系列」。新系列由院長兼偉倫法律學講座教授 鄔楓 教授及副院長（學術事務） Steven Gallagher 教授策劃，一直 深受歡迎，好評如潮。 鄔楓教授說：「藉着這一系列的研討會，中大法律學院使各界人 士得以聚首一堂，暢談法律的前世、今生與未來，成績斐然。活動 有助學者與業界交換知識、互通有無，而其成功足證中大法律學 院在大中華地區領導群倫。」 系列進入第五季，首場活動於9月20日由 Norman P. Ho 教授主 講，題為「中國傳統法律思想中的嚴厲體罰與懲罰理論」。他是 位於深圳的北京大學國際法學院學者，專門研究古代中國法律 史及法律理論，今再度擔任本系列之講者，闡析肉刑這個教人 戰慄同時引人深思的課題。 肉刑有近四千年歷史，商代已有之。當時，罪犯可被刺字於臉上 （古稱「墨」）、割鼻（劓）、斷足（刖）、閹割（宮）乃至處死（大 辟）。直至公元前167年，推崇儒家思想的漢文帝（公元前180至 157年在位）廢除肉刑。漢代以降，鞭打、剃頭等較輕的體罰逐步 取代肉刑，懲治罪行不再以致殘為手段。 話雖如此，肉刑廢除後的一千年間，圍繞其去留的爭論不斷，而 存廢兩派皆有精闢見解。反對肉刑的主要理據，是毀容截肢無法 逆轉，剝奪犯人改過自新的機會。漢文帝於心不忍，嘗言：「夫刑 至斷支體，刻肌膚，終身不息，何其刑之痛而不德也！豈稱為民父 母之意哉？」（《漢書 . 刑法志》）此看法在後世得到孔融（公元153 至208年）、唐代著名詩人白居易（公元772至846年）等人和應。 有論者甚至認為，肉刑對減低罪案率、儆惡懲奸無甚作用。 另一邊廂，班固（公元32至92年）、劉頌（公元300年卒）、宋代儒 學泰斗朱熹（公元1130至1200年）等人主張恢復肉刑。須知不少 支持肉刑的人意不在折磨罪犯、使其永遠蒙羞。他們認為，刑法 中沒有肉刑這個折衷的選項，則罪不至死的犯人，亦只能以極刑處 置。劉頌寫道：「今死刑重，故非命者眾；生刑輕，故罪不禁姦。所 以然者，肉刑不用之所致也。」（《晉書 . 刑法志》）支持肉刑的人亦 認為，肉刑可以去除用以犯罪的器官，兼收殺雞儆猴之效。朱熹 便說：「……一以宮荊之辟當之，則雖殘其支體，而實全其軀命，且 絕其滿亂之本，而使後無以肆焉……」（《朱子文集》卷三十七） 總結肉刑存廢之爭，講者指出兩派爭論本質千年間未有改變。各 方觀點亦反映在中國法學中，刑罰恰當與否取決於其結果，而所 謂結果，不外乎它在阻嚇大眾、防止重犯和協助更生這三方面的 功效。講者續指，中國懲治理論的一大特點，乃各家均奉上古明 君之政令為圭臬。在肉刑存廢爭議中，兩派都時常援引先王，訴 諸其威望。 講座當日，位於中大法律學院金鐘校舍的會場座無虛席。 Gallagher教授說：「我們最初也沒有想到，一眾律師以至其他 人士都對這些研討會深感興趣。如今我們的研討會時有過百人 出席，研討會視頻的觀看人次以千計，關鍵還是講者出色、題材 有趣。」 T he Greater China Legal History Seminar Series offered by the Faculty of Law, built upon the success of the Chinese Customary Law Seminar Series in 2014–16, has been extremely popular and impactful. It is the brainchild of Prof. Lutz-Christian Wolff , Dean of Law and Wei Lun Professor of Law and Prof. Steven Gallagher , Associate Dean (Teaching and Learning) of the Faculty of Law. Professor Wolff said, ‘Through this seminar series the Faculty of Law of CUHK has been able to establish a highly respected forum for the intellectual exchange between parties from all walks of life on legal history and its impact at present and in the future. The series has fostered a vibrant knowledge transfer back and forth between academia and the legal profession. Its success also demonstrates our Faculty’s academic leadership in the Greater China region.’ The fifth season kicked off with a sometimes macabre but always thought-provoking lecture given by a returning speaker. On 20 September, Prof. Norman P. Ho of the Peking School of Transnational Law in Shenzhen and an expert on pre-modern Chinese legal history and legal theory delivered a talk titled ‘Mutilating Corporal Punishments and Theories of Punishment in Traditional Chinese Legal Thought’ to a packed lecture hall in the Faculty’s town centre in Admiralty. Mutilating Corporal Punishments (MCPs) go back almost 4,000 years in the Shang dynasty when tattooing (inscription on the face of the offender), amputation of the nose or either or both of the legs, castration and death were practised on offenders. MCPs were officially abolished in 167 BC by the Confucianism-advocating Emperor Wen (r. 180–157 BC) of the Han dynasty. During Han and the subsequent dynasties, mutilation was gradually replaced by less severe or permanent forms of corporal punishments such as beating and head-shaving. But throughout the millennium since their abolitions, legal and jurisprudential debates on MCPs and appeals for their reinstatement went on. Ingenious arguments had been advanced by both the anti- MCP and the pro-MCP camps. Central to the argument of the former is that the carving of visage or the maiming of limbs is irreversible and hence precludes redemption. Emperor Wen took pity and asked himself: ‘When the mutilating punishments are applied, members are cut off and the skin is carved, (so that) to the end of one’s life they will not grow (again). How painful are these punishments and how unvirtuous (am I). How could this ever correspond to the idea of “being the father and mother of the people”?’ 1 Emperor Wen was echoed in subsequent centuries by, among others, Kong Rong (153–208 AD) and the famous Tang poet Bai Juyi (772–846 AD). Some even argued that MCPs have little effect on the prevention of crimes or the eradication of evil. Advocates for the reinstatement of MCPs include Ban Gu (32–92 AD), Liu Song (d. 300 AD) and the great neo- Confucian scholar Zhu Xi (1130–1200 AD). Interestingly, many of these did not want to reinstate MCPs just to inflict pain and make the stigma permanent. They saw the lack of MCPs creating a penal void in which not-so-serious crimes do not find fit punishment except the capital one. Liu Song wrote: ‘These days, capital punishment is excessive, and so many people have lost their lives. At the same time, other punishments are overly lax, and so even sentencing [and punishing] offenders cannot stop evil breaking of laws. All of these phenomena are due to the non-use of MCPs.’ 2 MCPs, according to these advocates, serve practical purposes in removing the instrument of the crime and achieve a deterrent effect by driving fear into the heart of those who witness the outward manifestations of MCPs. Thus Zhi Xi wrote: ‘… although this would cause harm to their limbs, [these punishments] would nevertheless preserve their lives and destroy the root of their desires to commit evil, as well as [physically] preventing them from having the means to engage in those crimes again.’ 3 Professor Ho concluded that the content of the debates between anti- and pro-MCPs did not change substantially for over a thousand years. The debates also show that in Chinese legal thought punishment is justified primarily on consequentialist grounds (to deter, to incapacitate and to rehabilitate). He further pointed out that a unique characteristic of the Chinese thought on punishment is the reverence due the sage kings of antiquity, to whose authority appeals from both camps had repeatedly been made. Professor Gallagher said, ‘We were initially surprised by the incredible interest from lawyers and non-lawyers in the seminars. Now we regularly get over 100 audience members and thousands of views of the seminar videos. It’s all down to the excellent speakers and interesting topics.’ TC 1. Book of Han ( 《漢書》 ) juan 23, A. F. P. Hilsewe trans. 2. Book of Jin ( 《晉書》 ) juan 30, Norman P. Ho trans. 3. Zhuzi wenji ( 《朱子文集》 ) juan 37, Norman P. Ho trans. (From left) Prof. Norman P. Ho, Prof. Steven Gallagher and Prof. Lutz-Christian Wolff （左起）Norman P. Ho教授、Steven Gallagher教授與鄔楓教授 | 05 # 5 4 5 | 1 9 . 1 0 . 2 0 1 9