Volume 201 Treatises 154: Punishment and Law 3

天下疑獄，讞有不能決，則下兩制與大臣若臺諫雜議，視其事之大小，無常法，而有司建請論駮者，亦時有焉。

When a doubtful case anywhere in the empire could not be resolved, it was referred for joint discussion by the Two Institutes, senior ministers, and officials of the Censorate and Remonstrance Bureau. The procedure depended on the scale of the case and followed no fixed rule; responsible agencies also sometimes submitted proposals for debate and rebuttal.

端拱初，廣安軍民安崇緒隸禁兵，訴繼母馮與父知逸離，今奪資產與己子。大理當崇緒訟母，罪死。太宗疑之，判大理張佖固執前斷，遂下臺省雜議。徐鉉議曰：「今第明其母馮嘗離，即須歸宗，否即崇緒準法處死。今詳案內不曾離異，其證有四。况不孝之刑，教之大者，宜依刑部、大理寺斷。」右僕射李昉等四十三人議曰：「法寺定斷為不當。若以五母皆同，即阿蒲雖賤，乃崇緒親母，崇緒特以田業為馮強占，親母衣食不給，所以論訴。若從法寺斷死，則知逸何辜絕嗣，阿蒲何地托身？臣等議：田產並歸崇緒，馮合與蒲同居，供侍終身。如是，則子有父業可守，馮終身不至乏養。所犯並準赦原。」詔從昉等議，鉉、佖各奪奉一月。

Early in the Duangong era (988), An Chongxu, a Guang'an commoner enlisted in the palace guards, brought suit against his stepmother Lady Feng. He alleged that she had left his father Zhiyi and was now seizing family property for her own son. The Court of Judicial Review ruled that Chongxu, for suing his mother, was liable to death. Emperor Taizong had doubts. Zhang Dian, deputy chief of the Court of Judicial Review, insisted on the original ruling, so the case was sent for joint deliberation by the Secretariat and Censorate. Xu Xuan argued: "If it is established only that his mother Feng had indeed separated from the household, she must be restored to her original status; otherwise Chongxu should be executed as the law requires. Upon close review, the record shows no separation—and there are four pieces of evidence to that effect. Moreover, the punishment for unfilial conduct is among the weightiest lessons of the law. The ruling of the Ministry of Justice and the Court of Judicial Review should be upheld." Right Grand Councilor Li Fang and forty-three colleagues argued: "The judiciary's ruling is incorrect. Even if all five categories of 'mother' are treated alike, A-Pu, though of humble station, was Chongxu's biological mother. He sued chiefly because Feng had seized the family lands by force, leaving his birth mother without food or clothing. If the court's death sentence stands, what fault has Zhiyi committed to be cut off without heirs—and where is A-Pu to find refuge? We propose that all the land revert to Chongxu, that Feng live with A-Pu and provide for her for life. Thus the son would retain his father's estate, and Feng would never lack support. All offenses involved should be forgiven under the amnesty. The emperor approved Li Fang's proposal. Xu Xuan and Zhang Dian each had one month's stipend deducted.

熙寧元年七月，詔：「謀殺已傷，按問欲舉，自首，從謀殺減二等論。」初，登州奏有婦阿云，母服中聘於韋，惡韋醜陋，謀殺不死。按問欲舉，自首。審刑院、大理寺論死，用違律為婚奏裁，敕貸其死。知登州許遵奏，引律「因犯殺傷而自首，得免所因之罪，仍從故殺傷法」，以謀為所因，當用按問欲舉條減二等。刑部定如審刑、大理。時遵方召判大理，御史臺劾遵，而遵不伏，請下兩制議。乃令翰林學士司馬光、王安石同議，二人議不同，遂各為奏。光議是刑部，安石議是遵，詔從安石所議。而御史中丞滕甫猶請再選官定議，御史錢顗請罷遵大理，詔送翰林學士呂公著、韓維、知制誥錢公輔重定。公著等議如安石，制曰「可」。於是法官齊恢、王師元、蔡冠卿等皆論奏公著等所議為不當。又詔安石與法官集議，反覆論難。明年二月庚子，詔：「今後謀殺人自首，並奏聽敕裁。」是月，除安石參知政事，於是奏以為：「律意，因犯殺傷而自首，得免所因之罪，仍從故殺傷法；若已殺，從故殺法，則為首者必死，不須奏裁；為從者自有編敕奏裁之文，不須復立新制。」與唐介等數爭議帝前，卒從安石議。復詔：「自今並以去年七月詔書從事。」判刑部劉述等又請中書、樞密院合議，中丞呂誨、御史劉琦、錢顗皆請如述奏，下之二府。帝以為律文甚明，不須合議。而曾公亮等皆以博盡同異、厭塞言者為無傷，乃以眾議付樞密院。文彥博以為：「殺傷者，欲殺而傷也，即已殺者不可首。」呂公弼以為：「殺傷於律不可首。請自今已殺傷依律，其從而加功自首，即奏裁。」陳升之、韓絳議與安石略同。會富弼入相，帝令弼議，而以疾病，久之弗議。至是乃決，而弼在告，不預也。

In the seventh month of Xining 1 (1068), an edict declared: "When a plotted murder has already caused injury, and upon investigation the culprit is about to be exposed but surrenders voluntarily, the penalty for plotting murder is reduced by two degrees." The case began when Dengzhou reported a woman named A Yun, betrothed during her mother's mourning period to a man named Wei. Finding Wei repulsive, she plotted to kill him but failed. When interrogation was about to expose her, she confessed voluntarily. The Court for Review of Penalties and the Court of Judicial Review sentenced her to death. Because the betrothal violated mourning regulations, they memorialized for imperial decision, and the emperor commuted the death penalty. Xu Zun, prefect of Dengzhou, memorialized citing the statute: "One who confesses after an offense involving injury or killing is exempt from the underlying crime and is sentenced under the statute on deliberate injury or killing." He argued that plotting was the underlying offense and that the provision on confession upon imminent exposure should apply, reducing the penalty by two degrees. The Ministry of Justice upheld the ruling of the Court for Review of Penalties and the Court of Judicial Review. Zun had just been summoned to serve as acting chief of the Court of Judicial Review. The Censorate impeached him, but he refused to yield and requested that the case be referred to the Two Institutes for deliberation. The emperor ordered Hanlin Academicians Sima Guang and Wang Anshi to deliberate jointly. Their opinions differed, and each submitted a separate memorial. Guang sided with the Ministry of Justice; Anshi sided with Xu Zun. An edict adopted Anshi's position. Censor-in-Chief Teng Fu nevertheless asked that new officials be appointed to settle the matter. Censor Qian Yi requested that Xu Zun be removed from the Court of Judicial Review. An edict referred the case to Hanlin Academicians Lü Gongzhu and Han Wei and Drafter Qian Gongfu for a new determination. Lü Gongzhu and his colleagues agreed with Anshi. The rescript read: "Approved." Thereupon the judicial officials Qi Hui, Wang Shiyuan, Cai Guanqing, and others all memorialized that Lü Gongzhu's ruling was improper. Another edict ordered Anshi to confer with the judicial officials, and debate went back and forth at length. In the second month of the following year, on the day gengzi, an edict declared: "Henceforth, all cases of plotted murder with voluntary confession shall be memorialized for imperial decision." That month Anshi was appointed Vice Grand Councilor. He then memorialized that the intent of the statute was: "One who confesses after an offense involving injury or killing is exempt from the underlying crime and is sentenced under the statute on deliberate injury or killing; if the victim is already dead and the statute on deliberate killing applies, the principal offender must die and no memorial for imperial decision is needed; for accomplices the compiled statutes already provide for memorialized imperial decision, and there is no need to create a new rule." He debated the matter repeatedly before the emperor with Tang Jie and others, and in the end the emperor adopted Anshi's view. Another edict ordered: "Henceforth all such cases shall follow the edict of the seventh month of last year." Liu Shu of the Ministry of Justice and others again requested joint deliberation by the Secretariat and the Bureau of Military Affairs. Vice Censor-in-Chief Lü Hui and Censors Liu Qi and Qian Yi all supported Liu Shu's request. The matter was referred to the Two Offices. The emperor held that the statutory text was perfectly clear and that joint deliberation was unnecessary. Zeng Gongliang and others, however, thought it harmless to hear out every dissenting view and silence the critics, and the collective opinions were handed to the Bureau of Military Affairs. Wen Yanbo argued: "'Injury or killing' means intending to kill but only wounding. Once the victim is dead, voluntary confession does not apply." Lü Gongbi held: "Under the statute, injury or killing cannot be subject to voluntary confession. He proposed that henceforth completed injury or killing follow the statute as written, while accomplices who added to the crime but confessed should be memorialized for imperial decision." Chen Shengzhi and Han Jiang took positions broadly similar to Anshi's. When Fu Bi became chief councilor, the emperor ordered him to weigh in, but illness kept him from doing so for a long time. By the time a decision was reached, Fu Bi was on sick leave and took no part in it.

蘇州民張朝之從兄以槍戳死朝父，逃去，朝執而殺之。審刑、大理當朝十惡不睦罪死。案既上，參知政事王安石言：「朝父為從兄所殺，而朝報殺之，罪止加役流，會赦，應原。」帝從安石議，特釋朝不問。更命呂公著等定議刑名，議不稱安石意，乃自具奏。初，曾公亮以中書論正刑名為非，安石曰：「有司用刑不當，則審刑、大理當論正；審刑、大理用刑不當，即差官定議；議既不當，即中書自宜論奏，取決人主。此所謂國體。豈有中書不可論正刑名之理。」

In Suzhou, Zhang Chao's elder cousin killed Chao's father with a spear and fled. Chao captured and killed him. The Court for Review of Penalties and the Court of Judicial Review sentenced Chao to death for the Ten Abominations, on the charge of lack of harmony among kin. After the case was submitted, Vice Grand Councilor Wang Anshi said: "Chao's father was killed by his cousin, and Chao killed the cousin in revenge. The offense warrants only penal servitude with increased labor and exile, and he should be pardoned under the amnesty." The emperor accepted Anshi's view and specially released Zhang Chao without further prosecution. The emperor again ordered Lü Gongzhu and others to deliberate on the penal designation. Their opinion did not satisfy Anshi, who then submitted his own memorial. Earlier, Zeng Gongliang had argued that it was improper for the Secretariat to debate and correct penal designations. Anshi replied: "When subordinate offices apply punishment incorrectly, the Court for Review of Penalties and the Court of Judicial Review should correct them; when those courts err, officials should be dispatched to deliberate and settle the matter; when that deliberation is wrong, the Secretariat itself should memorialize and debate the issue, leaving the final decision to the sovereign. That is what is meant by the dignity of the state. How could there be any principle by which the Secretariat may not debate and correct penal designations?"

三年，中書上刑名未安者五：其一，歲斷死刑幾二千人，比前代殊多。如強劫盜並有死法，其間情狀輕重，有絕相遠者，使皆抵死，良亦可哀。若為從情輕之人別立刑，如前代斬右趾之比，足以止惡而除害。禁軍非在邊防屯戍而逃者，亦可更寬首限，以收其勇力之効。其二，徒、流折杖之法，禁網加密，良民偶有抵冒，致傷肌體，為終身之辱；愚頑之徒，雖一時創痛，而終無愧恥。若使情理輕者復古居作之法，遇赦第減月日，使良善者知改過自新，凶頑者有所拘繫。其三，刺配之法二百餘條，其間情理輕者，亦可復古徒流移鄉之法，俟其再犯，然後決刺充軍。其配隸並減就本處，或與近地。凶頑之徒，自從舊法。編管之人，亦迭送他所，量立役作時限，無得鉗。其四，令州縣考察士民，有能孝悌力田為眾所知者，給帖付身。偶有犯令，情輕可恕者，特議贖罰；其不悛者，科決。其五，奏裁條目繁多，致淹刑禁，亦宜刪定。詔付編敕所詳議立法。

In the third year, the Secretariat submitted five unresolved issues in penal law. First: nearly two thousand death sentences were handed down each year—far more than in earlier dynasties. Armed robbery and banditry, for example, both carry the death penalty, yet the circumstances can differ enormously. To execute all offenders alike is truly lamentable. If a separate, lighter penalty were established for accomplices in minor cases—such as the former dynasties' punishment of cutting off the right foot—it would suffice to deter crime and remove harm. Palace guards who desert while not on frontier garrison duty might also be given a wider window for voluntary surrender, so that their courage and strength could still be put to use. Second: the practice of commuting exile and penal servitude to flogging has tightened the net of prohibitions. Good citizens who occasionally transgress suffer bodily injury and lifelong disgrace; while hardened offenders feel momentary pain but no lasting shame. If lighter offenders were returned to the ancient practice of penal labor, with amnesties reducing their terms, the virtuous would learn to reform, and the vicious would be restrained. Third: the statutes on tattooing and military assignment contain over two hundred articles. For lighter cases, the ancient practice of exile or penal servitude with relocation could be restored; tattooing and assignment to the army would follow only upon a second offense. Assignments could be reduced so that offenders remain in their home region or a nearby area. Hardened offenders would still be subject to the existing law. Those under registered supervision should likewise be rotated to other jurisdictions, with fixed terms of corvée labor and without shackling. Fourth: order prefectures and counties to identify local worthies known for filial piety, fraternal conduct, and diligent farming, and issue them personal certificates of merit. When such persons occasionally violate the law in minor, pardonable matters, special consideration should be given to commutation by fine; those who do not reform should receive the statutory penalty. Fifth: the many categories requiring memorialized imperial decision cause delays in the administration of justice and should be streamlined. An edict referred the matter to the Institute for Compiling Statutes for detailed deliberation and legislation.

初，韓絳嘗請用肉刑，曾布復上議曰：「先王之制刑罰，未嘗不本於仁，然而有斷肢體、刻肌膚以至於殺戮，非得已也。蓋人之有罪，贖刑不足以懲之，故不得已而加之以墨、劓、剕、宮、大辟，然審適輕重，則又有流宥之法。至漢文帝除肉刑而定笞箠之令，後世因之以為律。大辟之次，處以流刑，代墨、劓、剕、宮，不惟非先王流宥之意，而又失輕重之差。古者鄉田同井，人皆安土重遷。流之遠方，無所資給，徒隸困辱，以至終身。近世之民，輕去鄉井，轉徙四方，固不為患，而居作一年，即聽附籍，比於古亦輕矣。况折杖之法，於古為鞭扑之刑，刑輕不能止惡，故犯法日益眾，其終必至於殺戮，是欲輕而反重也。今大辟之目至多，取其情可貸者，處之以肉刑，則人之獲生者必眾。若軍士亡去應斬，賊盜贓滿應絞，則刖其足；犯良人於法應死，而情輕者處以宮刑。至於劓、墨，則用刺配之法。降此而後為流、徒、杖、笞之罪，則制刑有差等矣。」議既上，帝問可否於執政，王安石、馮京互有論辨，迄不果行。樞密使文彥博亦上言：「唐末、五代，用重典以救時弊，故法律之外，徒、流或加至於死。國家承平百年，當用中典，然猶因循，有重於舊律者，若偽造官文書，律止流二千里，今斷從絞。近凡偽造印記，再犯不至死者，亦從絞坐。夫持杖強盜，本法重於造印，今造印再犯者死，而強盜再犯贓不滿五匹者不死，則用刑甚異於律文矣。請檢詳刑名重於舊律者，以敕律參考，裁定其當。」詔送編敕所。又詔審刑院、大理寺議重贓併滿輕贓法。審刑院言：「所犯各異之贓，不待罪等而累併，則於律義難通，宜如故事。」而大理寺言：「律稱，以贓致罪，頻犯者並累科；若罪犯不等者，即以重贓併滿輕贓各倍論；累併不加重者，止從重。蓋律意以頻犯贓者，不可用二罪以上之法，故令累科；為非一犯，故令倍論。此從寬之一也。然六贓輕重不等，若犯二贓以上者，不可累輕以從重，故令併重以滿輕。此從寬之二也。若以重併輕後加重，則止從一重，蓋為進則改從於輕法，退亦不至於容姦。而疏議假設之法，適皆罪等者，蓋一時命文耳。若罪等者盡數累併，不等者止科一贓，則恐知法者足以為姦，不知者但繫臨時幸與不幸，非律之本意也。」帝是大理議，行之。

Earlier, Han Jiang had proposed reviving corporal punishment. Zeng Bu submitted a further memorial: "The former kings, in establishing punishments, always rooted them in benevolence. Yet they dismembered limbs, cut flesh, and even took life—not because they wished to, but because they had no choice. When monetary penalties could not suffice to punish guilt, they had no choice but to add branding, nose-cutting, foot-amputation, castration, and capital execution—yet they also weighed severity and applied exile and mitigation where appropriate. When Emperor Wen of Han abolished corporal punishment and established flogging with the bastinado, later generations adopted this as statute law. Exile was placed immediately below capital punishment, replacing branding, nose-cutting, foot-amputation, and castration. This not only departed from the ancient intent of exile as mitigation, but also erased the gradation between heavy and light penalties. In antiquity people shared communal fields by the well system; they were rooted to their native soil and loath to move. Exile to distant regions left offenders without support; as bondsmen they suffered humiliation for life. People today readily leave their native hamlets and move in all directions, so exile is less burdensome; moreover, after one year of penal labor they may register locally—a lighter punishment than in antiquity. Moreover, commuting penalties to flogging—which in antiquity was a light punishment—cannot deter crime. Offenses multiply daily until they end in execution. The intent was to lighten punishment, but the result is to make it heavier. Capital offenses are now extremely numerous. If those whose circumstances warrant mercy were punished with corporal penalties instead, far more lives would be spared. Deserters who would be beheaded and robbers whose booty warrants strangulation would have their feet amputated; offenders against law-abiding citizens who would otherwise face death but whose circumstances are mitigated would receive castration. Nose-cutting and branding would be replaced by the existing practice of tattooing and military assignment. Below these would come exile, penal servitude, cudgeling, and bastinado—thus restoring a graduated scale of punishments. After the proposal was submitted, the emperor asked the chief administrators whether it was feasible. Wang Anshi and Feng Jing debated at length, and in the end the proposal was not adopted. Military Affairs Commissioner Wen Yanbo also memorialized: "At the end of Tang and during the Five Dynasties, harsh codes were used to remedy the ills of the age. Beyond what the statutes prescribed, exile was sometimes increased to death. Our state has enjoyed a century of peace and should apply the moderate code, yet we still follow precedent in ways that exceed the old statutes. Forging official documents, for example, was punishable by exile for two thousand li under the statute, but is now punished by strangulation. Recently, repeat offenders in seal forgery who would not otherwise face death are also sentenced to strangulation. Armed robbery with a weapon was originally a heavier offense than seal forgery under the statute. Yet repeat seal forgers are now executed, while repeat armed robbers whose booty falls short of five bolts are not—punishment has diverged sharply from the statutory text. I request a review of all penal designations heavier than the old statutes, with edicts and statutes cross-referenced to determine what is appropriate." An edict referred the matter to the Institute for Compiling Statutes. Another edict ordered the Court for Review of Penalties and the Court of Judicial Review to deliberate on the law of combining heavier booty to satisfy lighter booty thresholds. The Court for Review of Penalties argued: "Booty from different offenses should not be combined without regard to crime grades; this is hard to reconcile with statutory intent. Precedent should be followed." The Court of Judicial Review countered: "The statute states that one who repeatedly commits booty-related offenses shall have penalties imposed cumulatively; when the crimes are unequal, heavier booty shall be combined to satisfy lighter booty thresholds, with each offense counted at double; where combination does not increase the penalty, only the heavier offense applies. The intent is that repeat booty offenders cannot benefit from the rule against imposing more than two penalties, and therefore cumulative imposition is required; because the offenses are not a single act, each is counted at double. This is the first lenient provision. Yet the six categories of booty differ in severity. When two or more categories are involved, lighter booty cannot be accumulated to reach a heavier penalty; heavier booty must be combined to satisfy lighter thresholds. This is the second lenient provision. If combining heavier with lighter booty would increase the penalty beyond what a single heavy offense warrants, only the heavier penalty applies—ensuring that leniency when circumstances improve does not become indulgence of crime when they worsen. The hypothetical examples in the statutory commentary, which happen to involve equal crime grades, were merely provisional formulations for instructional purposes. If equal crimes were always combined while unequal ones counted as a single booty offense, the law-wise could exploit the loophole while the ignorant would depend on chance. That would defeat the statute's purpose. The emperor adopted the Court of Judicial Review's position and put it into effect.

八年，洪州民有犯徒而斷杖者，其餘罪會恩免，官吏失出，當劾。中書堂後官劉袞駮議，以謂：「律因罪人以致罪，罪人遇恩者，準罪人原法。洪州官吏當原。」又請自今官司出入人罪，皆用此令。而審刑院、大理寺以謂：「失入人罪，乃官司誤致罪於人，難用此令。其失出者，宜如袞議。」

In the eighth year, a Hongzhou man sentenced to penal servitude was wrongly punished by flogging instead. His remaining offenses were covered by an amnesty, but officials erroneously released him and should face impeachment. Liu Gun, a rear-office official of the Central Secretariat, submitted a rebuttal arguing that when guilt is incurred through a guilty person and that person receives an amnesty, the original penalty for the guilty person should govern. The officials of Hong Prefecture should be pardoned accordingly. He also asked that from then on, whenever an office wrongly convicted or wrongly acquitted someone, this rule should apply. The Court for Review of Penalties and the Court of Judicial Review objected that wrongful conviction occurs when an office mistakenly imposes guilt on someone, and that this statute could not readily apply in such cases. Wrongful acquittal, they said, should follow Liu Gun's proposal.

元豐三年，周清言；「審刑院、刑部奏斷妻謀殺案問自首，變從故殺法，舉輕明重，斷入惡逆斬刑。竊詳律意，妻謀殺夫，已殺，合入惡逆，以按問自首，變從故殺法，宜用妻毆夫死法定罪。且十惡條，謀與故鬥殺夫，方入惡逆，若謀而未殺，止當不睦。既用舉輕明重，宜從謀而未殺法，依敕當決重杖處死，恐不可入惡逆斬刑。」下審刑院、刑部參詳，如清議。邵武軍奏讞，婦與人姦，謀殺其夫，已而夫醉歸，姦者自殺之。法寺當婦謀殺為從，而刑部郎中杜紘議婦罪應死。又興元府奏讞，梁懷吉往視出妻之病，因寄粟，其子輒取食之，懷吉毆其子死。法寺以盜粟論，而當懷吉雜犯死罪，引赦原。而紘議出妻受寄粟，而其子輒費用，不入捕法。議既上，御史臺論紘議不當，詔罰金，仍展年磨勘。而侍郎崔台符以下三人無所可否，亦罰金。

In the third year of Yuanfeng, Zhou Qingyan submitted the following: The Court for Review of Penalties and the Ministry of Justice had ruled on a case in which a wife plotted murder and was questioned about voluntary surrender; they changed the charge to intentional killing, applied the principle of citing the lighter offense to clarify the heavier, and sentenced her to decapitation for rebellious regicide. On careful reading of the law, a wife who plots to kill her husband and succeeds properly falls under rebellious regicide; but because the case turned on confession upon imminent exposure under interrogation and was shifted to the statute on intentional killing, conviction should follow the statute governing a wife who beats her husband to death. Moreover, among the Ten Abominations, only plotting or intentionally fighting and killing one's husband counts as rebellious regicide; if the plot was not carried out, the offense is merely lack of harmony among kin. Since the lighter-to-clarify-heavier principle was invoked, the case should follow the rule for plotting without killing; under the edict that calls for heavy beating followed by execution—not decapitation for rebellious regicide. The case was referred to the Court for Review of Penalties and the Ministry of Justice for joint review, and they followed Zhou Qingyan's opinion. Shaowu Circuit submitted a case for judgment: a woman had taken a lover and plotted to kill her husband; when her husband came home drunk, the lover killed him. The Court of Judicial Review classified the woman as an accomplice in the plot to murder, but Du Hong, a bureau director in the Ministry of Justice, argued that she deserved death. Xingyuan Prefecture also submitted a case: Liang Huaiji visited his divorced wife, who was ill, and left grain with her; her son immediately took and ate it, and Huaiji beat the son to death. The Court of Judicial Review treated the grain as stolen property and found Huaiji guilty of a miscellaneous capital offense, then invoked an amnesty to pardon him. Du Hong countered that the divorced wife had received the grain on deposit and her son had simply consumed it, so the case did not fall under the statute governing apprehension of thieves. After these opinions were submitted, the Censorate held that Du Hong's view was wrong; the throne fined him and delayed his merit review by one year. Vice Minister Cui Taifu and three colleagues who had neither endorsed nor rejected the ruling were fined as well.

八年，尚書省言：「諸獲盜，有已經殺人，及元犯強姦、強盜貨命斷配之人，再犯捕獲，有司例用知人欲告、或按問自首減免法。且律文自首減等斷遣者，為其情非巨，有改過自新之心。至於姦、盜，與餘犯不同，難以例減。請強盜已殺人，?強姦或元犯強盜貸命，若持杖三人以上，知人欲告、按問欲舉而自首，及因人首告應減者，並不在減等例。」初，王安石與司馬光爭議按問自首法，卒從安石議。至是，光為相，復申前議改焉。乃詔：「強盜按問欲舉自首者，不用減等。」既而給事中范純仁言：「熙寧按問欲舉條並得原減，以容姦太多，元豐八年，別立條制。竊詳已殺人、強姦，於法自不當首，不應更用按問減等。至於貸命及持杖強盜，亦不減等，深為太重。按嘉祐編敕：『應犯罪之人，因疑被執，贓證未明，或徒黨就擒，未被指說，但詰問便承，皆從律按問欲舉首減之科。若已經詰問，隱拒本罪，不在首減之例。』此敕當理，當時用之，天下號為刑平。請於法不首者，自不得原減，其餘取嘉祐編敕定斷，則用法當情，上以廣好生之德，下則無一夫不獲之。」從之。又詔；「諸州鞫訊強盜，情理無可憫，刑名無疑慮，而輒奏請，許刑部舉駁，重行朝典，無得用例破條。」從司馬光之請也。光又上言：「殺人不死，傷人不刑，堯、舜不能以致治。刑部奏鈔兗、懷、耀三州之民有鬥殺者，皆當論死，乃妄作情理可憫奏裁，刑部即引舊例貸之。凡律、令、敕、式或不盡載，則有司引例以決。今鬥殺當死，自有正條，而刑部承例免死決配，是鬥殺條律無所用也。請自今諸州所奏大辟，情理無可憫，刑名無可疑，令刑部還之，使依法處斷。若實有可憫、疑慮，即令刑部具其實於奏鈔，先擬處斷，門下省審覆。如或不當，及用例破條，即駁奏取旨勘之。」

In the eighth year, the Department of State Affairs reported that when captured robbers who had already killed, or who had originally been guilty of rape or robbery and commuted from death to exile, were caught reoffending, offices routinely applied reductions for knowing that others intended to report the crime or for confession upon imminent exposure under interrogation. The law reduces penalties for voluntary surrender only when the offense is not grave and the offender shows a genuine wish to reform. Adultery and robbery, however, are unlike other crimes and should not be reduced by analogy. We ask that robbers who have already killed, or committed rape, or were originally guilty of robbery and commuted from death, as well as armed bands of three or more who surrender knowing others intend to report, confess upon imminent exposure under interrogation, or qualify for reduction because another informant came forward—all be excluded from reduction of penalty. Earlier, Wang Anshi and Sima Guang had debated the law on confession upon imminent exposure under interrogation, and Wang Anshi's view had prevailed. Now that Guang had become chief councilor, he revived his earlier proposal to revise the law. An edict followed: "Robbers who confess upon imminent exposure under interrogation shall receive no reduction of penalty." Later, Vice Director Fan Chunren argued that under the Xining rules on confession upon imminent exposure, offenders could all receive pardon or reduction—a latitude that sheltered too much wrongdoing—so in the eighth year of Yuanfeng separate regulations had been enacted. On careful review, those who have already killed or committed rape are not eligible for voluntary surrender under the law in the first place; they should not receive further reduction through confession upon imminent exposure. Yet denying any reduction to those commuted from death or to armed robbers is far too harsh. The Jiayou compiled edicts provide: 'When a suspect is seized on suspicion, before stolen goods are proven or accomplices identified and named, if he confesses upon questioning, he receives the reduction accorded to confession upon imminent exposure under interrogation. If he has already been questioned and concealed or denied the original offense, he is not eligible for reduction on surrender.' That edict was sound; when it was in force, the realm was praised for even-handed justice. We ask that where the law forbids surrender, no pardon or reduction be granted; for all other cases, judgment should follow the Jiayou compiled edicts—so that law matches circumstance, the throne's mercy toward life is broadened above, and below not a single innocent man suffers wrongful conviction. The throne approved. Another edict was also issued: When prefectures interrogate robbers whose circumstances afford no pity and whose charges admit no doubt, yet rashly seek imperial decision, the Ministry of Justice may cite rebuttal, impose severe court discipline, and must not use precedent to override the statute. This followed a petition from Sima Guang. Guang also memorialized: "If killers go unpunished and assailants unchastised, not even Yao and Shun could govern well. The Ministry of Justice had circulated a memorial reporting that people in Yan, Huai, and Yao prefectures who fought and killed should all be sentenced to death, yet local offices falsely pleaded pitiable circumstances for imperial decision, and the Ministry immediately cited old precedent to commute their sentences. Whenever the code, statutes, edicts, and forms do not fully cover a case, offices cite precedent to decide it. Fighting and killing carries a capital statute of its own, yet the Ministry of Justice, following precedent, spares offenders from death and exiles them instead—rendering the capital statute on fighting and killing meaningless. We ask that hereafter, when prefectures submit capital cases whose circumstances afford no pity and whose charges admit no doubt, the Ministry of Justice return them for punishment strictly according to law. If circumstances are truly pitiable or doubts genuinely remain, the Ministry should set forth the full facts in the memorial, propose a disposition in advance, and submit it to the Gate Department for review. If the disposition is improper, or if precedent is used to break the statute, the Ministry should cite rebuttal and seek imperial direction for investigation."

元祐元年，純仁又言：「前歲四方奏讞，大辟凡二百六十四，死者止二十五人，所活垂及九分。自去年改法，至今未及百日，所奏按凡一百五十四，死者乃五十七人，所活纔及六分已上。臣固知未改法前全活數多，其間必有曲貸，然猶不失『罪疑惟輕』之仁；自改法後，所活數少，其間必有濫刑，則深虧『寧失不經』之義。請自今四方奏大辟按，並令刑部、大理寺再行審覆，略具所犯及元奏因依，令執政取旨裁斷，或所奏不當，亦原其罪。如此則無濫之獄。」又因尚書省言，遠方奏讞，待報淹繫，始令川、廣、福建、荊南路罪人，情輕法重當奏斷者，申安撫或鈐轄司酌情決斷乃奏。門下侍郎韓維言：「天下奏按，必斷於大理，詳議於刑部，然後上之中書，決之人主。近歲有司但因州郡所請，依違其言，即上中書，貼例取旨，故四方奏讞日多於前。欲望刑清事省，難矣。自今大理寺受天下奏按，其有刑名疑慮、情理可憫，須具情法輕重條律，或指所斷之法，刑部詳審，次第上之。」詔刑部立法以聞。

In the first year of Yuanyou, Fan Chunren again reported: "The year before last, the four quarters submitted two hundred sixty-four capital cases for judgment; only twenty-five were executed—nearly nine tenths were spared. Since the law was changed last year, fewer than a hundred days have passed; one hundred fifty-four capital cases have been submitted, yet fifty-seven were executed—barely more than six tenths spared. I know that before the reform many more lives were spared, and some of that leniency was surely undue; yet it still honored the principle of 'when in doubt, favor the lighter.' Since the reform, far fewer lives have been spared, and excessive punishments have surely occurred—deeply violating the principle of 'better to err by sparing than by executing.' We ask that hereafter all capital cases submitted from the four quarters be reviewed again by both the Ministry of Justice and the Court of Judicial Review, with the offense and original grounds briefly stated, and that the chief ministers seek imperial direction to decide; if a submission was improper, the submitter's offense should also be pardoned. Thus excessive punishment would be avoided. Because the Department of State Affairs reported that distant circuits submitting cases for judgment were kept waiting so long that prisoners languished in detention, an order was first issued: in Sichuan, Guang, Fujian, and Jingnan circuits, when circumstances were light but the law heavy and imperial decision was required, the pacification or military commission might decide provisionally before submitting the memorial. Vice Director of the Gate Department Han Wei argued: "Capital cases from across the realm should be finally adjudicated by the Court of Judicial Review, closely deliberated by the Ministry of Justice, and only then sent to the Central Secretariat for the emperor's decision. In recent years, offices have merely echoed prefectural requests, wavering in their language, and immediately forwarded cases to the Central Secretariat with attached precedent seeking imperial direction—so submissions from the four quarters now exceed those of earlier days. Under such conditions, clear justice and streamlined administration are impossible. Henceforth, when the Court of Judicial Review receives capital submissions from the realm, any case involving doubtful charges or pitiable circumstances must include the relevant articles on circumstances and penalty, or identify the statute applied; the Ministry of Justice shall examine closely and submit in proper order. An edict ordered the Ministry of Justice to draft legislation and report back.

崇寧五年，詔：「民以罪麗法，情有重輕，則法有增損。故情重法輕，情輕法重，舊有取旨之令。今有司惟情重法輕則請加罪，而法重情輕則不奏減，是樂於罪人，而難於用恕，非所以為欽恤也。自今宜遵舊法取旨，使情法輕重各適其中，否則以違制論。」宣和六年，臣僚言：「元豐舊法，有情輕法重，情重法輕，若入大辟，刑名疑慮，並許奏裁。比來諸路以大辟疑獄決于朝廷者，大理寺類以『不當』劾之。夫情理巨，罪狀明白，奏裁以幸寬貸，固在所戒；然有疑而難決者，一切劾之，則官吏莫不便文自營。臣恐天下無復以疑獄奏矣。願詔大理寺並依元豐法。」從之。

In the fifth year of Chongning, an edict declared: "When offenders touch the law, the gravity of circumstance warrants increase or decrease of penalty. Where circumstances are heavy but the law light, or circumstances light but the law heavy, the old rule required seeking imperial direction. Now offices seek increased punishment when circumstances are heavy and the law light, but refuse to submit for reduction when the law is heavy and circumstances light—delighting in condemnation while shunning mercy, contrary to reverent compassion. Hereafter offices shall follow the old law and seek imperial direction, so that circumstance and penalty each reach their proper balance; otherwise they shall be charged with violation of edict. In the sixth year of Xuanhe, officials reported: "Under the old Yuanfeng law, when circumstances were light but the law heavy, or circumstances heavy but the law light, capital cases with doubtful charges could all be submitted for imperial decision. Recently, however, when circuits sent doubtful capital cases to court for decision, the Court of Judicial Review routinely impeached them as improper. Seeking imperial decision to obtain leniency when circumstances are grave and guilt is clear is indeed to be guarded against; but when genuine doubts make a case hard to decide, impeaching every such submission will only encourage officials to hide behind empty formalities for private gain. I fear that under Heaven no doubtful case will ever be submitted again. We ask that the Court of Judicial Review be ordered to follow the Yuanfeng law throughout. The throne approved.

紹興初，州縣盜起，道不通，詔應奏裁者，權減降斷遣以聞。既而奏讞者多得輕貸，官無失入之虞，而吏有鬻獄之利，往往不應奏者，率奏之。三年，乃詔大辟應奏者，提刑司具因依繳奏。宣州民葉全二盜檀偕窖錢，偕令佃人阮授、阮捷殺全二等五人，棄屍水中，有司以「屍不經驗」奏。侍御史辛炳言偕係故殺，眾證分明，以近降法，不應奏。諸獄不當奏而奏者雖不論罪，今宣州觀望，欲併罪之。帝曰：「若宣州加罪，則實有疑者亦不復奏陳矣。」於是法寺、刑部止罰金。五年，給事中陳與義奏有司多妄奏出入人罪，帝為申嚴立法，終不悛。二十六年，右正言凌哲復上疏曰：「漢高入關，悉除秦法，與民約法三章耳。所謂殺人者死，實居其首。司馬光有言：『殺人者不死，雖堯、舜不能以致治。』斯言可謂至當矣。臣竊見諸路州、軍大辟，雖刑法相當者，類以可憫奏裁。自去歲郊後距今，大辟奏裁者五十餘人中，有實犯故殺、鬥殺常赦所不原者，法既無疑，情無可憫，刑、寺並皆奏裁貸減。彼殺人者可謂幸矣，被殺者銜恨九原，何時已邪？臣恐強暴之風滋長，良善之人，莫能自保，其於刑政，為害非細。應今後大辟，情法相當、無可憫者，所司輒奏裁減貸者，乞令臺臣彈劾。」帝覽奏曰：「但恐諸路滅裂，實有情理可憫之人，一例不奏，有失欽恤之意。」令刑部坐條行下。

Early in the Shaoxing era, banditry spread through prefectures and counties and roads became impassable; an edict permitted cases requiring imperial decision to be provisionally reduced and reported. Soon those submitting cases for judgment mostly received lenient commutation; officials faced no risk of wrongful conviction, while clerks profited from selling justice—so cases that should not have been submitted were submitted anyway. In the third year, an edict required that for capital cases requiring submission, the judicial intendant compile the grounds and submit the memorial. Ye Quan'er, a commoner of Xuan Prefecture, stole money from Zhan Xie's storehouse; Xie had tenant farmers Ruan Shou and Ruan Jie kill Quan'er and four others and dump the bodies in the water; local officials submitted the case on the ground that the bodies had not been examined. Supervising Censor Xin Bing argued that Xie was guilty of intentional killing with clear testimony from many witnesses; under the recent lowered law, the case should not have been submitted. Although the law does not punish improper submission, Xuan Prefecture now hesitates and seeks to impose additional penalties. The emperor said: "If Xuan Prefecture adds punishment, then officials with genuine doubts will also cease to submit cases. The Court of Judicial Review and the Ministry of Justice therefore imposed fines only. In the fifth year, Vice Director Chen Yuyi reported that offices frequently submitted false memorials wrongly convicting or acquitting offenders; the emperor issued strict legislation in response, yet they never mended their ways. In the twenty-sixth year, Right Remonstrator Ling Zhe memorialized again: "When the Founding Emperor of Han entered the passes, he abolished Qin law entirely and bound the people to only three articles. The rule that he who kills shall die stood first among them. Sima Guang said: 'If killers are not put to death, not even Yao and Shun can achieve good order.' Those words could not be more apt. I have observed that in capital cases across the circuits, even where law and circumstance clearly matched, offices routinely pleaded pitiable circumstances for imperial decision. Since last year's suburban sacrifice, among more than fifty capital cases submitted for imperial decision, some involved intentional killing or fighting and killing excluded from ordinary amnesty—charges beyond doubt, circumstances beyond pity—yet both the Ministry of Justice and the Court submitted them for commutation and reduction. The killers were fortunate indeed; the slain carry their grievance to the grave—when will that end? I fear violence will flourish, and the law-abiding will no longer be able to protect themselves—a grave injury to the administration of justice. Henceforth, when circumstances and law match and nothing is pitiable, yet an office rashly seeks imperial decision to reduce or commute a capital sentence, I ask that censorial officials be empowered to impeach. Reading the memorial, the emperor said: "Yet I fear the circuits will become careless, and persons with truly pitiable circumstances will uniformly go unreported—contrary to reverent compassion. He ordered the Ministry of Justice to draft articles and promulgate them.

馴至乾道，讞獄之弊，日益滋甚。孝宗乃詔有司緣情引條定斷，更不奏裁。其後刑部侍郎方滋言：「有司斷罪，其間有情重法輕，情輕法重，情理可憫，刑名疑慮，命官犯罪，議親議故之類，難以一切定斷。今後宜於敕律條令，明言合奏裁事件，乞並依建隆三年敕文。」從之。六年，臣僚請：「今後大辟，只以為首應坐死罪者奏，為從不應坐死者，先次決遣。及流、徒罪，不許作情重取旨。不然，則坐以不應奏而奏之罪。」從之。

By the Qiandao era, abuses in the adjudication of cases had grown steadily worse. Emperor Xiaozong then ordered that offices decide cases by citing statutes according to circumstance, without further submission for imperial decision. Later, Vice Minister Fang Zi of the Ministry of Justice argued: "When offices pass judgment, some cases involve heavy circumstance and light law, light circumstance and heavy law, pitiable circumstances, doubtful charges, crimes by officials, deliberation on kinship or prior acquaintance, and the like—cases that cannot be decided uniformly. Hereafter the edicts, code, and statutes should clearly list cases requiring imperial decision; we ask that the edict of the third year of Jianlong govern entirely. The throne approved. In the sixth year, officials requested: "Henceforth in capital cases, only ringleaders liable to death shall be submitted; accomplices not liable to death shall be sentenced and dispatched first. For exile and hard-labor offenses, seeking imperial direction on grounds of heavy circumstance shall not be permitted. Otherwise charge the offense of improper submission. The throne approved.

至理宗時，往往讞不時報，囚多瘐死。監察御史程元鳳奏曰：「今罪無輕重，悉皆送獄，獄無大小，悉皆稽留。或以追索未齊而不問，或以供款未圓而不呈，或以書擬未當而不判，獄官視以為常，而不顧其遲，獄吏留以為利，而惟恐其速。奏案申牘既下刑部，遲延日月方送理寺。理寺看詳，亦復如之。寺回申部，部回申省，動涉歲月。省房又未遽為呈擬，亦有呈擬而疏駮者，疏駮歲月，又復如前。展轉遲回，有一二年未報下者。可疑可矜，法當奏讞，矜而全之，乃反遲回。有矜貸之報下，而其人已斃於獄者；有犯者獲貸，而干連病死不一者，豈不重可念哉？請自今諸路奏讞，即以所發月日申御史臺，從臺臣究省、部、法寺之慢。」從之。而所司延滯，尋復如舊。景定元年，乃下詔曰：「比詔諸提刑司，取翻異駁勘之獄，從輕斷決。而長吏監司多不任責，又引奏裁，甚者有十餘年不決之獄。仰提刑司守臣審勘，或前勘未盡，委有可疑，除命官、命婦、宗婦、宗女及合用蔭人奏裁外，其餘斷訖以聞。官吏特免收坐一次。」

By Emperor Lizong's reign, case reports were often delayed, and many prisoners died of illness awaiting judgment. Supervising Censor Cheng Yuanfeng memorialized: "Now guilt light or heavy alike is sent to prison; prison great or small alike holds prisoners in prolonged detention. Cases stalled when restitution was incomplete, confessions unfinished, or draft judgments flawed. Prison officials treated delay as routine; clerks profited from detention and dreaded swift resolution. Memorial cases sent to the Ministry of Justice often languished for months before reaching the Court of Judicial Review. The Court's review proceeded no faster. The Court reported to the Ministry, the Ministry to the Secretariat—each leg consuming months. Secretariat offices delayed draft submissions; when rebuttals came, months passed in reply—and the cycle began anew. Passed from office to office, some cases went one or two years without a final report. Cases doubtful yet pitiable, which by law merited submission for judgment and might have been spared, were instead left to languish. Some received commutation reports only after they had already died in prison; Some offenders were spared while persons implicated in their cases died in custody—not a few. Was this not deeply lamentable? We ask that hereafter every circuit submission for judgment report its dispatch date to the Censorate, so censors may investigate delays by the Secretariat, Ministry of Justice, and Court of Judicial Review." The throne approved. Yet the responsible offices continued to stall, and before long matters were as bad as ever. In the first year of Jingding, an edict declared: "We recently ordered judicial intendant offices to take cases involving reversed verdicts and re-examination and decide them leniently. Yet prefects and supervisory commissioners often shirked responsibility, again resorting to submission for imperial decision; some cases went unresolved for more than ten years. Judicial intendant offices and local officials must examine cases thoroughly. Where prior review was incomplete and doubt remains—except for appointed officials, officials' wives, imperial clan women, and persons eligible for yin privilege, who still require imperial decision—all others shall decide and report. Officials and clerks shall receive one special exemption from accountability."

凡應配役者傅軍籍，用重典者黥其面。會赦，則有司上其罪狀，情輕者，縱之；重者，終身不釋。初，徒罪非有官當贖銅者，在京師則隸將作監役，兼役之宮中，或輸作左校、右校役。開寶五年，御史臺言：「若此者，雖有其名，無復役使。遇祠祭，供水火，則有本司供官。望令大理依格斷遣。」於是並送作坊役之。

Those sentenced to penal service were enrolled in military registers; those subject to severe punishment were tattooed on the face. At amnesty, offices submitted offense records; those whose circumstances were light were released; those whose circumstances were grave remained confined for life. At first, hard-labor offenders in the capital who lacked official rank to offset punishment or copper to redeem it were assigned to the Directorate of Palace Works—some serving in the palace, others laboring at the Left and Right Workshops. In the fifth year of Kaibao, the Censorate reported: "Such persons existed in name only and performed no actual labor. At sacrifices, when water and fire were needed, the responsible office provided its own officials. We ask that the Court of Judicial Review decide and dispatch them according to statute. All were then sent to serve in the workshops.

太宗以國初諸方割據，沿五代之制，罪人率配隸西北邊，多亡投塞外，誘羌為寇，乃詔：「當徒者，勿復隸秦州、靈武、通遠軍及緣邊諸郡。」時江、廣已平，乃皆流南方。先是，犯死罪獲貸者，多配隸登州沙門島及通州海島，皆有屯兵使者領護。而通州島中凡兩處官鹽，豪強難制者隸崇明鎮，懦弱者隸東州市。太平興國五年，始令分隸鹽亭役之，而沙門如故。端拱二年，詔免嶺南流配荷校執役。初，婦人有罪至流，亦執鍼配役。至是，詔罷免之。始令雜犯至死貸命者，勿流沙門島，止隸諸州牢城。

At the founding of the realm, when regions remained divided, Emperor Taizong followed the Five Dynasties practice of assigning criminals to the northwestern frontier. Many fled beyond the border and incited Qiang raids. He therefore decreed: "Hard-labor offenders shall no longer be assigned to Qinzhou, Lingwu, Tongyuan Army, or other frontier prefectures. With Jiangnan and Lingnan now pacified, all were exiled southward. Previously, death-sentence offenders who received commutation were mostly sent to Shamen Island off Dengzhou and the sea islands of Tongzhou, each guarded by garrison troops under supervising envoys. Tongzhou's islands held two government saltworks. The strong and unruly were assigned to Chongming garrison; the weak, to Dongsuzhou. In the fifth year of Taiping Xingguo, offenders were first divided among salt pavilions for labor, while Shamen Island assignments continued unchanged. In the second year of Duangong, an edict freed Lingnan exiles from wearing cangues and performing corvée labor. At first, women sentenced to exile also carried needles and were assigned to penal service. An edict now abolished the practice. It was first ordered that offenders guilty of miscellaneous capital crimes who received commuted sentences should not be sent to Shamen Island but assigned only to prefectural prison fortresses.

舊制，僮僕有犯，得私黥其面。帝謂：「僮使受傭，本良民也。」詔：「盜主財者，杖脊、黥面配牢城，勿私黥之。十貫以上，配五百里外；二十貫以上，奏裁。」帝欲寬配隸之刑，祥符六年，詔審刑院、大理寺、三司詳定以聞。既而取犯茶鹽礬麴、私鑄造軍器、市外蕃香藥、挾銅錢誘漢口出界、主吏盜貨官物、夜聚為妖，比舊法咸從輕減。

Under the old system, masters could privately tattoo the faces of offending servants. The emperor said: "Hired servants are ordinary law-abiding people. An edict followed: "Servants who steal their master's property shall be caned, tattooed, and assigned to a prison fortress—not privately marked by their masters. Thefts of ten strings of cash or more: assign five hundred li away; twenty strings or more: submit for imperial decision. Seeking to lighten penal assignment, the emperor in the sixth year of Xiangfu ordered the Office of Review of Penalties, the Court of Judicial Review, and the Three Commissions to review the statutes in detail and report. Soon after, penalties were leniently reduced below the old standard for monopoly violations involving tea, salt, alum, and yeast; private weapon forging; illicit purchase of foreign aromatics and medicines; inducing Han subjects to cross the border with copper cash; chief clerks stealing government goods; and nocturnal gatherings for sorcery.

乾興以前，州軍長吏，往往擅配罪人。仁宗即位，首下詔禁止，且令情非巨者，須奏待報。又詔諸路按察官，取乾興赦前配隸兵籍者，列所坐罪狀以聞。自是赦書下，輒及之。初，京師裁造院募女工，而軍士妻有罪，皆配隸南北作坊。天聖初，特詔釋之，聽自便。婦人應配，則以妻務或軍營致遠務卒之無家者，著為法。時又詔曰：「聞配徒者，其妻子流離道路，罕能生還，朕甚憐之。自今應配者，錄具獄刑名及所配地里，上尚書刑部詳覆。」未幾，又詔應配者，須長吏以下集聽事慮問。後以奏牘煩冗，罷錄具獄，第以單狀上承進司。既又罷慮問焉。知益州薛田言：「蜀人配徒他路者，請雖老疾毋得釋。」帝曰：「遠民無知犯法，終身不得還鄉里，豈朕意哉？察其情可矜者許還。」後復詔罪狀獷惡者勿許。初，令配隸罪人皆奏待報，既而繫獄淹久，奏請煩數。明道二年，乃詔有司參酌輕重，著為令。凡命官犯重罪，當配隸，則於外州編管，或隸牙校。其坐死特貸者，多杖、黥配遠州牢城，經恩量移，始免軍籍。天聖初，吏同時以贓敗者數人，悉竄之嶺南，下詔申儆在位。有平羌縣尉鄭宗諤者，受賕枉法抵死，會赦當奪官。帝問輔臣曰：「尉奉月幾何，豈祿薄不足自養邪？」王欽若對曰：「奉雖薄，廉士固亦自守。」特杖宗諤，配隸安州。其後數懲貪吏，至其末年，吏知以廉自飾，犯法者稍損於舊矣。

Before the Qianxing era, prefects and military commanders often assigned criminals on their own authority. Upon acceding, Emperor Renzong first forbade unauthorized assignment and required submission and imperial approval except where circumstances were grave. Another edict ordered circuit inspectors to review those enrolled in military registers before the Qianxing amnesty, list their offenses, and report. Henceforth every amnesty edict included this provision. At first the capital's garment bureau recruited women workers, and soldiers' wives convicted of offenses were all assigned to the northern and southern workshops. At the start of the Tiansheng era, a special edict released them and allowed them to go free. For women subject to assignment, the law now specified wives of corvée workers or homeless far-service soldiers in military camps. Another edict declared: "We hear that the wives and children of hard-labor assignees wander the roads and rarely survive the journey—we are deeply moved to pity. Henceforth, before any assignment, record the full case, the sentence, and the destination, and submit to the Ministry of Justice for review. Soon after, another edict required the chief official and subordinates to assemble in the hall of audience and deliberate before any assignment. Later, because memorial paperwork grew burdensome, full-case records were dropped; only summary sheets were sent to the Forwarding Office. Deliberative inquiry was abolished soon after. Xue Tian, prefect of Yizhou, petitioned: "Shu natives assigned to hard labor in other circuits should not be released even when old or infirm. The emperor replied: "Ignorant people from distant regions break the law and never see home again—is that my intent? Examine those whose circumstances warrant pity and permit them to return. A later edict barred return for those whose offenses were brutal and vicious. At first all penal assignments required submission and imperial approval; but prolonged detention and frequent petitions soon followed. In the second year of Mingdao, offices were ordered to weigh cases by severity and codify the rules. Appointed officials guilty of serious crimes subject to assignment were placed under registered supervision in outer prefectures or assigned to military adjutants. Those liable to death but specially commuted were mostly caned, tattooed, and sent to distant prison fortresses; only after amnesty and measured transfer were they removed from military registers. Early in the Tiansheng era, several officials fell together on bribery charges and were all banished to Lingnan; an edict warned those still in office. Pingqiang County Captain Zheng Zonge took bribes and perverted the law, warranting death; an amnesty arrived and he should have been stripped of office. The emperor asked his chief ministers: "What does a county captain earn each month? Can his stipend truly be too small to live on? Wang Qinruo answered: "The salary is modest, but men of integrity manage nonetheless. Zonge was specially caned and assigned to Anzhou. Corrupt officials were punished repeatedly thereafter; by the end of his reign officials had learned to cultivate an appearance of integrity, and offenses declined somewhat.

罪人貸死者，舊多配沙門島，至者多死。景祐中，詔當配沙門島者，第配廣南地牢城；廣南罪人，乃配嶺北。然其後又有配沙門島者。慶曆三年，既疏理天下繫囚，因詔諸路配役人皆釋之。六年，又詔曰：「如聞百姓抵輕罪，而長吏擅刺隸他州，朕甚憫焉。自今非得於法外從事者，毋得輒刺罪人。」皇祐中，既赦，命知制誥曾公亮、李絢閱所配人罪狀以聞，於是多所寬縱。公亮請著為故事，且請益、梓、利、夔四路就委轉運、鈐轄司閱之。自後每赦命官，率以為常。

Commuted capital offenders were once mostly sent to Shamen Island, where most died. In the Jingyou era, an edict directed Shamen-bound offenders to Guangnan prison fortresses instead; Guangnan offenders were in turn assigned north of the Ling range. Yet afterward some were again sent to Shamen Island. In the third year of Qingli, after a review of prisoners empire-wide, an edict released all penal laborers in the circuits. In the sixth year, another edict declared: "We hear that chief officials are branding commoners guilty of minor offenses and assigning them to other prefectures on their own authority—we are deeply troubled. Henceforth, except where the law expressly permits otherwise, officials shall not rashly brand offenders. During Huangyou, after an amnesty, edict drafters Zeng Gongliang and Li Xuan were ordered to review assignees' records and report; many were leniently released. Gongliang asked that this become standing practice and that in the Yi, Zi, Li, and Kui circuits review be delegated to transport and military supervision offices. Thereafter such review appointments became routine at every amnesty.

配隸重者沙門島砦，其次嶺表，其次三千里至鄰州，其次羈管，其次遷鄉。斷訖，不以寒暑，即時上道。吳充建請：「流人冬寒被創，上道多凍死。請自今非情理巨，遇冬月聽留役本處，至春月遣之。」詔可。

Penal assignment ranked from most to least severe: Shamen Island fortress; then the Lingnan region; then exile up to three thousand li to a neighboring prefecture; then restricted supervision; then relocation within one's home district. Once sentence was passed, offenders set out immediately, regardless of season. Wu Chong memorialized: "Exiles travel in winter wounded and cold; many freeze to death on the road. We ask that hereafter, except in grave cases, winter departures be deferred: let offenders remain and serve locally until spring. The request was approved.

熙寧二年，比部郎中、知房州張仲宣嘗檄巡檢體究金州金阬，無甚利。土人憚興作，以金八兩求仲宣不差官。及事覺，法官坐仲宣枉法贓應絞，援前比貸死，杖脊、黥配海島。知審刑院蘇頌言：「仲宣所犯，可比恐喝條。且古者『刑不上大夫』，仲宣官五品，有罪得乘車，今刑為徒隸，其人雖無足矜，恐污辱衣冠爾。」遂免杖、黥，流賀州。自是命官無杖、黥法。

In the second year of Xining, Zhang Zhongxuan, director of the Bureau of Review and prefect of Fangzhou, once dispatched an inspector to investigate a Jinzhou gold mine and found little profit in it. Locals, fearing the project, offered Zhongxuan eight taels of gold to keep officials from being dispatched. When the matter came to light, the judge found Zhongxuan guilty of perverting the law and taking bribes, warranting strangulation; citing precedent, he was commuted from death, caned, tattooed, and assigned to a sea island. Su Song, director of the Office of Review of Penalties, argued: "Zhongxuan's offense fits the statute on intimidation. Moreover, antiquity held that 'punishment does not reach great officers.' Zhongxuan is fifth rank and, when guilty, may still ride in a carriage; to reduce him to penal servitude may not pity the man himself, but it would disgrace the office he represents. Caning and tattoo were waived; he was exiled to Hezhou. Thereafter appointed officials were no longer subject to caning and tattoo.

六年，審刑院言：「登州沙門砦配隸，以二百人為額，餘則移置海外，非禁姦之意。」詔以三百人為額。廣南轉運司言：「春州瘴癘之地，配隸至者十死八九，願停配罪人。」詔：「應配沙門島者，許配春州，餘勿配。」既而諸配隸除凶盜外，少壯者並寘河州，止五百人。初，神宗以流人去鄉邑，疾死於道，而護送禁卒，往來勞費，用張誠一之議，隨所在配諸軍重役。後中丞黃履等言，罷之。凡犯盜，刺環於耳後：徒、流，方；杖，圓；三犯杖，移於面。徑不過五分。

In the sixth year, the Office of Review reported: "Shamen fortress at Dengzhou holds a quota of two hundred assignees; overflow is sent overseas—hardly the purpose of restraining wickedness. The quota was raised to three hundred. The Guangnan Transport Commission reported: "Chunzhou is malarial; eight or nine of ten assignees die there. We ask that criminals no longer be sent there. An edict replied: "Offenders bound for Shamen Island may be sent to Chunzhou; no others shall be assigned there. Soon after, all able-bodied assignees except violent robbers were placed at Hezhou, capped at five hundred. At first Emperor Shenzong, seeing exiles leave home, die on the road, and burden escort guards with costly round trips, adopted Zhang Chengyi's proposal to assign them wherever they were to army heavy labor. Later Vice Censor-in-Chief Huang Lü and others objected, and the practice was abolished. All thieves were branded with a ring behind the ear: square for hard labor and exile; round for caning; after three caning offenses, the mark was moved to the face. The mark's diameter was not to exceed five fen.

元祐六年，刑部言：「諸配隸沙門島，強盜殺人縱火，贓滿五萬錢、強姦毆傷兩犯至死，累贓至二十萬錢、謀殺致死，及十惡死罪，造蠱已殺人者，不移配。強盜徒黨殺人不同謀，贓滿二十五萬，遇赦移配廣南，溢額者配隸遠惡。餘犯遇赦移配荊湖南北、福建路諸州，溢額者配隸廣南。在沙門島滿五年，遇赦不該移配與不許縱還而年及六十以上者，移配廣南。在島十年者，依餘犯格移配。篤疾或年及七十在島三年以上，移配近鄉州軍。犯狀應移而老疾者同。其永不放還者，各加二年移配。」後又定令：「沙門島已溢額，移配瓊州、萬安軍、昌化、朱崖軍。」

In the sixth year of Yuanyou, the Ministry of Justice reported: "Those assigned to Shamen Island for robbery, murder, or arson; theft of fifty thousand cash; rape or assault causing death on a second offense; cumulative theft of two hundred thousand cash; plotted murder; the ten capital abominations; or manufacture of gu poison after a killing—shall not be transferred elsewhere. Bandits who killed without having conspired together, when booty reached two hundred fifty thousand cash, were reassigned to Guangnan upon amnesty; those beyond the quota were sent to penal servitude in the remotest regions. All other offenders, upon amnesty, were reassigned to prefectures in the Jinghu South and North and Fujian circuits; those beyond the quota were sent to penal servitude in Guangnan. Prisoners who had served five years on Shamen Island and, though ineligible for reassignment or release under an amnesty, were sixty or older, were reassigned to Guangnan. Those who had spent ten years on the island were reassigned under the rules governing other offenders. The gravely ill, and those seventy or older who had been on the island at least three years, were reassigned to prefectures and garrisons near their native places. Offenders whose crimes called for reassignment but who were aged or infirm received the same treatment. For those never eligible for release, two years were added before reassignment. Later a further statute was enacted: when Shamen Island exceeded its quota, prisoners were to be reassigned to Qiongzhou, Wan'an Army, Changhua, and Zhuya Army.

紹聖三年，刑部侍郎邢恕等言：「藝祖初定天下，主典自盜，贓滿者往往抵死。仁祖之初，尚不廢也。其後用法稍寬，官吏犯自盜，罪至極法，率多貸死。然甚者猶決刺配島，錢仙芝帶館職，李希甫歷轉運使，不免也。比朝廷用法益寬，主典人吏軍司有犯，例各貸死，略無差別。欲望講述祖宗故事，凡自盜，計贓多者，間出睿斷，以肅中外。」詔：「今後應枉法自盜，罪至死、贓數多者，並取旨。」

In Shaosheng 3 (1096), Vice Minister Xing Shu of the Ministry of Justice and others memorialized: "When Emperor Taizu first pacified the empire, chief clerks guilty of embezzlement on their own authority, once booty reached the statutory threshold, were often executed. At the start of Emperor Renzong's reign, the practice had not yet been abandoned. Later the law was applied more leniently: when officials and clerks embezzled on their own authority and the offense warranted the maximum penalty, death was usually commuted. Even so, the gravest cases still ended in tattooing and assignment to the island—Qian Xianzhi, who held a court appointment, and Li Xifu, a former transport commissioner, were not spared. More recently the court's law has grown still more lenient: when chief clerks, petty officials, and military clerks offend, death is commuted in every case, with almost no distinction among them. We ask that the precedents of the founding emperors be invoked: in all cases of embezzlement on one's own authority involving substantial booty, let the throne's sage judgment be sought from time to time, to restore discipline at court and throughout the realm. An edict followed: "Henceforth, in all cases of corrupt embezzlement on one's own authority where the offense warrants death and the booty is substantial, imperial direction shall be sought."

南渡後，諸配隸，祥符編敕止四十六條，慶曆中，增至百七十餘條。至於淳熙，又增至五百七十條，則四倍於慶曆矣。配法既多，犯者日眾，黥配之人，所至充斥。淳熙十一年，校書郎羅點言其太重，乃詔刑、寺集議奏聞。至十四年，未有定論。其後臣僚議，以為：「若止居役，不離鄉井，則幾惠姦，不足以懲惡；若盡用配法，不恤黥刺，則面目一壞，誰復顧藉？強民適長威力，有過無由自新。檢照元豐刑部格，諸編配人自有不移、不放及移放條限；政和編配格又有情重、稍重、情輕、稍輕四等。若依倣舊格，稍加參訂，如入情重，則倣舊刺面，用不移不放之格；其次稍重，則止刺額角，用配及十年之格；其次稍輕，則與免黥刺，用不刺面、役滿放還之格；其次最輕，則降為居役，別立年限縱免之格。儻有從坐編管，則置之本城，減其放限。如此，則於見行條法並無牴牾，且使刺面之法，專處情犯凶，而其他偶麗於罪，皆得全其面目，知所顧藉，可以自新。省黥徒，銷姦黨，誠天下之切務。」即詔有司裁定，其後迄如舊制。

After the court crossed south, registered penal servitude was governed by only forty-six articles in the Xiangfu compiled edicts; under Qingli this rose to more than one hundred seventy. By the Chunxi era the total had reached five hundred seventy articles—four times the Qingli figure. As assignment statutes multiplied, offenders grew ever more numerous, and tattooed convicts sent to penal servitude crowded every destination. In Chunxi 11 (1184), Proofreader Luo Dian argued that penalties were too harsh; the throne ordered the Ministry of Justice and the Court of Judicial Review to confer and report. By Chunxi 14 (1187), no final decision had been reached. Later officials deliberated, arguing: "If offenders are merely put to local labor without leaving their native places, wrongdoing is almost indulged and evil goes insufficiently punished; if assignment statutes are applied in full without regard for tattooing, once a man's face is marred, who will care for him again? Violent men thereby grow bolder, and when they offend they have no way to reform themselves. Reviewing the Yuanfeng Ministry of Justice regulations, registered assignees had distinct rules governing non-transfer, non-release, and the limits on transfer and release; the Zhenghe registered-assignment regulations further divided cases into four grades: heavily culpable, somewhat heavy, lightly culpable, and somewhat light. If the old regulations are followed with modest revision, the heavily culpable would be face-tattooed as before and governed by the no-transfer, no-release rules; the somewhat heavy would be tattooed only on the forehead and temples and governed by the ten-year assignment rules; the somewhat light would be exempt from tattooing and governed by the rules allowing release after service without facial marking; the lightest would be reduced to local labor service, with separate rules fixing a term for release and exemption. Accomplices subject to registered supervision would remain in the prefectural seat, with their release term shortened. In this way existing statutes would remain intact, face tattooing would be reserved for the heavily culpable and violent, and others who happened to fall afoul of the law could keep their faces unmarked, retain a sense of shame and standing, and find a path to reform. Reducing tattooed convicts and breaking criminal cliques is truly an urgent task for the empire. An edict ordered the offices to settle the matter; in the end the old system remained unchanged.

嘉泰四年，臣僚言：「配隸之人，蓋有兩等。其鄉民一時鬥毆殺傷，及胥吏犯贓貸命流配等人，設使逃逸，未必能為大過，止欲從徒，配本州牢城重役，限滿給據，復為良民。至於累犯強盜，及聚眾販賣私商，曾經殺傷捕獲之人，非村民、胥吏之比，欲並配屯駐軍，立為年限，限滿改刺從正軍。」從之。其所配之地，自高宗來，或配廣南海外四州，或配淮、漢、四川，迄度宗之世無定法，皆不足紀也。

In Jiatai 4 (1204), officials memorialized: "Prisoners registered for penal servitude fall into two broad categories. Villagers who kill or wound in sudden brawls, and clerks who embezzle and are spared death and exiled to penal servitude—even if they escape, they need not become great criminals; they should simply be demoted from hard labor to heavy service in the local penal fort, receive a certificate at term's end, and return to common life. Repeat robbers, smugglers who operate in gangs, and men previously captured after killing or wounding are another matter entirely; they should all be assigned to garrison troops for a fixed term, then tattooed again and enrolled in the regular army when the term expires. The throne approved. As for where convicts were sent, from Emperor Gaozong onward some went to Guangnan's four overseas prefectures, others to the Huai, Han, and Sichuan regions; by Emperor Duzong's reign there was no fixed rule, and the details need not be recorded here.

凡內外所上刑獄，刑部、審刑院、大理寺參主之，又有糾察在京刑獄司以相審覆。官制既行，罷審刑、糾察，歸其職於刑部。四方之獄，則提點刑獄統治之。官司之獄：在開封，有府司、左右軍巡院；在諸司，有殿前、馬步軍司及四排岸；外則三京府司、左右軍巡院，諸州軍院、司理院，下至諸縣皆有獄。諸獄皆置樓牖，設漿鋪席，時具沐浴，食令溫暖，寒則給薪炭、衣物，暑則五日一滌枷杻。郡縣則所職之官躬行檢視，獄敝則修之使固。

All criminal cases submitted from within and outside the capital were jointly handled by the Ministry of Justice, the Court for Review of Penalties, and the Court of Judicial Review; the Inspectorate for Capital Penal Detentions provided additional review. When the new official system took effect, the Court for Review of Penalties and the Inspectorate were abolished and their duties returned to the Ministry of Justice. Prisons throughout the realm were placed under judicial intendants. Government detention facilities in Kaifeng included the prefectural office and the Left and Right Military Patrol Courts; within the central bureaus there were the Palace Command, the Horse and Foot Army Commands, and the Four River Patrols; beyond the capital, the Three Capitals' prefectural offices and Military Patrol Courts, prefectural and garrison detention centers, judicial review courts, and even county jails all maintained prisons. Every prison had ventilated upper windows, padded bedding, and regular bathing; food was served warm, fuel and clothing were provided in cold weather, and in summer cangues and shackles were cleaned every five days. In prefectures and counties the responsible officials inspected in person; dilapidated prisons were repaired and secured.

神宗即位初，詔曰：「獄者，民命之所繫也。比聞有司歲考天下之奏，而多瘐死。深惟獄吏並緣為姦，檢視不明，使吾元元橫罹其害。書不云乎：『與其殺不辜，寧失不經。』其具為令：應諸州軍巡司院所禁罪人，一歲在獄病死及二人，五縣以上州歲死三人，開封府司、軍巡歲死七人，推吏、獄卒皆杖六十，增一人則加一等，罪止杖一百。典獄官如推獄，經兩犯即坐從違制。提點刑獄歲終會死者之數上之，中書檢察。死者過多，官吏雖已行罰，當更黜責。」未幾，復詔：「失入死罪，已決三人，正官除名編管，貳者除名，次貳者免官勒停，吏配隸千里。二人以下，視此有差。不以赦降、去官原免。未決，則比類遞降一等；赦降、去官，又減一等。令審刑院、刑部斷議官，歲終具嘗失入徒罪五人以上，京朝官展磨勘年，幕職、州縣官展考，或不與任滿指射差遣，或罷，仍即斷絕支賜。」以前法未備，故有是詔。又嘗詔：「官司失入人罪，而罪人應原免，官司猶論如法，即失出人罪；若應徒而杖，罪人應原免者，官司乃得用因罪人以致罪之律。」帝以國初廢大理獄非是，元豐元年詔曰：「大理有獄尚矣。今中都官有所劾治，皆寓繫開封諸獄，囚既猥多，難於隔訊，盛夏疾疫，傳致瘐死，或主者異見，歲時不決，朕甚愍焉。其復大理獄，置卿一人，少卿二人，丞四人，專主鞫訊；檢法官二人，主簿一人。應三司、諸寺監吏犯杖、笞不俟追究者，聽即決，餘悉送大理獄。其應奏者，並令刑部、審刑院詳斷。應天下奏按亦上之。」五年，分命少卿左斷刑、右治獄。斷刑則評事、檢法詳斷，丞議，正審；治獄則丞專推劾，主簿掌按籍，少卿分領其事，而卿總焉。六年，刑部言：「舊詳斷官分公按訖，主判官論議改正，發詳議官覆議。有差失問難，則書於檢尾，送斷官改正，主判官審定，然後判成。自詳斷官歸大理為評事、司直，議官為丞，所斷按草，不由長貳，類多差忒。」迺定制：分評事、司直與正為斷司，丞與長貳為議司。凡斷公按，正先詳其當否，論定則簽印注日，移議司覆議，有辨難，乃具議改正，長貳更加審定，然後判成錄奏。

Early in Emperor Shenzong's reign an edict declared: "Prisons hold the people's lives in the balance. We have lately heard that in the annual review of reports from across the realm, many prisoners die of illness in detention. On reflection, prison clerks exploit their posts for corruption while inspections fail, causing innocent common people to suffer without cause. Does not the Classic say: 'Better to risk leaving the guilty unpunished than to execute the innocent'? Draw up regulations: wherever two prisoners die of illness in detention within a year—or three in a prefecture of five counties or more, or seven in Kaifeng's prefectural office and Military Patrol Courts—all interrogators and jailers shall receive sixty blows of the staff; each additional death adds one degree of punishment, up to one hundred blows. Prison wardens, like interrogators, face charges of violating imperial edict upon a second offense. At year's end judicial intendants shall tally deaths and report upward; the Secretariat shall review the figures. When deaths are excessive, officials already punished should still face dismissal and further censure. Soon afterward another edict followed: "For wrongful conviction in a capital case where three persons have already been executed—the principal official is stripped of rank and placed under registered supervision, the second official is stripped of rank, the third is dismissed and forced to retire, and clerks are sent to penal servitude a thousand li away. For two victims or fewer, penalties vary accordingly. Amnesty, sentence reduction, or leaving office shall not restore rank or exempt punishment. If execution has not yet taken place, reduce the penalty by one degree by analogy; amnesty, sentence reduction, or leaving office reduces the penalty by one further degree. Adjudicating and deliberating officials of the Court for Review of Penalties and the Ministry of Justice who, by year's end, have wrongfully convicted five or more persons of penal servitude shall face extended merit review for metropolitan officials, extended evaluations for staff and prefectural officials, denial of assignment at term's end, or dismissal—with stipends immediately terminated. Because earlier statutes were incomplete, this edict was issued. An edict also stated: "When a government office wrongfully convicts someone who should in fact be pardoned, yet the office still applies the law as written, that counts as wrongful acquittal; if penal servitude is warranted but flogging is imposed instead, and the offender should be pardoned, the office may then apply the statute on incurring guilt through the offender." The emperor held that abolishing the Court of Judicial Review prison at the dynasty's founding had been a mistake. In the first year of Yuanfeng (1078) an edict declared: "The Court of Judicial Review has long maintained its own prison. Today impeached metropolitan officials are all held in Kaifeng's various prisons; with so many prisoners, separate interrogation is difficult; midsummer epidemics cause deaths in detention, or presiding officials disagree and cases linger unresolved for years—the emperor is deeply troubled. Restore the Court of Judicial Review prison; appoint one chief, two vice chiefs, and four assistants devoted to interrogation; also appoint two legal inspectors and one registrar. Clerks of the Three Departments and various directorates guilty of bastinado- or cudgel-level offenses not requiring further investigation may be judged on the spot; all others go to the Court of Judicial Review prison. Cases requiring imperial submission shall be carefully adjudicated by the Ministry of Justice and the Court for Review of Penalties. All submitted cases from across the realm shall also be forwarded to the court. In the fifth year the vice chiefs were given separate duties: the left vice chief adjudicated penalties, the right managed the prison. In penalty adjudication, judicial reviewers and legal inspectors decided cases, assistants deliberated, and the chief gave final review; in prison management, assistants handled investigation and impeachment, the registrar kept the case register, the vice chiefs divided the work, and the chief oversaw all. In the sixth year the Ministry of Justice reported: "Formerly, after detailed-review officials finished dividing public cases, the presiding official deliberated and corrected them, then sent them to deliberation officials for re-deliberation. When errors were found, notes were appended to the review document, sent back to adjudicating officials for correction, finalized by the presiding official, and only then was judgment completed. After detailed-review officials returned to the Court of Judicial Review as judicial reviewers and case investigators, and deliberation officials became assistants, draft judgments no longer passed through the chief and vice chiefs, and errors became frequent. Regulations were then fixed: judicial reviewers and case investigators together with the chief formed the Adjudication Division; assistants with the chief and vice chiefs formed the Deliberation Division. In all public cases the chief first reviewed correctness; once satisfied he signed, sealed, and dated the record and forwarded it to the Deliberation Division; if objections arose, revised deliberations were prepared, the chief and vice chiefs made final determination, and only then was judgment completed, recorded, and submitted.

元祐初，三省言：「舊置糾察司，蓋欲察其違慢，所以謹重獄事，罷歸刑部，無復糾察之制。請以糾察職事，委御史臺刑察兼之，臺獄則尚書省右司糾察之。」三年，罷大理寺獄。初，大理置獄，本以囚繫淹滯，俾獄事有所統，而大理卿崔台符等不能奉承德意，雖士大夫若命婦，獄辭小有連逮，輒捕繫。凡邏者所探報，即下之獄。傅會鍛鍊，無不誣服。至是，台符等皆得罪，獄迺罷。八年，中書省言：「昨詔內外，歲終具諸獄囚死之數。而諸路所上，遂以禁繫二十而死一者不具，即是歲繫二百人，許以十人獄死，恐州縣弛意獄事，甚非欽恤之意。」詔刑部自今不許輒分禁繫之數。

Early in Yuanyou the Three Departments reported: "The Inspectorate had been established precisely to detect delay and negligence in prison affairs; after its abolition and the return of duties to the Ministry of Justice, no inspection system remained. We ask that inspectorate duties be assigned to the Censorate's Penal Inspection section; Censorate prisons shall be inspected by the Secretariat's Right Office of the Ministry of Revenue." In the third year the Court of Judicial Review prison was abolished. When the Court of Judicial Review prison was first established, the aim was to end prolonged detention and give prison affairs unified oversight; yet Chief Cui Taifu and others failed to carry out the imperial intent—even gentry and officials' wives were promptly arrested whenever prison testimony even slightly implicated them. Whatever tip-offs the censors submitted went straight to the prison. Through fabricated charges and coerced confessions, none failed to admit falsely. Taifu and his colleagues were all punished, and the prison was abolished. In the eighth year the Secretariat reported: "An edict recently ordered all jurisdictions to report at year's end the number of prisoners who died in detention. Yet circuit reports omitted cases where one prisoner died among twenty detained—effectively allowing ten deaths per two hundred detainees per year; we fear prefectures and counties will neglect prison affairs, contrary to reverent compassion." An edict ordered the Ministry of Justice that from now on no report may divide the total number detained.

紹聖二年，戶部如三司故事，置推勘檢法官，應在京諸司事干錢穀當追究者，從杖已下即定斷。三年，復置大理寺右治獄，官屬視元豐員，仍增置司直一員。大理卿路昌衡請：「分大理寺丞為左、右推，若有異，自左移右。再變，即命官審問，或御史臺推究。不許開封府互勘及地分探報，庶革互送挾之弊。徒已上罪，移御史臺。命官追攝者，悉依條。若探報涉虛、用情託者，並收坐以聞。」

In Shaosheng 2 (1095), the Ministry of Revenue, following Three Department precedent, established investigating and legal-inspection officials; for metropolitan cases involving grain and funds requiring investigation, judgment up to bastinado level could be rendered on the spot. In the third year the Court of Judicial Review's right prison-management office was restored; staffing matched the Yuanfeng complement, with one additional case investigator. Chief Lu Changheng requested: "Court of Judicial Review assistants should be divided into left and right investigators; if they disagree, cases move from left to right. If disagreement persists, appoint an official to examine the case, or have the Censorate investigate. Do not allow the Kaifeng prefectural office to conduct mutual investigations or local tip-offs, so as to eliminate the abuse of shuffling cases for leverage. Offenses at penal servitude and above are transferred to the Censorate. When appointed officials are summoned for arrest, all procedures follow statute. If tip-offs prove false or favoritism is shown, all involved shall be charged and reported."

初，法寺斷獄，大辟失入有罰，失出不坐。至是，以失出死罪五人比失入一人，失出徒、流罪三名，亦如之。著為令。元符三年，刑部言：「祖宗重失入之罪，所以恤刑。夫失出，臣下之小過；好生，聖人之大德。請罷失出之責，使有司讞議之間，務盡忠恕。」詔可。政和三年，臣僚言：「遠方官吏，文法既疏，刑罰失中，不能無。願委耳目之官，季一分錄所部囚禁，遇有抑，先釋而後以聞。歲終較所釋多寡，為之殿最。其徼功故出有罪者，論如法。」詔令刑部立法：「諸入人徒、流之罪已結案，而錄問官吏能駮正，或因事而能推正者，累及七人，比大辟一名推賞。」

Initially, when the Court of Judicial Review decided cases, wrongful conviction in a capital case carried punishment, but wrongful acquittal did not. Now five wrongful acquittals in capital cases were treated as one wrongful conviction; three wrongful acquittals in penal servitude or exile cases were treated the same way. This was enacted as a statute. In Yuanfu 3 (1100), the Ministry of Justice reported: "The founding emperors treated wrongful conviction as a grave offense, thereby showing compassion in the application of punishment. Excessive leniency in sentencing is, after all, only a minor fault on the part of officials; Cherishing life is the sage's supreme virtue. We ask that liability for excessive leniency be abolished, so that in deliberating cases responsible offices may fully embody loyalty and humane forbearance. The emperor approved the proposal. In the third year of Zhenghe (1113), an official memorialized: "In the remote circuits, where legal standards are lax and punishments often miss the mark, wrongful outcomes cannot be entirely avoided. We ask that supervisory officials, the court's eyes and ears, each quarter register one-tenth of the prisoners under their jurisdiction; whenever oppression is found, they should release the prisoner first and report afterward. At year's end the number released should be compared and used to rank officials as superior or inferior. Anyone who, seeking credit, deliberately releases the guilty shall be prosecuted under the law. An edict directed the Ministry of Justice to draft regulations: "In any closed case of penal servitude or exile that a recording-and-interrogation official overturns, or that is corrected in the course of review, if seven persons are affected in all, the official shall receive the same commendation as for correcting one capital case."

紹興六年，令諸鞫勘有情款異同而病死者，提刑司研究之，如，申朝廷取旨。十二年，令諸推究翻異獄，毋差初官、蔭子及新進士，擇曾經歷任人。二十七年，令監察御史每冬夏點獄，有鞫勘失實者，照刑部郎官，直行移送。二十九年，令殺人無證、屍不經驗之獄，具案奏裁，委提刑審問。如有可疑及翻異，從本司差官重勘，案成上本路，移他監司審定，具案聞奏。否則監司再遣官勘之，又不伏，復奏取旨。先是，有司建議：「外路獄三經翻異，在千里內者移大理寺。」三十一年，刑部以為非祖宗法，遂釐正之。乾道中，諸州翻異之囚，既經本州，次檄路，或再翻異，乃移隔路，至有越兩路者。官吏旁午於道，逮繫者困於追對。四年，乃令：「鞫勘本路累嘗差官猶稱者，惟檄路，如尚翻異，則奏裁。」淳熙三年，令縣尉權縣事，毋自鞫獄，即令丞、簿參之。全闕，則於州官或縣選官權攝。

In the sixth year of Shaoxing (1136), an order required that whenever an interrogation produced conflicting confessions and the prisoner died in custody, the circuit Judicial Commissioner should investigate; if a wrongful conviction was found, the case was to be reported to the throne for decision. In the twelfth year (1142), an order stipulated that in reinvestigating overturned cases, newly appointed officials, holders of hereditary privilege, and fresh jinshi graduates were not to be assigned; experienced officials were to be selected instead. In the twenty-seventh year (1157), investigating censors were ordered to inspect prisons every winter and summer; when an interrogation was found false, the responsible officials were to be transferred for prosecution under the same rules applied to directors in the Ministry of Justice. In the twenty-ninth year (1159), cases of homicide lacking witnesses or without examination of the corpse were to be submitted in full for imperial decision and referred to the Judicial Commissioner for interrogation. If doubt remained or a confession was overturned, the office was to assign an official to reinvestigate; once complete, the file went up within the circuit, was sent to another supervisory commissioner for review, and was then reported to the throne. Otherwise the supervisory commissioner sent another investigator; if the prisoner still refused to accept the finding, the case was again submitted for imperial decision. Previously officials had proposed: "For outer-circuit cases overturned three times, if within a thousand li, transfer them to the Supreme Court." In the thirty-first year (1161), the Ministry of Justice ruled that this was not ancestral practice and rectified the rule. During the Qiandao period (1165–1173), prisoners who overturned their confessions, after review in their home prefecture, were next sent to the adjacent circuit; a second reversal could move the case to a distant circuit, and some cases even crossed two circuits. Officials shuttled endlessly along the roads, while detainees were exhausted by repeated hearings. In the fourth year (1168), an order declared: "When a circuit had repeatedly assigned investigators and the prisoner still maintained his claim, the case went only to the adjacent circuit; if he overturned his confession again, it was submitted for imperial decision." In the third year of Chunxi (1176), when a county captain temporarily administered a county, he was forbidden to interrogate cases himself; the county aide and registrar were to participate instead. If both were unavailable, a prefectural official or an appointee from a neighboring county was to serve in their place.

金作贖刑，蓋以鞭扑之罪，情法有可議者，則寬之也。穆王贖及五刑，非法矣。宋損益舊制，凡用官蔭得減贖，所以尊爵祿、養廉恥也。

"Using gold to redeem punishment" applied to flogging offenses where facts or law left room for argument, and clemency could be shown. When King Mu extended monetary redemption to all five punishments, he departed from proper law. The Song adjusted the old system so that those entitled by official yin privilege could reduce or redeem penalties—honoring rank and emolument and cultivating a sense of honor.

乾德四年，大理正高繼申上言：「《刑統》名例律：三品、五品、七品以上官，親屬犯罪，各有等第減贖。恐年代已深，不肖自恃先蔭，不畏刑章。今犯罪身無官，須祖、父曾任本朝官，據品秩得減贖；如仕于前代，須有功惠及民、為時所推、歷官三品以上，乃得請。」從之。後又定：「流內品官任流外職，準律文，徒罪以上依當贖法。諸司授勒留官及歸司人犯徒流等罪，公罪許贖，私罪以決罰論。」淳化四年，詔諸州民犯罪，或入金贖，長吏得以任情而輕重之，自今不得以贖論。婦人犯杖以下，非故為，量輕重笞罰或贖銅釋之。

In the fourth year of Qiande (966), Senior Correcting Judge Gao Jishen memorialized: "The Statutes' General Principles provide that relatives of officials of third, fifth, and seventh rank and above receive graduated reductions or redemption according to rank. As generations pass, I fear that unworthy men rely on ancestral privilege and no longer fear the penal code. When the offender himself holds no office, his grandfather or father must have served this dynasty; only then may he claim reduction or redemption according to their rank; if they served a prior dynasty, they must have benefited the people, won contemporary esteem, and reached third rank or above before a petition may be granted. The emperor approved. Later a rule was added: "When a ranked official serving in an unranked post commits penal servitude or a greater offense, the statutory redemption-by-substitution rules apply. Officials retained on assignment or returned personnel who commit penal servitude or exile may redeem public offenses; private offenses are punished directly." In the fourth year of Chunhua (993), an edict ended the practice by which prefectural chiefs could arbitrarily lighten or aggravate monetary redemption when commoners paid to redeem punishment; henceforth such payments would not count as legal redemption. Women convicted of staff-beating or lesser offenses, when the act was not deliberate, were to receive bamboo strokes according to severity or be released on payment of copper.

仁宗深憫夫民之無知也，欲立贖法以待薄刑，迺詔有司曰：「先王用法簡約，使人知禁而易從。後代設茶、酒、鹽稅之禁，奪民厚利，刑用滋章。今之編敕，皆出律外，又數改更，官吏且不能曉，百姓安得聞之？一陷于理，情雖可哀，法不得贖。豈禮樂之化未行，而專用刑罰之弊與？漢文帝使天下人入粟於邊，以受爵免罪，幾于刑措。其議科條非著于律者，或冒利犯禁，奢侈違令，或過可憫，別為贖法。鄉民以穀麥，市人以錢帛，使民重穀麥，免刑罰，則農桑自勸，富壽可期矣。」詔下，論者以為富人得贖而貧者不能免，非朝廷用法之意。時命輔臣分總職事，以參知政事范仲淹領刑法，未及有所建明而仲淹罷，事遂寢。至和初，又詔：「前代帝王後，嘗仕本朝官不及七品者，祖父母、父母、妻子罪流以下，聽贖。雖不仕而嘗被賜予者，有罪，非巨，亦如之。」隨州司理參軍李抃父毆人死，抃上所授官以贖父罪，帝哀而許之。君子謂之失刑，然自是未嘗為比。而終宋之世，贖法惟及輕刑而已。

Deeply moved by the people's ignorance, Emperor Renzong wished to establish a redemption law for lesser penalties and issued an edict the responsible offices: "The ancient kings kept the law simple so people could know the prohibitions and obey them easily. Later dynasties imposed monopolies on tea, wine, and salt, seizing the people's livelihood, and punishments multiplied without end. Today's compiled edicts all exceed the basic code and are revised again and again; officials themselves can scarcely master them—how can common people even learn of them? Once caught in the net of law, however pitiable the circumstances, redemption is unavailable. Has the civilizing force of rites and music failed, leaving us to rely on punishment alone? Emperor Wen of Han allowed people to send grain to the frontier in exchange for rank and remission of crimes, and executions nearly disappeared. For offenses not codified in the statutes—profiteering against prohibitions, luxury in defiance of edicts, or blunders deserving pity—a separate redemption law should be created. Let villagers pay in grain and townspeople in cash and silk; if people value grain and are spared punishment, farming will flourish of itself and prosperity may follow. When the edict was promulgated, critics objected that the wealthy could buy their way out while the poor could not—contrary to the court's intent. Chief ministers were then assigned portfolios; Vice Grand Councilor Fan Zhongyan oversaw criminal law, but before he could act he was dismissed and the plan lapsed. At the start of the Zhihe era (1054), another edict allowed redemption for grandparents, parents, and wives of descendants of former imperial houses who had served this dynasty below seventh rank, for offenses up to exile. Even those who never held office but had received imperial gifts might redeem, provided the offense was not extremely heinous." Li Bian, judicial assistant in Suizhou, whose father had beaten a man to death, offered his own appointment to redeem his father; the emperor, moved, consented. Men of principle called it a failure of justice, yet it was never repeated. For the rest of the dynasty, redemption applied only to lighter penalties.

恩宥之制，凡大赦及天下，釋雜犯死罪以下，甚則常赦所不原罪，皆除之。凡曲赦，惟一路或一州，或別京，或畿內。凡德音，則死及流罪降等，餘罪釋之，間亦釋流罪。所被廣狹無常。又，天子歲自錄京師繫囚，畿內則遣使，往往雜犯死罪以下，第降等，杖、笞釋之，或徒罪亦得釋。若?及諸路，則命監司錄焉。

Under the system of gracious pardon, a general amnesty covering the realm released all mixed offenses below capital crime; at its broadest, even offenses normally excluded from routine amnesties were cleared. A partial amnesty applied to a single circuit, a single prefecture, a separate capital, or the metropolitan region. A clemency edict reduced capital and exile sentences by one grade and released lesser offenses; exile was sometimes remitted as well. Its scope—broad or narrow—was never fixed. Each year the emperor personally reviewed prisoners in the capital; in the metropolitan region he sent envoys. Mixed offenses below capital crime were often reduced one grade; staff and bamboo punishments were remitted, and sometimes even penal servitude. When the review extended to the circuits as well, supervisory commissioners were ordered to register prisoners accordingly.

初，太宗嘗因郊禮議赦，有秦再思者，上書願勿赦，引諸葛亮佐劉備數十年不赦事。帝頗疑之。時趙普對曰：「凡郊祀肆眚，聖朝彝典，其仁如天，若劉備區區一方，臣所不取。」上善之，遂定赦。初，太祖將祀南郊，詔：「兩京、諸道，自十月後犯強竊盜，不得預郊祀之赦。所在長吏告諭，民無冒法。」是後將祀，必先申明此詔。天聖五年，馬亮言：「朝廷雖有是詔，而法官斷獄，乃言終是會赦，多所寬貸，惠姦失詔旨。」遂詔：「已下約束而犯劫盜，乃官典受贓，勿復奏，悉論如律。」七年春，京師雨，彌月不止。仁宗謂輔臣曰：「豈政事未當天心耶？」因言：「向者大辟覆奏，州縣至於三，京師至於五，蓋重人命如此。其戒有司，決獄議罪，毋或枉濫。」又曰：「赦不欲數，然捨是無以召和氣。」遂命赦天下。帝在位久，明於人之情偽，尤惡訐人陰事，故一時士大夫習為惇厚。久之，小人乘間密上書，疏人過失，好事稍相與唱和，又按人赦前事。翰林學士張方平、御史呂誨以為言，因下詔曰：「蓋聞治古，君臣同心，上下協穆，而無激訐之俗，何其德之盛也！朕竊慕焉。嘉與公卿大夫同底斯道，而教化未至，澆薄日滋。比者中外羣臣，多上章言人過失，暴揚難驗之罪，或外託公言，內緣私忿，詆欺曖昧，苟陷善良。又赦令者，所以與天下更始，而有司多舉按赦前之事，殆非信命令，重刑罰，使人洒心自新之意也。今有上言告人罪，言赦前事者，訊之。至於言官，宜務大體，非事關朝政，自餘小過細故，勿須察舉。」

Once, as Emperor Taizong prepared to grant amnesty at the suburban sacrifice, Qin Zaisi petitioned against it, citing Zhuge Liang's decades of service under Liu Bei without ever proclaiming amnesty. The emperor hesitated. Zhao Pu replied: "Clemency at the suburban sacrifice is a sacred dynastic constant; its benevolence is heavenlike. Liu Bei's petty domain is no model for us." The emperor accepted this and confirmed the amnesty. When Emperor Taizu prepared the Southern Suburb sacrifice, he issued an edict: "In both capitals and all circuits, robbery or theft committed after the tenth month shall not qualify for the suburban amnesty. Local chiefs were to proclaim the rule so that none would offend against it. Thereafter, before each sacrifice, this restriction was reaffirmed. In the fifth year of Tiansheng (1027), Ma Liang said: "Though the court has this edict, judges still predict eventual amnesty and grant excessive leniency, indulging criminals and defeating the edict's purpose." An edict responded: "Robbery after this deadline, or bribery by clerks, shall no longer be memorialized for special treatment; all such cases are to be sentenced by law." In spring of the seventh year (1029), rain in the capital fell without pause for a full month. Emperor Renzong asked his chief ministers: "Has our governance failed to accord with Heaven's will?" He added: "Formerly capital cases required three levels of review in the prefectures and counties, five in the capital—such was our regard for human life. Let this warn all who judge: decide cases and assess guilt without wrong or excess." He also said: "I do not wish amnesties to be frequent, yet without them there is no way to summon harmonious qi." He then proclaimed a general amnesty. The emperor reigned long, knew well the truth and falsity in men's hearts, and especially detested secret denunciation; for a time scholar-officials practiced sincere forbearance. In time petty men seized their chance with secret memorials exposing others' faults; busybodies took up the chorus and revived pre-amnesty grievances. Hanlin Academician Zhang Fangping and Censor Lü Hui remonstrated, prompting an edict: "In antiquity, ruler and ministers were united, high and low in harmony, and fierce denunciation had no place—what abundant virtue that was! I aspire to it. I would gladly walk this path with my ministers, yet instruction has not taken hold and shallow conduct grows daily. Lately officials at court and in the provinces have memorialized one another's faults, airing unverified charges, cloaking private grudges in public language, and slandering the innocent on vague pretexts. Amnesty edicts are meant to give the realm a fresh start, yet offices often prosecute pre-amnesty conduct—hardly the way to make commands trusted, punishments respected, and hearts renewed. Henceforth anyone who accuses another by citing pre-amnesty conduct shall himself be interrogated. Remonstrating officials should keep to the larger pattern; unless a matter touches court governance, minor faults and trivial details need not be investigated or reported."

神宗即位，又詔曰：「夫赦令，國之大恩，所以蕩滌瑕穢，納於自新之地，是以聖王重焉。中外臣僚多以赦前事捃摭吏民，興起獄訟，苟有詿誤，咸不自安，甚非持心近厚之義，使吾號令不信於天下。其內外言事、按察官，毋得依前舉劾，具按取旨，否則科違制之罪。御史臺覺察彈奏，法寺有此奏按，許舉駁以聞。」知諫院司馬光言曰：「按察之官，以赦前事興起獄訟，禁之誠為大善。至於言事之官，事體稍異。何則？御史之職，本以繩按百僚，糾擿隱伏。姦邪之狀，固非一日所為。國家素尚寬仁，數下赦令，或一歲之間至於再三，若赦前之事皆不得言，則其可言者無幾矣。萬一有姦邪之臣，朝廷不知，誤加進用，御史欲言則違今日之詔，若其不言，則陛下何從知之。臣恐因此言者得以藉口偷安，姦邪得以放心不懼。此乃人臣之至幸，非國家之長利也。請追改前詔，刊去『言事』兩字。」光論至再，帝諭以「言者好以赦前事誣人」，光對曰：「若言之得實，誠所欲聞，若其不實，當罪言者。」帝命光送詔于中書。

At the start of his reign Emperor Shenzong issued an edict: "Amnesty is the state's greatest grace, washing away stains and opening the way to renewal; sage kings therefore treasured it. Yet officials inside and outside dredge up pre-amnesty conduct against clerks and commoners and raise lawsuits; at the slightest error all live in fear—far from generous intent, and Our commands lose credibility across the realm. Memorializing officials and investigating censors must not, as before, impeach on such grounds; they shall submit cases for decision or face punishment for violating an edict. The Censorate shall monitor and impeach; if the judiciary receives such a case, rebuttal may be reported to the throne. Sima Guang of the Remonstrance Bureau said: "Forbidding investigating censors to raise lawsuits from pre-amnesty conduct is indeed a great good. For memorializing officials, however, the matter is somewhat different. Why? The censor's duty is to inspect all officials and expose what is hidden. Wicked conduct is never the work of a single day. The state has long favored leniency and issues amnesties repeatedly—sometimes three or four in a year; if pre-amnesty conduct may never be reported, little would remain for censors to say. Should a wicked minister escape notice and win promotion, a censor who speaks violates today's edict; if he stays silent, how will Your Majesty know? I fear memorializers will seize an excuse for complacency and the wicked will no longer fear exposure. That would be the officials' greatest comfort, not the state's lasting good. I ask that the prior edict be revised and the words 'memorializing officials' removed. Guang argued twice. The emperor said memorializers liked to slander people with pre-amnesty charges. Guang replied: "If true, that is exactly what I wish to hear; if false, punish the speaker." The emperor ordered Guang to take the edict to the Secretariat.

熙寧七年三月，帝以旱，欲降赦。時已兩赦，王安石曰：「湯旱，以六事自責曰：『政事不節與？』若一歲三赦，是政不節矣，非所以弭災也。」乃止。八年，編定廢免人敘格，常赦則郡縣以格敘用，凡三朞一敘，即朞未滿而遇非次赦者，亦如之。

In the third month of the seventh year of Xining (1074), drought moved the emperor to grant amnesty. Two amnesties had already been issued. Wang Anshi said: "When the sage-king Tang faced drought, he blamed himself in six matters: 'Was my governance undisciplined? Three amnesties in one year mean undisciplined governance; that is no way to end a disaster." The amnesty was abandoned. In the eighth year (1075), regulations for reinstating dismissed officials were compiled; on routine amnesty prefectures and counties reinstated by schedule—generally one reinstatement every three periods; if a special amnesty came before a period ended, the same rule applied.

元祐元年，門下省言：「當官以職事墮曠，雖去官不免，猶可言；至於赦降大恩，與物更始，雖劫盜殺人亦蒙寬宥，豈可以一事差失，負罪終身？今刑部所修不以去官、赦降原減條，請更刪改。」

In the first year of Yuanyou (1086), the Gate Department said: "Negligence in office may still be prosecuted after an official leaves his post; but when amnesty descends as a great grace and all things begin anew, even robbery and homicide receive mercy—how can a single lapse burden one for life? The Ministry of Justice is now drafting provisions that withhold remission or reduction after leaving office or under amnesty; we request that these be revised or deleted."

徽宗在位二十五年，而大赦二十六，曲赦十四，德音三十七。而南渡之後，紹熙歲至四赦，蓋刑政紊而恩益濫矣。

Emperor Huizong reigned twenty-five years yet proclaimed twenty-six general amnesties, fourteen partial amnesties, and thirty-seven clemency edicts. After the southward retreat, the Shaoxi years saw amnesty as often as four times a year—criminal administration grew chaotic and clemency ever more excessive.

宋自祖宗以來，三歲遇郊則赦，此常制也。世謂三歲一赦，於古無有。景祐中，言者以為：「三王歲祀圜丘，未嘗輒赦。自唐興兵以後，事天之禮不常行，因有大赦，以蕩亂獄。且有罪者寬之未必自新，被害者抑之未必無怨。不能自新，將復為惡，不能無怨，將悔為善。一赦而使民悔善長惡，政教之大患也。願罷三歲一赦，使良民懷惠，凶人知禁。或謂未可盡廢，即請命有司，前郊三日理罪人，有過誤者引而赦之。州縣須詔到倣此。」疏奏，朝廷重其事，第詔：「罪人情重者，毋得以一赦免。」然亦未嘗行。

From the founding ancestors onward, amnesty accompanied the suburban sacrifice every three years—this was regular practice. People say amnesty comes every three years; antiquity knew nothing like it. In the Jingyou era (1034–1038), critics argued: "The ancient sage-kings sacrificed yearly at the Round Mound and never casually granted amnesty. After the Tang, when warfare disrupted regular worship of Heaven, great amnesties were used to empty overcrowded prisons. Moreover, the guilty, when pardoned, do not necessarily reform; victims, when denied justice, do not necessarily cease to resent. Those who fail to reform will offend again; those who cannot cease to resent will regret having done good. An amnesty that teaches people to regret virtue and nourish vice is a grave calamity for government and moral instruction. We ask to abolish the triennial amnesty, so the law-abiding feel protected and the wicked know restraint. Some say it cannot be abolished entirely; then let responsible offices, three days before the suburban sacrifice, review prisoners and release those whose offenses were mere error. Prefectures and counties should follow the same practice when the edict arrives. The court took the memorial seriously but issued only an edict: "Where the offender's circumstances are grave, a single amnesty must not suffice for release. Even this was never enforced.

Cite this Chapter