Volume 94 Treatises 70: Punishment and Law 2

三法司曰刑部、都察院、大理寺。刑部受天下刑名，都察院糾察，大理寺駁正。太祖嘗曰：「凡有大獄，當面訊，防構陷鍛煉之弊。」故其時重案多親鞫，不委法司。洪武十四年，命刑部聽兩造之詞，議定入奏。既奏，錄所下旨，送四輔官、諫院官、給事中覆核無異，然後覆奏行之。有疑獄，則四輔官封駁之。逾年，四輔官罷，乃命議獄者一歸於三法司。十六年，命刑部尚書開濟等，議定五六日旬時三審五覆之法。十七年，建三法司於太平門外鐘山之陰，命之曰貫城。下敕言：「貫索七星如貫珠，環而成象名天牢。中虛則刑平，官無邪私，故獄無囚人；貫內空中有星或數枚者即刑繁，刑官非其人；有星而明，為貴人無罪而獄。今法天道置法司，爾諸司其各慎乃事，法天道行之，令貫索中虛，庶不負朕肇建之意。」又諭法司官：「佈政、按察司所擬刑名，其間人命重獄，具奏轉達刑部、都察院參考，大理寺詳擬。著為令。」

The Three Judicial Offices comprised the Ministry of Punishment, the Censorate, and the Court of Judicial Review. The Ministry of Punishment took charge of penal matters throughout the realm; the Censorate investigated misconduct; and the Court of Judicial Review reviewed and overturned improper judgments. Taizu once declared: "In every major case, the accused must be questioned in person, lest officials resort to framing suspects or torturing them into false confessions. Accordingly, grave cases were usually tried by the emperor himself rather than delegated to the judicial bureaucracy. In 1381, an order directed the Ministry of Punishment to hear both sides, reach a proposed judgment, and report it to the throne. Once the memorial was in, the emperor's decision was recorded and sent to the four chief counselors, censors, and supervising secretaries for review; if they found no fault, the case was reported again and executed. Doubtful cases were sealed and sent back by the four chief counselors for reconsideration. A year later, with the four chief counselors removed from office, all criminal deliberation was entrusted once again to the Three Judicial Offices. In 1383, Kai Ji, Minister of Punishment, and others were charged with establishing the schedule of three trials and five reviews every five or six days within each ten-day period. In 1384 the Three Judicial Offices were erected north of Bell Mountain, outside the Taiping Gate, and the compound was named Guancheng, "the Pierced City." An edict explained: "The seven stars of Guansuo lie like beads on a string, forming the constellation known as the Celestial Prison. When the constellation's center stands empty, punishments are even-handed and officials free of private corruption, and the prison holds no prisoners; if one or more stars appear within that hollow, punishments grow harsh and the magistrates are unfit for their posts; when stars shine there, men of rank may languish in prison though innocent. In establishing these courts to mirror Heaven's Way, each of you must discharge your duties with care, so that Guansuo's center may stand empty and you fulfill the intent with which I founded them. He further told the judicial officers: "Capital cases and other grave penalties proposed by provincial administration and surveillance commissioners must be reported upward to the Ministry of Punishment and the Censorate for consultation, with the Court of Judicial Review conducting a detailed review. Let this be enacted as a standing regulation."

刑部有十三清吏司，治各布政司刑名，而陵衛、王府、公侯伯府、在京諸曹及兩京州郡，亦分隸之。按察名提刑，蓋在外之法司也，參以副使、僉事，分治各府縣事。京師自笞以上罪，悉由部議。洪武初決獄，笞五十者縣決之，杖八十者州決之，一百者府決之，徒以上具獄送行省，移駁繁而賄賂行。乃命中書省御史臺詳讞，改月報為季報，以季報之數，類為歲報。凡府州縣輕重獄囚，依律決斷。違枉者，御史、按察司糾劾。至二十六年定制，布政司及直隸府州縣，笞杖就決；徒流、遷徙、充軍、雜犯死罪解部，審錄行下，具死囚所坐罪名上部詳議如律者，大理寺擬覆平允，監收侯決。其決不待時重囚，報可，即奏遣官往決之。情詞不明或失出入者，大理寺駁回改正，再問駁至三，改擬不當，將當該官吏奏問，謂之照駁。若亭疑讞決，而囚有番異，則改調隔別衙門問擬。二次番異不服，則具奏，會九卿鞫之，謂之圓審。至三四訊不服，而後請旨決焉。

The ministry was divided into thirteen clerical bureaus, each overseeing the penal docket of a provincial administration commission; imperial tombs, princely households, noble mansions, metropolitan agencies, and the prefectures and districts of the two capitals fell under their jurisdiction as well. The surveillance commission, styled the office for raising penalties, served as the provincial judiciary; vice commissioners and surveillance commissioners shared its work, each supervising the cases of his circuit of prefectures and counties. Within the capital, every penalty from the light bamboo beating upward was adjudicated by the ministry alone. Early in the Hongwu reign, counties decided cases up to fifty blows of the light bamboo, prefectures up to eighty, and the prefectural administration up to one hundred; penal servitude and heavier penalties required full dossiers sent to the provincial commission. Endless rehearings bred delay and bribery. The emperor then ordered the Secretariat and Censorate to review judgments carefully, replaced monthly returns with quarterly ones, and rolled the quarterly totals into annual reports. Prefectures, departments, and counties were to decide all prisoners, grave or minor, strictly according to statute. Officials who misapplied or perverted the law were impeached by censors and surveillance commissioners. In 1393 a permanent rule was laid down: provincial administration commissions and directly governed prefectures, departments, and counties could impose bamboo punishments locally; penal servitude, exile, banishment, military exile, miscellaneous capital offenses, and death sentences went to the ministry. After review, death-row prisoners whose convictions matched the code were re-examined by the Court of Judicial Review, held in custody, and kept pending execution. Capital prisoners whose sentences could not wait for the regular season, once approved, were reported immediately and officers were sent to execute the sentence. If facts were unclear or the sentence too harsh or too lenient, the Court of Judicial Review sent the case back for correction. After three such returns, if the revision was still wrong, the responsible officials were reported to the throne—this was called reflective rejection. When deliberation left doubt and the prisoner still contested the verdict, the case was reassigned to another office for a fresh hearing. If the prisoner disputed the verdict a second time, the case was memorialized and the Nine Ministers jointly tried it—the round review. Only after three or four hearings without submission would the case be referred to the emperor for final decision.

正統四年，稍更直省決遣之制，徒流就彼決遣，死罪以聞。成化五年，南大理評事張鈺言：「南京法司多用嚴刑，迫囚誣服，其被糾者亦止改正而無罪，甚非律意。」乃詔申大理寺參問刑部之制。弘治十七年，刑部主事硃瑬言：「部囚送大理，第當駁正，不當用刑。」大理卿楊守隨言：「刑具永樂間設，不可廢。」帝是其言。

In 1439 the rules for directly governed provinces were slightly revised: penal servitude and exile could be decided and executed locally, while death sentences had to be reported to the center. In 1469 Zhang Yu, an evaluating official at the Nanjing Court of Judicial Review, protested that Nanjing's judicial offices routinely tortured prisoners into false confessions and that impeached officials merely revised judgments without exonerating the innocent—conduct far from the spirit of the law. An edict thereupon reaffirmed the Court of Judicial Review's practice of joint inquiry with the Ministry of Punishment. In 1504 Zhu Rong, a registrar in the Ministry of Punishment, argued that prisoners sent from the ministry to the Court of Judicial Review should be corrected on the merits alone, not subjected to torture. Director Yang Shousui of the Court of Judicial Review replied that torture implements introduced in the Yongle reign could not be abolished. The emperor sided with Yang.

會官審錄之例，定於洪武三十年。初制，有大獄必面訊。十四年，命法司論囚，擬律以奏，從翰林院、給事中及春坊正字、司直郎會議平允，然後覆奏論決。至是置政平、訟理二幡，審諭罪囚。諭刑部曰：「自今論囚，惟武臣、死罪，朕親審之，餘俱以所犯奏。然後引至承天門外，命行人持訟理幡，傳旨諭之；其無罪應釋者，持政平幡，宣德意遣之。」繼令五軍都督府、六部、都察院、六科、通政司、詹事府，間及駙馬雜聽之，錄冤者以狀聞，無冤者實犯死罪以下悉論如律，諸雜犯準贖。永樂七年，令大理寺官引法司囚犯赴承天門外，行人持節傳旨，會同府、部、通政司、六科等官審錄，如洪武制。十七年，令在外死罪重囚，悉赴京師審錄。仁宗特命內閣學士會審重囚，可疑者再問。宣德三年奏重囚，帝令多官覆閱之，曰：「古者斷獄，必訊於三公九卿，所以合至公，重民命。卿等往同覆審，毋致枉死。」英國公張輔等還奏，訴枉者五十六人，重命法司勘實，因切戒焉。

The practice of joint official review of prisoners was established in 1397. Under the original rule, major cases required personal interrogation by the emperor. In 1381 judicial offices were to deliberate on prisoners, propose sentences under the code, and memorialize; Hanlin academicians, supervising secretaries, and Eastern Palace readers would confer on fairness before the verdict went back to the throne. At that time the banners "Government at Peace" and "Litigation Resolved" were erected to proclaim sentences to convicted prisoners. The ministry was told: "Henceforth I shall personally try only military offenders and capital cases; report all other offenses as charged. Prisoners were then led outside the Chengtian Gate, where runners with the Litigation Resolved banner conveyed the imperial message and pronounced sentence; those to be released as innocent were dismissed under the Government at Peace banner, proclaiming imperial mercy. Later the Five Military Commissions, Six Ministries, Censorate, Six Offices of Scrutiny, Office of Transmission, and Grand Secretariat—and sometimes imperial sons-in-law—were also summoned to hear cases. Wrongful convictions were memorialized; the innocent and those whose true offense fell short of death were sentenced under the code; miscellaneous offenses were commuted by ransom as allowed. In 1409 Court of Judicial Review officials led prisoners from the judicial offices outside the Chengtian Gate; runners carried credentials to announce the edict, and officials from the capital administration, ministries, Office of Transmission, Six Offices, and other agencies jointly reviewed the records as in the Hongwu system. In 1419 all serious death-row prisoners in the provinces were ordered brought to the capital for joint review. Emperor Renzong specially ordered Grand Secretariat academicians to sit with others in reviewing capital cases; doubtful cases were reheard. In 1428, reviewing capital cases, the Xuande Emperor ordered many officials to re-examine them, saying: "In antiquity capital trials required consultation with the Three Dukes and Nine Ministers, uniting supreme fairness with reverence for human life. Go together and review again—do not let the innocent die. Zhang Fu, Duke of Ying, and the others reported back that fifty-six prisoners claimed wrongful conviction. The emperor ordered the judicial offices to verify the facts and sharply rebuked them.

天順三年，令每歲霜降後，三法司同公、侯、伯會審重囚，謂之朝審。歷朝遂遵行之。成化十七年，命司禮太監一員會同三法司堂上官，於大理寺審錄，謂之大審。南京則命內守備行之。自此定例，每五年輒大審。初，成祖定熱審之例，英宗特行朝審，至是復有大審，所矜疑放遣，嘗倍於熱審時。內閣之與審也，自憲宗罷，至隆慶元年，高拱復行之。故事，朝審吏部尚書秉筆，時拱適兼吏部故也。至萬曆二十六年朝審，吏部尚書缺，以戶部尚書楊俊民主之。三十二年復缺，以戶部尚書趙世卿主之。崇禎十五年，命首輔周延儒同三法司清理淹獄，蓋出於特旨云。大審，自萬曆二十九年曠不舉，四十四年乃行之。

In 1459 an order required that after Frost's Descent each year the Three Judicial Offices, together with dukes, marquises, and earls, jointly review capital prisoners—the Court Review. Later reigns kept the practice. In 1481 one eunuch director of ceremonial was ordered to sit with the chief officers of the Three Judicial Offices at the Court of Judicial Review for the Grand Review. At Nanjing the inner palace superintendent conducted it. This became fixed precedent: a Grand Review every five years. Emperor Chengzu had first established the Summer Review; Emperor Yingzong added the Court Review; now the Grand Review as well often freed twice as many prisoners on grounds of doubt as the Summer Review. The Grand Secretariat's participation in review lapsed under Emperor Xianzong until Gao Gong restored it in 1567. By custom the Minister of Personnel presided at the Court Review; Gao Gong happened to hold that ministry as well. At the 1598 Court Review the Ministry of Personnel had no incumbent, so Minister of Revenue Yang Junmin presided. In 1604 it was vacant again, and Minister of Revenue Zhao Shiqing presided. In 1642 chief grand secretary Zhou Yanru was ordered, with the Three Judicial Offices, to clear long-pending cases by special edict. The Grand Review, omitted since 1601, was held again in 1616.

熱審始永樂二年，止決遣輕罪，命出獄聽候而已。尋並寬及徒流以下。宣德二年五、六、七月，連論三法司錄上繫囚罪狀，凡決遣二千八百餘人。七年二月，親閱法司所進繫囚罪狀，決遣千餘人，減等輸納，春審自此始。六月，又以炎暑，命自實犯死罪外，悉早發遣，且馳諭中外刑獄悉如之。成化時，熱審始有重罪矜疑、輕罪減等、枷號疏放諸例。正德元年，掌大理寺工部尚書楊守隨言：「每歲熱審事例，行於北京而不行於南京。五年一審錄事例，行於在京，而略於在外。今宜通行南京，凡審囚，三法司皆會審，其在外審錄，亦依此例。」詔可。嘉靖十年，令每年熱審並五年審錄之期，雜犯死罪、準徒五年者，皆減一年。二十三年，刑科羅崇奎言：「五、六月間，笞罪應釋放、徒罪應減等者，亦宜如成化時欽恤枷號例，暫與蠲免，至六月終止。南法司亦如之。」報可。隆慶五年，令贓銀止十兩以上、監久產絕、或身故者，熱審免追，釋其家屬。萬曆三十九年，方大暑省刑，而熱審矜疑疏未下。刑部侍郎沈應文以獄囚久滯，乞暫豁矜疑者。未報。明日，法司盡按囚籍軍徒杖罪未結者五十三人，發大興、宛平二縣監候，乃以疏聞。神宗亦不罪也。舊例，每年熱審自小滿後十餘日，司禮監傳旨下刑部，即會同都察院、錦衣衛題請，通行南京法司，一體審擬具奏。京師自命下之日至六月終止。南京自部移至日為始，亦滿兩月而止。四十四年不舉行。明年，又逾兩月，命未下，會暑雨，獄中多疫。言官以熱審愆期、朝審不行、詔獄理刑無人三事交章上請。又請釋楚宗英嫶、蘊鈁等五十餘人，罣誤知縣滿朝薦，同知王邦才、卞孔時等。皆不報。崇禎十五年四月亢旱，下詔清獄。中允黃道周言：「中外齋宿為百姓請命，而五日之內系兩尚書，不聞有抗疏爭者，尚足迴天意乎？」兩尚書謂李日宣、陳新甲也。帝方重怒二人，不能從。

Summer Review began in 1404, at first releasing only minor offenders from prison pending further disposition. Soon it was extended to penal servitude and exile. In 1427, during the fifth, sixth, and seventh months of Xuande, the Three Judicial Offices three times reported prisoners in custody; more than twenty-eight hundred were released or sentenced. In February 1432 the emperor personally reviewed the judicial offices' lists and released more than a thousand prisoners, many with reduced sentences by payment in kind—thus began the Spring Review. In June, owing to the heat, he ordered that all except those actually guilty of capital crimes be released promptly, and edicts rushed to prisons everywhere to do the same. Under Chenghua, Summer Review first gained precedents for leniency in capital cases, reduction of lighter sentences, and release wearing the cangue. In 1506 Yang Shousui, Minister of Works and acting director of the Court of Judicial Review, noted that Summer Review precedents were enforced in Beijing but not Nanjing. The five-year joint review was observed in the capital but neglected in the provinces. He urged extending both practices to Nanjing and the provinces, with all three judicial offices sitting together at every review. The edict approved. In 1531 an order required that at each Summer Review and five-year joint review, miscellaneous capital offenses and those commutable to five years' penal servitude receive a one-year reduction. In 1544 Luo Chongkui of the punishment remonstrance section proposed that in the fifth and sixth months, prisoners due for release or reduction under Summer Review, following Chenghua's precedent, be temporarily exempted until the end of June. The southern judicial offices should follow suit. The proposal was approved. In 1571 an order waived collection at Summer Review of embezzled silver of ten taels or more when long imprisonment had exhausted the prisoner's estate or the prisoner had died, and released the family. In 1611, during an unusually hot summer when punishments were being lightened, the Summer Review commutation list had still not been issued. Vice Minister Shen Yingwen, citing long detention, begged temporary application of commutation for doubtful cases. No answer came. The next day the judicial offices went through their registers and sent fifty-three prisoners still in military exile, penal servitude, or bamboo sentences to custody in Daxing and Wanping counties before memorializing the throne. Emperor Shenzong did not punish them either. Under the old rule, Summer Review began about ten days after Lesser Fullness, when the Directorate of Ceremonial transmitted an edict to the Ministry of Punishment, which with the Censorate and Embroidered-Uniform Guard ordered the Nanjing courts to deliberate and report jointly. In the capital the period ran from the day the order was issued to the end of the sixth month. At Nanjing it began when the ministry received the document and likewise lasted two months. In 1616 it was not held. The following year more than two months passed without an order; amid summer rains plague spread through the prisons. Censors memorialized in succession on three points: the delayed Summer Review, the omitted Court Review, and the lack of judges for the imperial prison. They also asked release of more than fifty people, including Ying Miao and Yun Qian of the Chu princely line, the wrongly implicated magistrate Man Chaojian, and vice magistrates Wang Bangcai and Bian Kongshi. None received answer. In April 1642, during severe drought, an edict ordered the prisons cleared. Palace lecturer Huang Daozhou protested: "Court and country observe fasting to plead for the people, yet within five days two ministers are imprisoned and no one dares remonstrate boldly—how can this move Heaven? The two ministers were Li Rixuan and Chen Xinji. The emperor was then too angry with the two men to comply.

歷朝無寒審之制，崇禎十年，以代州知州郭正中疏及寒審，命所司求故事。尚書鄭三俊乃引數事以奏，言：「謹按洪武二十三年十二月癸未，太祖諭刑部尚書楊靖，『自今惟犯十惡並殺人者論死，餘死罪皆令輸粟北邊以自贖』。永樂四年十一月，法司進月繫囚數，凡數百人，大辟僅十之一。成祖諭呂震曰：『此等既非死罪，而久系不決，天氣冱寒，必有聽其冤死者。』凡雜犯死罪下約二百，悉準贖發遣。九年十一月，刑科曹潤等言：『昔以天寒，審釋輕囚。今囚或淹一年以上，且一月間瘐死者九百三十餘人，獄吏之毒所不忍言。』成祖召法司切責，遂詔：『徒流以下三日內決放，重罪當系者恤之，無令死於饑寒。』十二年十一月，復令以疑獄名上，親閱之。宣德四年十月，以皇太子千秋節，減雜犯死罪以下，宥笞杖及枷鐐者。嗣後，世宗、神宗或以災異修刑，或以覃恩佈德。寒審雖無近例，而先朝寬大，皆所宜取法者。」奏上，帝納其言。然永樂十一年十月，遣副都御史李慶齎璽書，命皇太子錄南京囚，贖雜犯死罪以下。宣德四年冬，以天氣冱寒，敕南北刑官悉錄繫囚以聞，不分輕重。因謂夏原吉等曰：「堯、舜之世，民不犯法，成、康之時，刑措不用，皆君臣同德所致。朕德薄，卿等其勉力匡扶，庶無愧古人。」此寒審最著者，三俊亦不暇詳也。

No dynasty had maintained a Winter Review; in 1637, after Daizhou magistrate Guo Zhengzhong memorialized on the subject, offices were ordered to search for precedents. Minister Zheng Sanjun cited several precedents, including Hongwu 23 (1390), when Taizu told Minister Yang Jing: "Henceforth only the ten abominations and murder shall be punished by death; all other capital crimes may redeem themselves by delivering grain to the northern frontier. In November 1406 the judicial offices reported several hundred prisoners in custody for the month; barely one in ten faced capital punishment. Emperor Chengzu told Lü Zhen: "These are not capital crimes, yet they linger unresolved—in such bitter cold some innocent must die in prison. Some two hundred prisoners facing miscellaneous capital offenses were all commuted by ransom and released. In November 1411, Cao Run and others of the punishment remonstrance section said: "In former times, when the weather turned cold, light prisoners were reviewed and released." Today some prisoners languish more than a year, and in one month alone over nine hundred thirty died of sickness in custody—what the jailers do is beyond words. Chengzu summoned the judicial offices, rebuked them sharply, and ordered: "Release all penal servitude and exile cases within three days; for serious offenses that must be held, show mercy—do not let them die of hunger or cold." In November 1414 he again ordered doubtful cases reported by name for his personal review. In October 1429, on the crown prince's birthday, miscellaneous capital offenses and below were commuted, and those due for bamboo punishment or wearing cangue and fetters were pardoned. Later Emperors Shizong and Shenzong sometimes eased punishments after portents, sometimes granted mercy through general amnesties. Though Winter Review lacks recent precedent, the leniency of earlier reigns is worth following." The emperor accepted the memorial. Yet in October 1413 Vice Censor-in-Chief Li Qing was sent with imperial credentials ordering the crown prince to review Nanjing prisoners and commute miscellaneous capital offenses and below. In the winter of 1429, because the weather was bitterly cold, an edict ordered penal officials north and south to report all prisoners in custody, regardless of severity. He told Xia Yuanji and others: "Under Yao and Shun the people did not offend; under Cheng and Kang punishments fell unused—all because ruler and ministers shared one virtue. My virtue is slight. Strive to support me, that we may not shame the ancients. This was the most famous Winter Review; Sanjun did not elaborate further.

在外恤刑會審之例，定於成化時。初，太祖患刑獄壅蔽，分遣御史林願、石恆等治各道囚，而敕諭之。宣宗夜讀《周官·立政》：「式敬爾由獄，以長我王國。」慨然興歎，以為立國基命在於此。乃敕三法司：「朕體上帝好生之心，惟刑是恤。令爾等詳覆天下重獄，而犯者遠在千萬里外，需次當決，豈能無冤？」因遣官審錄之。正統六年四月，以災異頻見，敕遣三法司官詳審天下疑獄。於是御史張驥、刑部郎林厚、大理寺正李從智等十三人同奉敕往，而復以刑部侍郎何文淵、大理卿王文、巡撫侍郎周忱、刑科給事中郭瑾審兩京刑獄，亦賜敕。後評事馬豫言：「臣奉敕審刑，竊見各處捉獲強盜，多因仇人指攀，拷掠成獄，不待詳報，死傷者甚多。今後宜勿聽妄指，果有贓證，御史、按察司會審，方許論決。若未審錄有傷死者，毋得準例升賞。」是年，出死囚以下無數。九年，山東副使王裕言：「囚獄當會審，而御史及三司官或逾年一會，囚多瘐死。往者常遣御史會按察司詳審，釋遣甚眾。今莫若罷會審之例，而行詳審之法，敕遣按察司官一員，專審諸獄。」部持舊制不可廢。帝命審例仍舊，復如詳審例，選按察司官一員與巡按御史同審。失出者姑勿問，涉贓私者究如律。成化元年，南京戶部侍郎陳翼因災異復請如正統例。部議以諸方多事，不行。八年，乃分遣刑部郎中劉秩等十四人會巡按御史及三司官審錄，敕書鄭重遣之。十二年，大學士商輅言：「自八年遣官後，五年於茲，乞更如例行。」帝從其請。至十七年，定在京五年大審。即於是年遣部寺官分行天下，會同巡按御史行事。於是恤刑者至，則多所放遣。嘉靖四十三年，定坐贓不及百兩，產絕者免監追。萬曆四年，敕雜犯死罪準徒五年者，並兩犯徒律應總徒四年者，各減一年，其他徒流等罪俱減等。皆由恤刑者奏定。所生全者益多矣。初，正統十一年，遣刑部郎中郭恂、員外郎陸瑜審南、北直隸獄囚，文職五品以下有罪，許執問。嘉靖間制，審錄官一省事竣，總計前後所奏，依準改駁多寡，通行考覈。改駁數多者聽劾。故恤刑之權重，而責亦匪輕。此中外法司審錄之大較也。

Provincial compassionate joint review was established in the Chenghua reign. Early on Taizu, troubled by blocked justice, sent censors Lin Yuan, Shi Heng, and others to handle prisoners in each circuit with stern instructions. Emperor Xuanzong read at night in the Zhou Offices: "Reverently conduct your prisons, to extend my royal domain. He sighed, believing the foundation of the state lay in this. He instructed the Three Judicial Offices: "I embody Heaven's love of life and am concerned above all with punishments. I order you to review capital cases throughout the realm, yet prisoners thousands of li away, awaiting execution—how can there be no injustice? Officials were dispatched to review records. In April 1441, because omens recurred, an edict sent Three Judicial Office officials to review doubtful cases empire-wide. Censor Zhang Ji, registrar Lin Hou, director Li Congzhi, and thirteen others went forth; Vice Minister He Wenyuan, director Wang Wen, grand coordinator Zhou Chen, and remonstrance official Guo Jin reviewed the two capitals, all bearing imperial credentials. Later Ma Yu reported: "Reviewing punishments, I found captured bandits often accused by enemies; under torture false confessions were extracted, and many died before proper report. Henceforth rash accusations should not be accepted; only with real evidence should censors and surveillance commissioners jointly try before sentencing. If prisoners die or are injured before review, no promotion or reward should follow precedent. That year countless death-row prisoners and below were released. In 1444 Shandong vice commissioner Wang Yu said: "Prisoners should be jointly reviewed, yet censors and the three offices sometimes meet only once a year, and many die in custody. Formerly dispatched censors joined surveillance commissioners in detailed review and released very many. Better to abolish joint review and appoint one surveillance commissioner solely to review all prisons. The ministry held the old system could not be abolished. The emperor kept joint review but also, as in detailed review, ordered one surveillance commissioner to sit with the touring censor. Those who wrongly released prisoners were not punished for the time; embezzlers were prosecuted under the code. In 1465 Nanjing Vice Minister Chen Yi, citing omens, again asked to follow the Zhengtong precedent. The ministry declined because many regions were troubled. In 1472 fourteen officials including registrar Liu Zhi were sent to join touring censors and the three offices, with solemn credentials. In 1476 Grand Secretary Shang Lu said: "Five years have passed since the eighth year; I beg it be done again as before. The emperor agreed. In 1481 the capital's five-year Grand Review was fixed. That year ministry and court officials were sent throughout the realm to join touring censors. When compassionate reviewers arrived, very many were released. In 1564 embezzlement under one hundred taels with exhausted property was exempted from continued detention for collection. In 1576 miscellaneous capital offenses commutable to five years' penal servitude and two-time penal servitude totaling four years each received one year's reduction; other penal servitude and exile were reduced one grade. All were fixed by memorial from compassionate reviewers. Ever more lives were spared. In 1446 registrars Guo Xun and Lu Yu reviewed prisoners in the metropolitan districts; guilty civil officials of the fifth rank and below could be interrogated. Under Jiajing rules, when a reviewer finished a province, he totaled memorials and assessed according to revisions and rejections. Many revisions and rejections invited impeachment. Compassionate review carried great power and no light responsibility. Such was the general outline of joint review inside and outside the capital.

凡刑部問發罪囚，所司通將所問囚數，不問罪名輕重，分南北人各若干，送山東司，呈堂奏聞，謂之歲報。每月以見監罪囚奏聞，謂之月報。其做工、運炭等項，每五日開送工科，填寫精微冊，月終分六科輪報之。凡法官治囚，皆有成法，提人勘事，必齎精微批文。京外官五品以上有犯必奏聞請旨，不得擅勾問罪。在八議者，實封以聞。民間獄訟，非通政司轉達於部，刑部不得聽理。誣告者反坐，越訴者笞，擊登聞鼓不實者杖。訐告問官，必核實乃逮問。至罪囚打斷起發有定期，刑具有定器，停刑有定月日，檢驗屍傷有定法，恤囚有定規，籍沒亦有定物，惟復仇者無明文。

For prisoners the ministry had sent for judgment, the office reported numbers interrogated regardless of offense, apportioned southerners and northerners in fixed quotas to the Shandong Bureau, and memorialized—the annual report. Each month prisoners in custody were reported—the monthly report. Labor, charcoal transport, and similar tasks were reported every ten days to the Works Section in the minute register; at month's end the Six Offices reported in turn. Judges handling prisoners followed fixed rules: taking persons or investigating required the minute approval document. Officials of the fifth rank and above in the capital or provinces who offended had to be memorialized; they could not be summoned and questioned without authority. Those within the eight deliberations were reported in sealed memorials. Private lawsuits reached the Ministry of Punishment only through the Office of Transmission. False accusers were punished in reverse; those who bypassed channels were bambooed; those who struck the petition drum without cause were cudgeled. Accusations against officials were verified before arrest. Prisoners had fixed dispatch dates, punishments fixed instruments, suspension fixed seasons, corpses fixed examination methods, prisoners fixed compassionate rules, confiscation fixed lists—only revenge lacked explicit statute.

弘治元年，刑部尚書何喬新言：「舊制提人，所在官司必驗精微批文，與符號相合，然後發遣。此祖宗杜漸防微深意也。近者中外提人，止憑駕帖，既不用符，真偽莫辨，奸人矯命，何以拒之？請給批文如故。」帝曰：「此祖宗舊例，不可廢。」命復行之。然旗校提人，率齎駕帖。嘉靖元年，錦衣衛千戶白壽等齎駕帖詣科，給事中劉濟謂當以御批原本送科，使知其事。兩人相爭並列，上命檢成、弘事例以聞。濟復言，自天順時例即如此。帝入壽言，責濟以狀對，亦無以罪也。天啟時，魏忠賢用駕帖提周順昌諸人，竟激蘇州之變。兩畿決囚，亦必驗精微批。嘉靖二十一年，恤刑主事戴楩、吳元璧、呂顒等行急失與內號相驗，比至，與原給外號不合，為巡按御史所糾，納贖還職。

In 1488 Minister He Qiaoxin said: "Under the old system, local offices verified minute approval documents against tallies before dispatch. This was the founders' intent to stop evil at the outset. Now persons are taken on imperial credentials alone, without tallies—truth cannot be distinguished, and forged orders cannot be refused. He asked that approval documents be issued again as before. The emperor said: "This is the founders' precedent and cannot be abolished." An order restored the practice. Yet banner guards generally carried only imperial credentials. In 1522 Guard thousand-commander Bai Shou brought credentials to the remonstrance office; supervising secretary Liu Ji said the original imperial draft should be sent to the office. The two disputed; the emperor ordered Chenghua and Hongzhi precedents reported. Ji said the Tianshun precedent had been thus. The emperor sided with Shou, ordered Ji to answer on the facts, and could not punish him. Under Tianqi, Wei Zhongxian used credentials to take Zhou Shunchang and others, provoking the Suzhou uprising. Deciding prisoners in the two metropolitan areas also required verifying minute approval documents. In 1542 compassionate-review registrars Dai Yan, Wu Yuanbi, and Lü Yi, traveling in haste, mismatched inner and outer tallies; the touring censor impeached them, they ransomed, and returned to office.

成化時，六品以下官有罪，巡按御史輒令府官提問。陝西巡撫項忠言：「祖制，京外五品以上官有犯奏聞，不得擅勾問。今巡按輒提問六品官，甚乖律意，當聞於朝，命御史、按察司提問為是。」乃下部議，從之。凡罪在八議者，實封奏聞請旨，惟十惡不用此例。所屬官為上司非理淩虐，亦聽實封徑奏。軍官犯罪，都督府請旨。諸司事涉軍官及呈告軍官不法者，俱密以實封奏，無得擅勾問。嘉靖中，順天巡按御史鄭存仁檄府縣，凡法司有所追取，不得輒發。尚書鄭曉考故事，民間詞訟非自通政司轉達，不得聽。而諸司有應問罪人，必送刑部，各不相侵。曉乃言：「刑部追取人，府縣不當卻。存仁違制，宜罪。」存仁亦執自下而上之律，論曉欺罔。乃命在外者屬有司，在京者屬刑部。然自曉去位，民間詞訟，五城御史輒受之，不復遵祖制矣。

Under Chenghua, when officials of the sixth rank and below offended, touring censors often ordered prefectural officials to interrogate them. Shaanxi grand coordinator Xiang Zhong said: "Under ancestral rule, officials of the fifth rank and above who offended were memorialized and could not be privately summoned. Touring censors now interrogate sixth-rank officials, contrary to the code; censors and surveillance commissioners should do so instead. The ministry deliberated and approved. Offenses within the eight deliberations required sealed memorials and imperial order; only the ten abominations were excepted. Subordinates unreasonably oppressed by superiors could also memorialize directly in sealed covers. Military officers who offended required imperial order through the chief military commission. Affairs involving military officers or reports of their misconduct were memorialized in secret sealed covers; none might be privately summoned. In Jiajing, Shuntian touring censor Zheng Cunren ordered prefectures and counties not to release persons sought by the judicial offices. Minister Zheng Xiao found that private lawsuits could not be heard unless transmitted from the Office of Transmission. Offices with prisoners to question had to send them to the Ministry of Punishment; jurisdictions did not overlap. Xiao said: "When the ministry seeks persons, prefectures and counties must not refuse. Cunren violated the system and should be punished. Cunren cited the law of proceeding from below upward and accused Xiao of deception. An order assigned authority outside the capital to local offices and in the capital to the ministry. After Xiao left office, the Five Wards censors again received private lawsuits, abandoning the ancestral rule.

洪武時，有告謀反者勘問不實，刑部言當抵罪。帝以問秦裕伯。對曰：「元時若此者罪止杖一百，蓋以開來告之路也。」帝曰：「奸徒不抵，善人被誣者多矣。自今告謀反不實者，抵罪。」學正孫詢訐稅使孫必貴為胡黨，又訐元參政黎銘常自稱老豪傑，謗訕朝廷。帝以告訐非儒者所為，置不問。永樂間定制，誣三四人杖徒，五六人流三千里，十人以上者淩遲，家屬徙化外。

In Hongwu, when a report of rebellion proved false, the ministry said the accuser should be punished in reverse. The emperor asked Qin Yubo. He replied: "Under the Yuan such cases drew only one hundred blows of the cangue, to keep the road of accusation open. The emperor said: "If villains are not punished in reverse, many good people are slandered. From now on false reports of rebellion shall be punished in reverse. School instructor Sun Xun accused tax commissioner Sun Bigui of Hu affiliation and former Yuan administrator Li Mingchang of calling himself an old hero and slandering the court. The emperor, holding tale-bearing unworthy of scholars, set the matter aside. Under Yongle rules, false accusation of three or four persons drew bamboo or penal servitude; five or six drew exile three thousand li; ten or more drew lingering death with families banished beyond civilization.

洪武末年，小民多越訴京師，及按其事，往往不實，乃嚴越訴之禁。命老人理一鄉詞訟，會裏胥決之，事重者始白於官，然卒不能止，越訴者日多。乃用重法，戍之邊。宣德時，越訴得實者免罪，不實仍戍邊。景泰中，不問虛實，皆發口外充軍，後不以為例也。

Late in Hongwu, common people often sued in the capital; investigation often found cases unsubstantiated, and bypassing channels was strictly forbidden. Elders were ordered to handle township litigation with village clerks; only grave matters went to officials—yet bypassing could not be stopped. Heavy punishment was applied, banishing offenders to the frontier. During the Xuande reign, petitioners who overstepped procedure but proved their case were pardoned; those whose claims failed were still sent to serve on the frontier. Under Jingtai, every such petitioner was sent beyond the passes for military service, whether the claim was true or false—a practice later abandoned as precedent.

凡訐告原問官司者，成化間定議，核究得實，然後逮問。弘治時，南京御史王良臣按指揮周愷等怙勢黜貨，愷等遂訐良臣。詔下南京法司逮繫會鞫。侍郎楊守隨言：「此與舊章不合。請自今以後，官吏軍民奏訴，牽緣別事，摭拾原問官者，立案不行。所奏事仍令問結，虛詐者擬罪，原問官枉斷者亦罪。」乃下其議於三法司。法司覆奏如所請，從之。洪武二十六年以前，刑部令主事廳會御史、五軍斷事司、大理寺、五城兵馬指揮使官，打斷罪囚。二十九年，並差錦衣衛官。其後惟主事會御史，將笞杖罪於打斷廳決訖，附卷，奉旨者次日覆命。萬曆中，刑部尚書孫丕揚言：「折獄之不速，由文移牽制故耳。議斷既成，部、寺各立長單，刑部送審掛號，次日即送大理。大理審允，次日即還本部。參差者究處，庶事體可一。至於打斷相驗，令御史三、六、九日遵例會同，餘日止會寺官以速遣。徒流以上，部、寺詳鞫，笞杖小罪，聽堂部處分。」命如議行。

For petitions accusing the officials who had originally heard a case, Chenghua-era rules required that the accusation be verified before any arrest or interrogation. During Hongzhi, the Nanjing censor Wang Liangchen investigated and charged the commanders Zhou Kai and others with abusing their power to oust rivals and extort bribes; they retaliated by accusing Wang. An imperial order sent the case to the Nanjing judicial offices to arrest all parties and try them together. Vice Minister Yang Shousui argued: "This conflicts with established procedure. Henceforth, when officials, soldiers, or commoners lodge petitions or suits that wander into unrelated matters and dredge up charges against the original magistrates, no case should be opened on that basis. The underlying complaint should still be heard to judgment; false accusers should be punished, and original officials who had wrongly decided the case should be punished as well." The proposal was referred to the Three Judicial Offices. The judicial offices reported back endorsing the request, and the throne approved. Before Hongwu 26, the Ministry of Punishment required its bureau directors to meet with censors, the Five Armies Adjudication Office, the Court of Judicial Review, and the Five City patrol commanders to carry out executions. In the twenty-ninth year, Embroidered Uniform Guard officers were added to the roster. Afterward only bureau directors met with censors. Light and heavy bamboo sentences were decided in the Execution Hall, filed with the case, and when imperial approval was needed, a report was submitted the next day. In the Wanli era, Minister Sun Piyang said: "Cases drag on because paperwork ties everything up. Once a judgment is settled, the Ministry and the Court should each keep a master docket: the Ministry registers the case for review and forwards it to the Court of Judicial Review the following day. When the Court approves the review, it should return the file to the Ministry the next day. Delays should be investigated and punished, so the process stays uniform. For executions and verification, censors should meet on the third, sixth, and ninth days as usual; on other days the Court alone may meet to speed dispatch. Penal servitude, exile, and heavier penalties require full review by the Ministry and Court; minor bamboo offenses may be handled in the Ministry's main hall." The emperor ordered the reforms carried out.

凡獄囚已審錄，應決斷者限三日，應起發者限十日，逾銀計日以笞。囚淹滯至死者罪徒，此舊例也。嘉靖六年，給事中周曁郎言：「比者獄吏苛刻，犯無輕重，概加幽系，案無新故，動引歲時。意喻色授之間，論奏未成，囚骨已糜。又況偏州下邑，督察不及，奸吏悍卒倚獄為市，或扼其飲食以困之，或徙之穢溷以苦之，備諸痛楚，十不一生。臣觀律令所載，凡逮繫囚犯，老疾必散收，輕重以類分，枷杻薦席必以時飭，涼漿暖匣必以時備，無家者給之衣服，有疾者予之醫藥，淹禁有科，疏決有詔。此祖宗良法美意，宜敕臣下同為奉行。凡逮繫日月並已竟、未竟、疾病、死亡者，各載文冊，申報長吏，較其結竟之遲速，病故之多寡，以為功罪而黜陟之。」帝深然其言，且命中外有用法深刻，致戕民命者，即斥為民，雖才守可觀，不得推薦。

Once prisoners had been examined and recorded, execution had to follow within three days and transfer within ten; each day over the limit brought a counted bamboo penalty. Officials whose delay caused a prisoner to die in custody were sentenced to penal servitude—an old rule. In Jiajing 6, Supervising Secretary Zhou Ji and others reported: "Jailers have grown cruel. Without regard to severity, they secretly detain everyone; stale cases are kept open year after year. With a nod here and a look there, the judgment has not yet been filed and the prisoner is already dead in the cell. In remote prefectures and county seats, where oversight never reaches, venal clerks and brutal guards turn the jail into a marketplace—starving prisoners, dumping them in filth, inflicting every torment until fewer than one in ten survives. The code itself requires separate custody for the old and infirm, sorting prisoners by severity, timely upkeep of shackles, mats, and bedding, cool drink and warm boxes in season, clothes for the destitute, medicine for the sick, penalties for excessive detention, and periodic releases by edict. These were the founders' good laws and humane intent. Your Majesty should command officials everywhere to enforce them. Every period of custody—finished or unfinished cases, illness, and death—should be logged and reported to the chief magistrate; the speed of closure and the toll of sickness and death should govern promotion and dismissal." The emperor strongly agreed and ordered that any official, inside or outside the capital, whose harsh use of law cost lives be stripped of office and reduced to commoner status—however able he might otherwise be, he was not to be recommended again.

凡內外問刑官，惟死罪並竊盜重犯，始用拷訊，餘止鞭撲常刑。酷吏輒用挺棍、夾棍、腦箍、烙鐵及一封書、鼠彈箏、攔馬棍、燕兒飛，或灌鼻、釘指，用徑寸懶杆、不去棱節竹片，或鞭脊背、兩踝致傷以上者，俱奏請，罪至充軍。

Judicial officers everywhere might use torture only in capital cases and major theft; all other offenses were limited to routine flogging. Officials who used iron clubs, leg-presses, head-rings, branding irons, the sealed letter, mouse-harp, blocking-horse stick, swallow-in-flight, nose-pouring, nail-driving, unsmoothed bamboo rods, or flogging that broke back or ankles had to report upward; the penalty could reach military exile.

停刑之月，自立春以後，至春分以前。停刑之日，初一、初八、十四、十五、十八、二十三、二十四、二十八、二十九、三十，凡十日。檢驗屍傷，照磨司取部印屍圖一幅，委五城兵馬司如法檢驗，府則通判、推官，州縣則長官親檢，毋得委下僚。

Executions were suspended from after Establishing Spring until the Spring Equinox. Executions were also suspended on ten days each month: the 1st, 8th, 14th, 15th, 18th, 23rd, 24th, 28th, 29th, and 30th. For forensic examination, the Registry Office issued an official corpse chart under the ministry seal and assigned the Five City patrol office to inspect by rule; in prefectures the vice prefect and investigating magistrate did so; in departments and counties the chief magistrate examined in person and could not delegate to subordinates.

獄囚貧不自給者，洪武十五年定制，人給米日一升。二十四年革去。正統二年，以侍郎何文淵言，詔如舊，且令有贓罰敝衣得分給。成化十二年，令有司買藥餌送部，又廣設惠民藥局，療治囚人。至正德十四年，囚犯煤、油、藥料，皆設額銀定數。嘉靖六年，以運炭等有力罪囚，折色糴米，上本部倉，每年約五百石，乃停收。歲冬給綿衣褲各一事，提牢主事驗給之。

Prisoners too poor to feed themselves were allotted one sheng of rice per day under Hongwu 15. The allowance was abolished in the twenty-fourth year. In Zhengtong 2, on Vice Minister He Wenyuan's recommendation, the allowance was restored and worn-out clothes from bribery fines could be distributed to prisoners. In Chenghua 12, local offices were ordered to buy medicines for the ministry, and Public Medicine Bureaus were expanded to treat prisoners. By Zhengde 14, coal, lamp oil, and medical supplies for prisoners were funded by fixed silver quotas. In Jiajing 6, able-bodied prisoners sentenced for offenses such as hauling coal could commute labor to rice paid into the ministry granary—about five hundred shi a year—after which general rice collection for prisoners was halted. Each winter every prisoner received one cotton jacket and one pair of trousers, issued by the prison duty officer after inspection.

犯罪籍沒者，洪武元年定制，自反叛外，其餘罪犯止沒田產孳畜。二十一年，詔謀逆奸黨及造偽鈔者，沒貲產丁口，以農器耕牛給還之。凡應合鈔劄者，曰奸黨，曰謀反大逆，曰奸黨惡，曰造偽鈔，曰殺一家三人，曰採生拆割人為首。其《大誥》所定十條，後未嘗用也。復仇，惟祖父被毆條見之，曰：「祖父母、父母為人所殺，而子孫擅殺行兇人者，杖六十。其即時殺死者勿論。其餘親屬人等被人殺而擅殺之者，杖一百。」按律罪人應死，已就拘執，其捕者擅殺之，罪亦止此。則所謂家屬人等，自包兄弟在內，其例可類推也。

Property confiscation was first regulated in Hongwu 1: except for rebellion, other crimes forfeited only land, goods, and livestock. In the twenty-first year, an edict ordered confiscation of assets and household members for traitorous factions, conspiracy, and counterfeiting paper money, while farming tools and oxen were returned. Cases requiring confiscation warrants included traitorous factions, conspiracy and great treason, vicious factions, counterfeiting paper money, killing three members of one household, and ringleaders in kidnapping for butchery. The ten articles laid down in the Grand Pronouncements were never used again. On private revenge, only the clause on grandparents being assaulted survives: "If grandparents or parents were killed by another and a descendant kills the assailant on his own authority, he receives sixty blows of the light bamboo. If he kills the assailant on the spot, no penalty applies. For other relatives killed by another whom one kills on one's own authority, the penalty is one hundred blows of the light bamboo." By code, if a man deserving death is already in custody and his captor kills him without authority, the penalty is the same. The term "household members and the like" plainly includes brothers, and the rule may be extended by analogy.

凡決囚，每歲朝審畢，法司以死罪請旨，刑科三覆奏，得旨行刑。在外者奏決單于冬至前，會審決之。正統元年，令重囚三覆奏畢，仍請駕帖，付錦衣衛監刑官，領校尉詣法司，取囚赴市。又制，臨決囚有訴冤者，直登聞鼓給事中取狀封進，仍批校尉手，馳赴市曹，暫停刑。嘉靖元年，給事中劉濟等以囚廖鵬父子及王欽、陶傑等頗有內援，懼上意不決，乃言：「往歲三覆奏畢，待駕帖則已日午，鼓下仍受訴詞，得報且及未申時，及再請始刑，時已過酉，大非刑人於市與眾棄之之意。請自今決囚，在未前畢事。」從之。七年定議，重囚有冤，家屬於臨決前一日撾鼓，翼日午前下，過午行刑，不覆奏。南京決囚，無刑科覆奏例。弘治十八年，南刑部奏決不待時者三人，大理寺已審允，下法司議，謂：「在京重囚，間有決不待時者，審允奏請，至刑科三覆奏，或蒙恩仍監候會審。南京無覆奏例，乞俟秋後審竟，類奏定奪。如有巨憝難依常例者，更具奏處決，著為令。」詔可。各省決囚，永樂元年，定制，死囚百人以上者，差御史審決。弘治十三年，定歲差審決重囚官，俱以霜降後至，限期復命。

Each year, after the Court Review, the judicial offices sought imperial approval for death sentences; the Penal Affairs Section submitted three rehearing memorials, and execution followed the returned order. In the provinces, execution lists had to reach the throne before the winter solstice; after joint review, sentences were carried out. In Zhengtong 1, after three rehearings for capital convicts, an imperial credential was still required and given to the Embroidered Uniform Guard execution officer, who led guards to the judicial offices and escorted the prisoner to the execution ground. Another rule allowed a prisoner protesting innocence at execution to strike the Drum of Direct Appeal; a supervising secretary took the petition, sealed it, and a guard galloped to the execution ground to halt the sentence temporarily. In Jiajing 1, Supervising Secretaries Liu Ji and others, fearing the emperor might hesitate over Liao Peng and his son, Wang Qin, Tao Jie, and others with powerful patrons, said: "After three rehearings, waiting for the imperial credential already brought noon; accepting drum petitions and awaiting reply stretched past mid-afternoon; a second request delayed execution until after the you hour—far from executing criminals publicly before the crowd as the law intends. Henceforth executions should be finished before the wei hour (1–3 p.m.)." The request was granted. In the seventh year a rule was set: for capital prisoners claiming injustice, relatives could beat the drum the day before execution; if the petition arrived before noon the next day, execution waited; after noon it proceeded without rehearing. Nanjing had no precedent of three rehearing memorials by the Penal Affairs Section. In Hongzhi 18, the Nanjing Ministry reported three men for immediate execution. The Court of Judicial Review had approved review, and the Three Judicial Offices deliberated: "In Beijing, some capital convicts are executed out of season after review approval and three Penal Affairs rehearings, and may still receive mercy and await joint review. Nanjing lacks rehearing precedent; we ask to wait until autumn review is complete and then report collectively for decision. For exceptionally heinous cases that cannot follow ordinary rules, report separately for execution and make this permanent law." An edict approved. For provincial executions, Yongle 1 required a censor to review and decide when death sentences numbered one hundred or more. In Hongzhi 13, annual officers dispatched to review capital cases were fixed: all were to arrive after Frost Descent and report back by deadline.

凡有大慶及災荒皆赦，然有常赦，有不赦，有特赦。十惡及故犯者不赦。律文曰：「赦出臨時定罪名，特免或降減從輕者，不在此限。」十惡中，不睦又在會赦原宥之例，此則不赦者亦得原。若傳旨肆赦，不別定罪名者，則仍依常赦不原之律。自仁宗立赦條三十五，皆楊士奇代草，盡除永樂年間敝政，歷代因之。凡先朝不便於民者，皆援遺詔或登極詔革除之。凡以赦前事告言人罪者，即坐以所告者罪。弘治元年，民呂梁山等四人坐竊盜殺人死，遇赦，都御史馬文升請宥死戍邊，帝特命依律斬之。世宗雖屢停刑，尤慎無赦。廷臣屢援赦令，欲宥大禮大獄暨建言諸臣，益持不允。及嘉靖十六年，同知薑輅酷殺平民，都御史王廷相奏當發口外，乃特命如詔書宥免，而以違詔責廷相等。四十一年，三殿成，羣臣請頒赦。帝曰：「赦乃小人之幸。」不允。穆宗登極覃恩，雖徒流人犯已至配所者，皆許放還，蓋為遷謫諸臣地也。

Great celebrations and disaster famines brought amnesties, but there were standing amnesties, exceptions, and special pardons. The ten abominations and deliberate offenders were not pardoned. The code reads: "When amnesty is proclaimed and crimes are specified, those specially exempted or reduced are not within this limit." Among the ten abominations, "lack of harmony toward relatives" could still be restored under a general amnesty—so even unpardonable crimes might be remitted. If an edict proclaimed amnesty without naming specific crimes, the ordinary rule against restoring unpardonable offenses still applied. When Emperor Renzong set thirty-five amnesty articles—all drafted by Yang Shiqi—he swept away Yongle abuses, and later reigns followed suit. Harms to the people from the previous reign were commonly revoked in testamentary or accession edicts. Anyone who denounced another for a pre-amnesty offense was punished with the crime he had alleged. In Hongzhi 1, Lu Liangshan and three others were condemned for robbery and murder. When amnesty came, Censor-in-Chief Ma Wensheng asked that they be spared for frontier service; the emperor ordered them executed according to law. Though the Jiajing emperor often suspended executions, he was exceptionally reluctant to grant amnesty. Court ministers repeatedly cited amnesty to free victims of the Great Rites controversy, major political trials, and memorializing officials; he refused all the more firmly. In Jiajing 16, Assistant Prefect Jiang Yu brutally killed civilians. Censor-in-Chief Wang Tingxiang recommended exile beyond the passes, but a special edict pardoned Jiang under the amnesty proclamation and rebuked Wang for violating it. In the forty-first year, when the Three Hall complex was finished, officials petitioned for a general amnesty. The emperor said: "Amnesty is the luck of small men." He refused. When Emperor Muzong took the throne and proclaimed universal grace, even convicts already at their places of assignment were allowed to return—chiefly to recall the banished officials.

有明一代刑法大概。太祖開國之初，懲元季貪冒，重繩贓吏，揭諸司犯法者於申明亭以示戒。又命刑部，凡官吏有犯，宥罪復職，書過榜其門，使自省。不悛，論如律。累頒犯諭、戒諭、榜諭，悉象以刑，誥示天下。及十八年《大誥》成，序之曰：「諸司敢不急公而務私者，必窮搜其原而罪之。」凡三《誥》所列淩遲、梟示、種誅者，無慮千百，棄市以下萬數。貴溪儒士夏伯啟叔侄斷指不仕，蘇州人才姚潤、王謨被徵不至，皆誅而籍其家。「寰中士夫不為君用。」之科所由設也。其《三編》稍寬容，然所記進士監生罪名，自一犯至四犯者猶三百六十四人。幸不死還職，率戴斬罪治事。其推原中外貪墨所起，以六曹為罪魁，郭桓為誅首。郭桓者，戶部侍郎也。帝疑北平二司官吏李彧、趙全德等與桓為奸利，自六部左右侍郎下皆死，贓七百萬，詞連直省諸官吏，系死者數萬人。核贓所寄借遍天下，民中人之家大抵皆破。時鹹歸謗御史餘敏、丁廷舉。或以為言，帝乃手詔列桓等罪，而論右審刑吳庸等極刑，以厭天下心，言：「朕詔有司除奸，顧復生奸擾吾民，今後有如此者，遇赦不宥。」先是，十五年空印事發。每歲布政司、府州縣吏詣戶部核錢糧、軍需諸事，以道遠，預持空印文書，遇部駁即改，以為常。及是，帝疑有奸，大怒，論諸長吏死，佐貳榜百戍邊。甯海人鄭士利上書訟其冤，復杖戍之。二獄所誅殺已過當。而胡惟庸、藍玉兩獄，株連死者且四萬。

Such, in broad outline, was Ming criminal law. At the dynasty's founding, the Hongwu emperor, reacting to Yuan corruption, bound corrupt officials severely and posted the names of lawbreakers at Declaration Pavilions as warning. He also ordered the Ministry of Punishment that pardoned officials returning to office should have their offenses posted at their gates for self-examination. If they did not reform, they were punished by law. He repeatedly issued violation injunctions, admonitions, and posted warnings—illustrated with punishments—and proclaimed them throughout the realm. When the Grand Pronouncements were completed in the eighteenth year, he wrote in the preface: "Any office that neglects the public for private gain will have its root traced and be punished." All three compilations prescribed dismemberment, exposure of the head, and extermination of clans by the hundreds; executions below abandonment in the market ran into the tens of thousands. The Guixi scholar Xia Boqi and his nephew cut off their fingers rather than serve; the Suzhou talents Yao Run and Wang Mo ignored summons—all were executed and their property confiscated. "Scholars throughout the realm who refuse to serve the ruler. The statute against such refusal dates from these cases. The Third Compilation was somewhat milder, yet it still recorded 364 jinshi and students with one to four offenses each. Those who survived and returned to office mostly served under suspended death sentences. Tracing corruption inside and outside government, the Six Ministries were treated as chief culprits, with Guo Huan as the principal victim. Guo Huan was Vice Minister of Revenue. The emperor suspected Beiping commission officials Li Yu, Zhao Quande, and others of colluding with Huan for profit. From the Six Ministries' vice ministers downward, all were executed. Illicit gains totaled seven million; accusations spread to provincial officials, and tens of thousands died in the affair. Deposits and loans tied to the case spread nationwide, ruining most middling households. At the time public blame fell heavily on Censors Yu Min and Ding Tingju. When this was raised, the emperor personally drafted an edict listing Huan's crimes and sentenced Vice Director Wu Yong of the Right Court of Penal Review and others to extreme penalties to satisfy public outrage, declaring: "I ordered corruption rooted out, yet traitors still harass my people; hereafter such offenders shall not be pardoned." Earlier, in the fifteenth year, the blank-seal scandal erupted. Each year provincial and local officials traveled to the Ministry of Revenue to reconcile grain taxes and military supplies. Because the journey was long, they routinely carried documents with blank seals and altered them whenever the ministry rejected an entry. When the scandal broke, the emperor suspected fraud, flew into a rage, condemned the chief officials to death, and punished their deputies with a hundred blows and frontier exile. Zheng Shili of Ninghai petitioned in their defense and was flogged and sent to the frontier again. The two prosecutions killed far more people than the offenses warranted. The Hu Weiyong and Lan Yu purges implicated nearly forty thousand deaths.

然時引大體，有所縱舍。沅陵知縣張傑當輸作，自陳母賀，當元季亂離守節，今年老失養。帝謂可勵俗，特赦之，秩傑，令終養。給事中彭與民坐系，其父為上表訴哀。立釋之，且免同系十七人。有死囚妻妾訴夫冤，法司請黥之。帝以婦為夫訴，職也，不罪。都察院當囚死者二十四人，命羣臣鞫，有冤者，減數人死。真州民十八人謀不軌，戮之，而釋其母子當連坐者。所用深文吏開濟、詹徽、陳甯、陶凱輩，後率以罪誅之。亦數宣仁言，不欲純任刑罰。嘗行郊壇，皇太子從，指道旁荊楚曰：「古用此為撲刑，取能去風，雖寒不傷也。」尚書開濟議法密，諭之曰：「竭澤而漁，害及鯤鮞，焚林而田，禍及麛鷇。法太巧密，民何以自全？」濟慚謝。參政楊憲欲重法，帝曰：「求生於重典，猶索魚於釜，得活難矣。」御史中丞陳寧曰：「法重則人不輕犯，吏察則下無遁情。」太祖曰：「不然。古人制刑以防惡衛善，故唐、虞畫衣冠、異章服以為戮，而民不犯。秦有鑿顛抽脅之刑、參夷之誅，而囹圄成市，天下怨叛。未聞用商、韓之法，可致堯、舜之治也。」寧慚而退。又嘗謂尚書劉惟謙曰：「仁義者，養民之膏粱也；刑罰者，懲惡之藥石也。舍仁義而專用刑罰，是以藥石養人，豈得謂善治乎？」蓋太祖用重典以懲一時，而酌中制以垂後世，故猛烈之治，寬仁之詔，相輔而行，未嘗偏廢也。建文帝繼體守文，專欲以仁義化民。元年刑部報囚，減太祖時十三矣。

Even so, he usually kept the larger principle in view and sometimes showed mercy. Zhang Jie, magistrate of Yuanling, was sentenced to corvée. He pleaded that his mother He had kept her integrity through the chaos at the end of the Yuan and was now old and unsupported. The emperor said the case could encourage public virtue, pardoned Zhang, restored his rank, and ordered him to support his mother for life. Supervising Secretary Peng Yumin was imprisoned; his father submitted a tearful petition to the throne. Peng was released at once, and seventeen co-prisoners were pardoned with him. When wives of death-row prisoners petitioned that their husbands were innocent, the judicial offices asked to tattoo the women as false accusers. The emperor said a wife pleading for her husband was only doing her duty, and they went unpunished. When the Censorate reported twenty-four men for execution, the emperor ordered ministers to re-examine them and spared several who proved unjustly condemned. Eighteen men of Zhenzhou were executed for plotting rebellion, but a mother and son who would have been punished by association were released. The harsh legalists he used—Kai Ji, Zhan Hui, Chen Ning, Tao Kai, and others—were themselves mostly executed for crimes later on. He also often spoke in a benevolent tone and did not want to govern by punishment alone. Once on the way to the suburban altar, with the heir apparent following, he pointed to thorns beside the road and said: "The ancients used these for flogging because they dispel wind; though cold, they do not injure." Minister Kai Ji urged intricate law; the emperor rebuked him: "Draining a marsh to catch fish destroys even the minnows; burning a forest to hunt kills even the fawns in their nests. If the law grows too clever and tight, how can ordinary people survive?" Kai Ji withdrew in shame. Participating Secretary Yang Xian wanted heavier penalties; the emperor said: "Seeking life under harsh law is like fishing in a boiling pot—you will hardly keep anyone alive." Vice Censor-in-Chief Chen Ning said: "Severe law keeps people from offending lightly; vigilant officials leave subordinates no room to hide." The emperor replied: "Not so. The ancients fashioned punishments to repel evil and protect the good. Tang and Yu marked shame with painted garments and distinctive dress, and the people did not offend. Qin bore holes in skulls, pulled out ribs, and exterminated three clans, yet its prisons filled like marketplaces and the realm turned to rebellion. No one has ever governed like Yao and Shun by applying the laws of Shang Yang and Han Fei." Chen Ning withdrew in shame. He also once told Minister Liu Weiqian: "Benevolence and righteousness are the grain that nourishes the people; punishments are the medicine that punishes evil. To abandon benevolence and rely only on punishment is to feed people medicine instead of food—can that be good governance? The Hongwu emperor used harsh law to shock his age, yet tempered it with moderate institutions for posterity; fierce enforcement and merciful edicts worked together and were never wholly abandoned. Emperor Jianwen succeeded to a settled order and sought to transform the people through benevolence and righteousness alone. In his first year the Ministry of Punishment reported prisoner numbers down by thirteen parts from Hongwu levels.

成祖起靖難之師，悉指忠臣為奸黨，甚者加族誅、掘塚，妻女發浣衣局、教坊司，親黨謫戍者至隆、萬間猶勾伍不絕也。抗違者既盡殺戮，懼人竊議之，疾誹謗特甚。山陽民丁鈺訐其鄉誹謗，罪數十人。法司迎上旨，言鈺纔可用，立命為刑科給事中。永樂十七年，復申其禁。而陳瑛、呂震、紀綱輩先後用事，專以刻深固寵。於是蕭議、周新、解縉等多無罪死。然帝心知苛法之非，間示寬大。千戶某灌桐油皮鞭中以決人，刑部當以杖，命並罷其職。法司奏冒支官糧者，命即戮之，刑部為覆奏。帝曰：「此朕一時之怒，過矣，其依律。自今犯罪皆五覆奏。」

When the Yongle emperor marched under the banner of Jingnan, he labeled loyal ministers traitors; in the worst cases he exterminated clans, dug up graves, sent wives and daughters to the Laundry and Music Bureaus, and banished kin to the frontier—conscription rolls for their descendants continued into Longqing and Wanli. Once dissenters were killed, he feared whispers against him and grew especially harsh toward slander. Ding Yu of Shanyang denounced his neighbors for slander, and dozens were punished. The judicial offices, reading the emperor's mood, declared Yu barely usable and immediately made him a Penal Affairs supervising secretary. In Yongle 17 the prohibition was proclaimed again. Yet Chen Ying, Lü Zhen, Ji Gang, and others held power in turn, securing favor through cruelty and severity. Xiao Yi, Zhou Xin, Xie Jin, and many others died innocent. Yet the emperor knew harsh law was wrong and sometimes showed mercy. A thousand-household commander hid tung-oil skin inside a whip to beat prisoners; the Ministry proposed bamboo punishment, and the emperor stripped him of office as well. When the judicial offices reported officials who falsely drew government grain, the emperor ordered immediate execution; the Ministry of Punishment reheard the case. The emperor said: "That was a moment of anger—it went too far. Follow the law. From now on, every capital case requires five rehearings."

至仁宗性甚仁恕，甫即位，謂金純、劉觀曰：「卿等皆國大臣，如朕處法失中，須更執奏，朕不難從善也。」因召學士楊士奇、楊榮、金幼孜至榻前，諭曰：「比年法司之濫，朕豈不知。其所擬大逆不道，往往出於文致，先帝數切戒之。故死刑必四五覆奏，而法司略不加意，甘為酷吏而不愧。自今審重囚，卿三人必往同讞，有冤抑者，雖細故必以聞。」洪熙改元，二月諭都御史劉觀、大理卿虞謙曰：「往者法司以誣陷為功，人或片言及國事，輒論誹謗，身家破滅，莫復辨理。今數月間，此風又萌。夫治道所急者求言，所患者以言為諱，奈何禁誹謗哉？」因顧士奇等曰：「此事必以詔書行之。」於是士奇承旨，載帝言於己丑詔書云：「若朕一時過於嫉惡，律外用籍沒及淩遲之刑者，法司再三執奏，三奏不允至五，五奏不允，同三公及大臣執奏，必允乃已，永為定制。文武諸司亦毋得暴酷用鞭背等刑，及擅用宮刑絕人嗣續。有自宮者以不孝論。除謀反及大逆者，餘犯止坐本身，毋一切用連坐法。告誹謗者勿治。」在位未一年，仁恩該洽矣。

Emperor Renzong was deeply merciful. On accession he told Jin Chun and Liu Guan: "You are state ministers; if my judgments miss the mark, press your objections—I am not unwilling to do better." He summoned Academicians Yang Shiqi, Yang Rong, and Jin Youzi and said: "I know well how the judicial offices have been abused. Charges of great treason were often fabricated on paper; my father warned against this again and again. That is why death sentences require four or five rehearings, yet the courts ignore the rule and serve as cruel officials without shame. Henceforth when grave prisoners are reviewed, you three must attend jointly; report even small signs of injustice. In Hongxi 1, second month, he told Censor-in-Chief Liu Guan and Court Director Yu Qian: "The courts once treated framing as merit; one careless phrase about state affairs became slander, families were destroyed, and no one could recover. Within months the old habit was sprouting again. Good government needs speech, not silence—how can slander be forbidden?" He turned to Shiqi and said: "This must be done by edict." Shiqi drafted the jichou edict: "If in a fit of hatred I order confiscation or dismemberment beyond statute, the courts must rehear; if three rehearings fail, go to five; if five fail, rehear jointly with the chief ministers—execution waits until approval. This is permanent law. Civil and military offices must not cruelly flog prisoners' backs or impose palace castration to cut off heirs. Self-castration is judged unfilial. Except for conspiracy and great treason, punish only the offender—do not extend guilt by association. Accusers of slander are not to be prosecuted." He reigned less than a year, yet mercy pervaded the realm.

宣宗承之，益多惠政。宣德元年，大理寺駁正猗氏民妻王骨都殺夫之冤，帝切責刑官，尚書金純等謝罪，乃已。義勇軍士閻羣兒等九人被誣為盜，當斬，家人擊登聞鼓訴冤。覆按實不為盜。命釋羣兒等，而切責都御史劉觀。其後每遇奏囚，色慘然，禦膳為廢。或以手撤其牘，謂左右曰：「說與刑官少緩之。」一日，禦文華殿與羣臣論古肉刑，侍臣對：「漢除肉刑，人遂輕犯法。」帝曰：「此自由教化，豈關肉刑之有無。舜法有流宥金贖，而四凶之罪止於竄殛。可見當時被肉刑者，必皆重罪，不濫及也。況漢承秦敝，挾書有律，若概用肉刑，受傷者必多矣。」明年，著《帝訓》五十五篇，其一恤刑也。武進伯硃冕言：「比遣舍人林寬等送囚百十七人戍邊，到者僅五十人，餘皆道死。」帝怒，命法司窮治之。帝寬詔歲下，閱囚屢決遣，有至三千人者。諭刑官曰：「吾慮其瘐死，故寬貸之，非常制也。」是時，官吏納米百石若五十石，得贖雜犯死罪，軍民減十之二。諸邊衛十二石，遼東二十石，於例為太輕，然獨嚴贓吏之罰。命文職犯贓者俱依律科斷。由是用法輕，而貪墨之風亦不甚恣，然明制重朋比之誅。都御史夏迪催糧常州，御史何楚英誣以受金。諸司懼罪，明知其冤，不敢白，迪竟充驛夫憤死。以帝之寬仁，而大臣有冤死者，此立法之弊也。

Emperor Xuanzong succeeded him and added many humane policies. In Xuande 1 the Court of Judicial Review overturned the wrongful conviction of Wang Gudu of Yishi for killing her husband; the emperor rebuked the penal officials sharply until Ministers Jin Chun and others apologized. Nine volunteer soldiers including Yan Qun'er were falsely accused of robbery and condemned to death; their families beat the Drum of Direct Appeal. Reinvestigation proved they were not robbers. The emperor freed Yan Qun'er and the others and sharply rebuked Censor-in-Chief Liu Guan. Afterward, whenever capital cases were reported, his face darkened and he skipped meals. Sometimes he tore up the memorial himself and told attendants: "Tell the penal officials to slow down." One day in Wenhua Hall he discussed ancient corporal punishments with his ministers; they replied: "When Han abolished corporal punishment, people took the law lightly. The emperor said: "That depends on education, not on whether corporal punishment exists. Shun's law allowed exile, pardon, and redemption with metal, yet the Four Villains were only banished or executed. Those who suffered corporal punishment then were surely grave offenders, not victims of indiscriminate application. Han inherited Qin's harshness and even punished book possession; universal corporal punishment would have maimed countless people. The next year he issued the fifty-five articles of Imperial Instructions, including one on merciful punishment. Commander Zhu Mian reported: "Recently Lin Kuan and others escorted 117 prisoners to the frontier; only 50 arrived—the rest died on the road." The emperor was furious and ordered a full investigation. Lenient edicts came every year; reviewing prisoners, he repeatedly released them—sometimes as many as three thousand. He told penal officials: "I fear prisoners die in custody—that is why I pardon them; this is not ordinary practice. Officials who contributed 100 or 50 shi of grain could redeem miscellaneous capital offenses; soldiers and civilians received a two-tenths reduction. Border garrisons required 12 shi, Liaodong 20—lighter by precedent—yet penalties for corrupt officials alone remained strict. An order required civil officials convicted of bribery to be sentenced strictly by law. Law was applied lightly overall, and corruption did not run rampant; yet Ming law punished factional collusion severely. Censor-in-Chief Xia Di pressed grain collection in Changzhou; Censor He Chuying falsely accused him of taking gold. Offices fearing punishment knew he was innocent but dared not speak; Xia Di died in anger as a postal relay worker. Even under a lenient emperor, a great minister died wrongfully—a flaw in the law itself.

英宗以後，仁、宣之政衰。正統初，三楊當國，猶恪守祖法，禁內外諸司鍛煉刑獄。刑部尚書魏源以災旱上疑獄，請命各巡撫審錄。從之。無巡撫者命巡按。清軍御史、行在都察院亦以疑獄上，通審錄之。御史陳祚言：「法司論獄，多違定律，專務刻深。如戶部侍郎吳璽舉淫行主事吳軏，宜坐貢舉非其人罪，乃加以奏事有規避律斬。及軏自經死，獄官卒之罪，明有遞減科，乃援不應為事理重者，概杖之。夫原情以定律，祖宗防範至周，而法司乃抑輕從重至此，非所以廣聖朝之仁厚也。今後有妄援重律者，請以變亂成法罪之。」帝是其言，為申警戒。至六年，王振始亂政，數辱廷臣，刑章大紊。侍講劉球條上十事，中言：「天降災譴，多感於刑罰之不中。宜一任法司，視其徇私不當者而加以罪。雖有觸忤，如漢犯蹕盜環之事，猶當聽張釋之之執奏而從之。」帝不能用。而球即以是疏觸振怒，死於獄。然諸酷虐事，大率振為之，帝心頗寬平。十一年，大理卿俞士悅以毆鬥殺人之類百餘人聞，請宥，俱減死戍邊。景泰中，陽谷主簿馬彥斌當斬，其子震請代死。特宥彥斌，編震充邊衛軍。大理少卿薛瑄曰：「法司發擬罪囚，多加參語奏請，變亂律意。」詔法官問獄，一依律令，不許妄加參語。六年，以災異審錄中外刑獄，全活者甚眾。天順中，詔獄繁興，三法司、錦衣獄多繫囚未決，吏往往泄獄情為奸。都御史蕭維楨附會徐有貞，枉殺王文、于謙等。而刑部侍郎劉廣衡即以詐撰制文，坐有貞斬罪。其後緹騎四出，海內不安。然霜降後審錄重囚，實自天順間始。至成化初，刑部尚書陸瑜等以請，命舉行之。獄上，杖其情可矜疑者，免死發戍。列代奉行，人獲沾法外恩矣。

After Emperor Yingzong, the humane policies of Renzong and Xuanzong faded. Early in Zhengtong the Three Yangs still upheld ancestral law and forbade inner and outer offices from fabricating prison cases. Minister Wei Yuan, citing drought, submitted doubtful cases and asked each grand coordinator to review them. The request was approved. Where no grand coordinator existed, a touring inspector was assigned. Army-inspection censors and the Nanjing Censorate also submitted doubtful cases for joint review. Censor Chen Zuo said: "The courts often violate fixed statutes and pursue severity for its own sake. Vice Minister Wu Xi reported Chief Clerk Wu Yue for misconduct; the proper charge was recommending an unfit person, yet the courts added a statute on evasive memorializing and sought decapitation. When Wu Yue hanged himself, the jailer's offense had a clear statute of progressive reduction, yet the courts cited "serious impropriety" and flogged everyone. The founders guarded against this thoroughly, yet the courts now escalate mild cases into harsh ones—this does not extend the dynasty's benevolence. Henceforth anyone who rashly invokes heavy statutes should be punished for disturbing established law." The emperor agreed and issued a warning. By the sixth year Wang Zhen began to corrupt government, humiliating court ministers and throwing penal law into chaos. Reader-in-Waiting Liu Qiu submitted ten reforms, saying: "Heaven's disasters often reflect unjust punishments. Leave judgment to the courts, and punish officials who decide with partiality. Even when a subject offends the throne—as in Han times when someone violated the imperial procession and stole a ring—the emperor should still heed a minister's firm remonstrance, as Zhang Shizhi's was heeded." The emperor did not adopt the proposal. Liu Qiu's memorial provoked Wang Zhen's wrath, and he died in prison. Most of the cruelty came from Wang Zhen; the emperor himself remained relatively mild. In the eleventh year, Court Director Yu Shiyue, hearing of more than a hundred brawling-and-killing cases, asked for mercy; all were reduced from death to frontier service. Under Jingtai, Yanggu chief clerk Ma Yanbin was condemned to death; his son Zhen asked to die in his place. Yanbin was specially pardoned, and Zhen was enrolled as a frontier soldier. Vice Director Xue Xuan said: "The courts often add commentary when proposing sentences, distorting the statutes." An edict ordered judges to follow statutes exactly and not add commentary. In the sixth year, portents prompted review of cases nationwide, and many lives were spared. Under Tianshun, prison cases multiplied; the Three Judicial Offices and Embroidered Uniform Guard held many unresolved prisoners, and clerks often leaked case information for profit. Censor-in-Chief Xiao Weizhen joined Xu Youzhen in the wrongful execution of Wang Wen, Yu Qian, and others. Vice Minister Liu Guangheng was condemned to death with Xu Youzhen for forging an imperial document. Afterward imperial guards rode out everywhere, and the realm grew unsettled. Review of capital cases after Frost Descent in fact began under Tianshun. Early in Chenghua, Minister Lu Yu and others memorialized for the practice, and an order carried it out. Cases reported upward: prisoners whose circumstances were doubtful or pitiable received light bamboo and were spared death for frontier service. Later reigns followed the practice, and many received mercy beyond what statute allowed.

憲宗之即位也，敕三法司：「中外文武羣臣除贓罪外，所犯罪名紀錄在官者，悉與湔滌。」其後歲以為常。十年，當決囚，冬至節近，特命過節行刑。既而給事中言，冬至後行刑非時，遂詔俟來年冬月。山西巡撫何喬新劾奏遲延獄詞僉事尚敬、劉源，因言：「凡二司不決斷詞訟者，半年之上，悉宜奏請執問。」帝曰：「刑獄重事，《周書》曰：『要囚，服念五六日至於旬時』，特為未得其情者言耳。苟得其情，即宜決斷。無罪拘幽，往往瘐死，是刑官殺之也。故律特著淹禁罪囚之條，其即以喬新所奏，通行天下。」又定制，凡盜賊贓仗未真、人命死傷未經勘驗、輒加重刑致死獄中者，審勘有無故失明白，不分軍民職官，俱視酷刑事例為民。侍郎楊宣妻悍妒，殺婢十餘人，部擬命婦合坐者律，特命決杖五十。時帝多裨政，而於刑獄尤慎之，所失惟一二事。嘗欲殺一囚，不許覆奏。御史方佑復以請，帝怒，杖謫佑。吉安知府許總有罪，中官黃高嗾法司論斬。給事中白昂以未經審錄為請，不聽，竟乘夜斬之。

When Emperor Xianzong acceded, he ordered the Three Judicial Offices: "Except for bribery, wipe clean every official crime record on file." The cleansing became an annual routine. In the tenth year, with executions due and the winter solstice near, a special order allowed execution after the festival. Supervising secretaries then argued that post-solstice execution was untimely, and an edict postponed cases until the next winter. Shanxi Grand Coordinator He Qiaoxin impeached Vice Commissioners Shang Jing and Liu Yuan for delaying cases and proposed: "Any lawsuit undecided for half a year should be reported for enforced interrogation." The emperor replied: "Prison cases are grave. The Book of Zhou says doubtful prisoners should be pondered five or six days up to ten—meaning cases whose facts are not yet clear. Once the facts are clear, judgment should follow at once. Innocent people detained too long often die in custody—that is judicial murder. That is why the code penalizes excessive detention. Issue He Qiaoxin's proposal throughout the realm. Another rule punished officials who imposed heavy torture before stolen goods or corpses were verified and thereby caused deaths in custody; whether soldier, civilian, or official, they were reduced to commoner status like other cruel judges. Vice Minister Yang Xuan's jealous wife killed more than ten maidservants; the ministry proposed joint punishment for wives; a special order imposed fifty blows of the heavy bamboo. The emperor issued many good reforms and was especially cautious in criminal matters; his mistakes were few. Once he wished to execute a prisoner and refused rehearing. Censor Fang You petitioned again; the emperor was angry, beat him, and banished him. Ji'an Prefect Xu Zong was guilty; eunuch Huang Gao urged the courts to seek decapitation. Supervising Secretary Bai Ang pleaded that Xu had not yet been fully examined; the emperor refused and had him executed by night.

孝宗初立，免應決死罪四十八人。元年，知州劉概坐妖言罪斬，以王恕爭，得長系。末年，刑部尚書閔珪讞重獄，忤旨，久不下。帝與劉大夏語及之，對曰：「人臣執法效忠，珪所為無足異。」帝曰：「且道自古君臣曾有此事否？」對曰：「臣幼讀《孟子》，見瞽瞍殺人，皋陶執之語。珪所執，未可深責也。」帝頷之。明日疏下，遂如擬。前後所任司寇何喬新、彭韶、白昂、閔珪皆持法平者，海內翕然頌仁德焉。

When Emperor Xiaozong acceded, he pardoned forty-eight men awaiting execution. In the first year, Prefect Liu Gai was condemned for heterodox speech; Wang Su's protest kept him imprisoned instead of executed. Late in the reign, Minister Min Gui deliberated a grave case, offended the emperor, and the decision lingered. The emperor discussed it with Liu Daxia, who said: "A minister enforcing law in loyal service—Min Gui has done nothing unusual." The emperor asked: "Has any ruler and minister ever had such a standoff? Liu Daxia replied: "I read Mencius as a boy—the passage where Blind Old Man kills a man and Gao Yao arrests him. Min Gui's enforcement cannot be deeply faulted." The emperor nodded. The next day the memorial came down approving Min Gui's proposal. Ministers of punishment under Xiaozong—He Qiaoxin, Peng Shao, Bai Ang, and Min Gui—held the law evenly, and the realm praised the emperor's benevolence.

正德五年會審重囚，減死者二人。時冤濫滿獄，李東陽等因風霾以為言，特許寬恤。而刑官懼觸劉瑾怒，所上止此。後磔流賊趙鐩等於市，剝為魁者六人皮。法司奏祖訓有禁，不聽。尋以皮製鞍鐙，帝每騎乘之。而廷杖直言之臣，亦武宗為甚。

In Zhengde 5, joint review of capital prisoners reduced two death sentences. Prisons were full of wrongful convictions; Li Dongyang and others cited sandstorms to plead for mercy, and a special order granted leniency. Penal officials feared Liu Jin's wrath and reported only these two reductions. Later the bandit Zhao Zhan was dismembered in the market, and six ringleaders were flayed. The courts cited ancestral prohibition; the emperor ignored them. Soon the skins were made into saddle stirrups, which the emperor used when riding. Court beatings of outspoken ministers were also harshest under Emperor Wuzong.

世宗即位七月，因日精門災，疏理冤抑，命再問緩死者三十八人，而廖鵬、王瓛、齊佐等與焉。給事中李復禮等言：「鵬等皆江彬、強尼之黨。王法所必誅。」乃令禁之如故。後皆次第伏法。自杖諸爭大禮者，遂痛折廷臣。六年，命張璁、桂萼、方獻夫攝三法司，變李福達之獄，欲坐馬錄以奸黨律。楊一清力爭，乃戍錄，而坐罪者四十餘人。璁等以為己功，遂請帝編《欽明大獄錄》頒示天下。是獄所坐，大抵璁三人夙嫌者。以祖宗之法，供權臣排陷，而帝不悟也。八年，京師民張福殺母，訴為張柱所殺，刑部郎中魏應召覆治得實。而帝以柱乃武宗後家僕，有意曲殺之，命侍郎許訁贊盡反讞詞，而下都御史熊浹及應召於獄。其後，猜忌日甚，冤濫者多，雖間命寬恤，而意主苛刻。嘗諭輔臣：「近連歲因災異免刑，今復當刑科三覆請旨。朕思死刑重事，欲將盜陵殿等物及毆罵父母大傷倫理者取決，餘令法司再理，與卿共論，慎之慎之。」時以為得大體。越數年，大理寺奉詔讞奏獄囚應減死者。帝謂諸囚罪皆不赦，乃假借恩例縱奸壞法，黜降寺丞以下有差。自九年舉秋謝醮免決囚，自後或因祥瑞，或因郊祀大報，停刑之典每歲舉行。然屢譴怒執法官，以為不時請旨，至上迫冬至，廢義而市恩也。遂削刑部尚書吳山職，降調刑科給事中劉三畏等。中年益肆誅戮，自宰輔夏言不免。至三十七年，乃出手諭，言：「司牧者未盡得人，任情作威。湖廣幼民吳一魁二命枉刑，母又就捕，情迫無控，萬里叩閽。以此推之，冤抑者不知其幾。爾等宜亟體朕心，加意矜恤。仍通行天下，咸使喻之。」是詔也，恤恤乎有哀痛之思焉。末年，主事海瑞上書觸忤，刑部當以死。帝持其章不下，瑞得長系。穆宗立，徐階緣帝意為遺詔，盡還諸逐臣，優恤死亡，縱釋幽系。讀詔書者無不歎息。

Seven months after the Jiajing emperor acceded, fire at the Rijing Gate prompted review of wrongful convictions; thirty-eight men awaiting execution were re-examined, including Liao Peng, Wang Fan, and Qi Zuo. Supervising Secretaries Li Fuli and others said: "Liao Peng and the others are Jiang Bin's faction. The law requires their execution." They were ordered held as before. Later they were all executed in turn. After beating ministers who disputed the Great Rites, he broke the court ever more harshly. In the sixth year he ordered Zhang Cong, Gui E, and Fang Xianfu to take over the Three Judicial Offices, reverse the Li Fuda case, and condemn Ma Lu under the traitorous faction statute. Yang Yiqing protested fiercely; Ma Lu was exiled and more than forty were punished. Zhang Cong and the others claimed credit and asked the emperor to compile the Record of Imperially Clarified Great Cases and publish it nationwide. Most of those implicated were old enemies of the three men. They used ancestral law to settle private scores, and the emperor did not see it. In the eighth year, Beijing commoner Zhang Fu killed his mother and blamed Zhang Zhu; Bureau Director Wei Yingzhao reinvestigated and found the truth. Because Zhu was a servant of the late Wuzong's consort's family, the emperor wished to kill him by bias; he ordered Vice Minister Xu Xun to reverse the verdict and imprisoned Censor-in-Chief Xiong Xian and Wei Yingzhao. Suspicion deepened daily; wrongful imprisonment multiplied; occasional leniency edicts could not offset his harsh bent. He once told his chief counselors: "Calamities have suspended executions in recent years; now the Penal Affairs Section must again submit three rehearings. I consider death a weighty matter. I wish to execute immediately those who rob tombs or palace halls and those who gravely violate family ethics; let the courts reconsider the rest jointly with you—be careful. At the time this was praised as grasping the larger principle. Years later the Court of Judicial Review, by edict, reported prisoners eligible for commutation from death. The emperor declared all their crimes unpardonable and accused the court of using grace to release the wicked; directors and below were demoted. From the ninth year, autumn thanksgiving amnesties suspended executions; thereafter auspicious omens or great suburban rites brought annual suspension of execution. Yet he repeatedly rebuked judges for failing to seek his approval in time; at worst he delayed until the winter solstice, trading justice for favor. Minister Wu Shan was stripped of office, and Penal Affairs Supervising Secretary Liu Sanwei and others were demoted. Mid-reign he executed ever more freely; even Chief Counselor Xia Yan was not spared. By the thirty-seventh year he issued a hand instruction: "Local officials have not all been well chosen, and many act as tyrants. Young Wu Yikui of Huguang suffered wrongful punishment costing two lives; when his mother was arrested too, he traveled ten thousand li to beat the appeal drum. By that measure, who knows how many others suffered wrongful suppression? You must urgently share my concern and show greater mercy. Extend this throughout the realm and make everyone understand. That edict breathed anxious, grieving concern. Late in the reign, Chief Clerk Hai Rui submitted an offensive memorial; the Ministry of Punishment proposed death. The emperor kept the memorial and did not act; Hai Rui remained imprisoned. When Emperor Muzong acceded, Xu Jie's testamentary edict restored banished officials, compensated the dead, and freed secret prisoners. All who read the edict sighed.

萬曆初，冬月，詔停刑者三矣。五年九月，司禮太監孫得勝復傳旨：「奉聖母諭，大婚期近，命閣臣於三覆奏本，擬旨免刑。」張居正言：「祖宗舊制，凡犯死罪鞫問既明，依律棄市。嘉靖末年，世宗皇帝因齋醮，始有暫免不決之令，或間從御筆所勾，量行取決。此特近年姑息之弊，非舊制也。臣等詳閱諸囚罪狀，皆滅絕天理，敗傷彝倫，聖母獨見犯罪者身被誅戮之可憫，而不知彼所戕害者皆含冤蓄憤於幽冥之中，使不一雪其痛，怨恨之氣，上幹天和，所傷必多。今不行刑，年復一年，充滿囹圄，既費關防，又乖國典，其於政體又大謬也。」給事中嚴用和等亦以為言。詔許之。十二年，御史屠叔明請釋革除忠臣外親。命自齊、黃外，方孝孺等連及者俱勘豁。帝性仁柔，而獨惡言者。自十二年至三十四年，內外官杖戍為民者至百四十人。後不復視朝，刑辟罕用，死囚屢停免去。天啟中，酷刑多，別見，不具論。

Early in Wanli, three edicts had already suspended winter executions. In the ninth month of Wanli 5, Director Sun Desheng relayed the empress dowager's order: "The great wedding is near; draft an edict on the three rehearing memorials to suspend execution. Zhang Juzheng replied: "Under ancestral law, once a capital crime was clearly proved, the convict was executed in the market. Late in Jiajing, the emperor began temporary stays of execution for fasting and ritual offerings; sometimes he marked names for execution by his own brush. That was a recent indulgence—not ancestral practice. We have reviewed these prisoners' crimes—they violated Heaven's principle and human relations. The empress dowager pities the condemned, but not the victims who harbor grievance in the dark; uncleared pain breeds resentment that harms heavenly harmony. If executions stop, prisons fill year after year, guard costs rise, and state precedent is violated—a grave error in governance. Supervising Secretaries Yan Yonghe and others agreed. An edict approved execution. In the twelfth year, Censor Tu Shuming asked to release the outer kin of Jianwen loyalists. An order exempted all implicated with Fang Xiaoru and others except Qi and Huang. The emperor was gentle by nature yet hated critics. From year 12 to year 34, 140 officials inside and outside the capital were beaten and banished. Later he stopped holding court; punishments were rarely used; death sentences were repeatedly suspended. Under Tianqi cruel punishments were many; they are treated elsewhere and not discussed here.

莊烈帝即位，誅魏忠賢。崇禎二年，欽定逆案凡六等，天下稱快。然是時承神宗廢弛、熹宗昏亂之後，銳意綜理，用刑頗急，大臣多下獄者矣。六年冬論囚，素服禦建極殿，召閣臣商榷，而溫體仁無所平反。陝西華亭知縣徐兆麒抵任七日，城陷，坐死。帝心憫之，體仁不為救。十一年，南通政徐石麒疏救鄭三俊，因言：「皇上御極以來，諸臣麗丹書者幾千，圜扉為滿。使情法盡協，猶屬可憐，況怵惕於威嚴之下者。有將順而無挽回，有揣摩而無補救，株連蔓引，九死一生，豈聖人惟刑之恤之意哉！」帝不能納也。是年冬，以彗見，停刑。其事關封疆及錢糧剿寇者，詔刑部五日具獄。十二年，御史魏景琦論囚西市，御史高欽舜、工部郎中胡璉等十五人將斬，忽中官本清銜命馳免，因釋十一人。明日，景琦回奏，被責下錦衣獄。蓋帝以囚有聲冤者，停刑請旨，而景琦倉卒不辨，故獲罪。十四年，大學士範復粹疏請清獄，言：「獄中文武累臣至百四十有奇，大可痛。」不報。是時國事日棘，惟用重法以繩羣臣，救過不暇，而卒無救於亂亡也。

When the Chongzhen emperor acceded, he executed Wei Zhongxian. In Chongzhen 2, the ordained Treason Case roster of six grades was published; the realm rejoiced. Yet inheriting the laxity of Wanli and the chaos of Tianqi, he tried to restore order through harsh law; many senior ministers landed in prison. In the sixth winter he wore plain clothes at the Jianji Hall to review prisoners with his chief counselors, yet Wen Tiren found no case to overturn. Xu Zhaoqi, magistrate of Huating in Shaanxi, had been in office only seven days when the city fell; he was condemned to death. The emperor pitied him, but Wen Tiren did not intervene. In the eleventh year, Vice Commissioner Xu Shilin petitioned to save Zheng Sanjun, saying: "Since Your Majesty acceded, nearly several thousand officials have been marked for punishment; the prisons are full. Even when law and facts align, the toll is pitiable—how much more those living in fear under harsh rule. Ministers comply but do not remonstrate, guess but do not rescue; guilt spreads by association, and men survive one death in nine—this is not the sage's merciful use of punishment!" The emperor would not accept the plea. That winter a comet appeared and executions were suspended. For cases involving the frontier, grain funds, or bandit suppression, an edict required the Ministry of Punishment to finish reports within five days. In the twelfth year, Censor Wei Jingqi reviewed prisoners at the Western Market. Fifteen men including Censor Gao Qinshun and Bureau Director Hu Lian were about to be executed when eunuch Ben Qing galloped in with an order and eleven were released. The next day Wei Jingqi reported back and was rebuked and sent to the Embroidered Uniform Guard prison. The emperor had halted execution because prisoners cried injustice and awaited his order; Wei Jingqi acted too hastily to discern this and was punished. In the fourteenth year, Grand Secretary Fan Fucui asked to clear the prisons, saying: "More than 140 civil and military officials languish in custody—a grievous toll." He received no reply. By then the state grew daily more desperate. The emperor bound his ministers with harsh law, too busy punishing faults to govern, and in the end law could not save the dynasty from collapse.

Cite this Chapter