Trial System in Ancient China Dynasty (below)

Keywords: Mixed system / Shen Criminal / Concurrent Judicial / Value Judgement

Summary: Mixed major difficult in ancient China, the main form of trial in Criminal cases, since the Western Zhou Dynasty already have, after several years of history and development, and gradually mature and standardized, institutionalized the Ming Dynasty. Its formation is thought Cautious Punishment a typical manifestation of Justice and Administration and management of alternative performance, while the joint hearing of our judicial system is an important symbol of Democracy in the bud. As the judicial system in ancient China, an important component, mixed system adapted to the needs of the authoritarian Political system, with its own features. in a particular historical period, mixed system has its special value, play a positive role. However, mixed system is also very obvious limitations on judicial activities today can be described as deep-rooted impact.



(C judicial Democracy unique characterization of the bud
And today's collegiate system is similar to ancient China Trial System in the trial of difficult cases has played a significant role. On the one hand, mixed system is able to draw on collective wisdom, to overcome the limitations of cognitive ability of individual judges, the possible deviations reduce to a minimum, on the other hand, mixed system is unique in ancient China characterization of judicial Democracy, that Democracy is the bud of Justice.

In accordance with the present of academic interpretation, the judicial power belongs to the people that Democracy is the embodiment of Justice, an independent judiciary embodied the spirit of democracy through the procedures appropriate to reflect public opinion conducted by the trial activity, it is based on judicial independence, people have the right through effective pathway is involved in the effective Administration of Justice and judicial supervision. This process emphasizes procedures are open, the suspect and the defendant's human rights protection, legal procedures, principles and system of judicial review to highlight the democratic process itself [1] (P.19. This is the democratic content of modern judicial interpretation. The Political system in ancient times under the totalitarian dictatorship is not democracy at all is not Justice, at least factor of Justice bud of democracy there. Some scholars of ancient China "Tingyi" that is " North Korea proposed "or the" Meeting "have done a special thought, that" Tingyi system as the main countries of China's feudal system of the times, reflecting the landlord class, the highest level of internal democracy. it is more effective in limiting the exercise of monarchical power of the non-normal , in a considerable range of important decisions to ensure that mistakes do not occur or less, to promote the state apparatus and the normal operation of the social body. "[2] is no doubt that the ancient judicial democracy is there.

The joint hearing is Tingyi system embodied in the judicial field, Ting Yi system is almost synonymous with Mixed system for the handling of difficult cases, by multiple agencies and judicial officials in a number of administrative officials involved with the judicial process, which Mixed system is to show the characteristics of democracy, justice, and also the formation of a standardized procedure. For example, the Western Zhou Dynasty's "three-barbed" system will be difficult cases to the ministers - Qun Li - people discussed and decided, among them contain more abundant factor of democracy. Tang Mixed forms of the two - and three Division III Division Judge things, though the degree of difficulty of the case, and the place of the trial participants are divided into two types of different, but the common denominator that reflects the sense of democracy was simple. to the Ming period, the types of cases and Mixed Mixed increase in personnel, the verdict so that justice means the standardization of factors of strengthening democracy. Qing Trial System requirements to be sentenced according to the Law of the case has been re- review and decision, effective monitoring of the judicial activities, played a factor in the proper judicial role of democracy. Thus, the ancient Trial System can be considered a unique characterization of judicial democracy.

"Democracy means respect and embody the judicial opinions of the majority." [1] (P.39, of course, in the specific historical conditions of ancient society, the public participation and the degree of judicial oversight is extremely limited, but from multiple organ The number of administrative officials in the trial of certain cases, also represents a certain number of public opinion, the referee made a convincing, a certain democratic. and the legal culture of ancient China will have democracy, factors that "democracy" in the word first appeared in the <<Book. multi->>: "Victoria is the Cheng Tang, multi-gram to Seoul, Jane, on behalf of the Xia Zuomin Lord." The point is: Xia Jie is no way, have lost four people, only Cheng Tang, Yin can Quartet , popular, and so exterminate Xia, instead, for the world of democracy. factors such as the history of democracy, the development of continuous distillation, in the legal field over the performance of the multi-sector officials to participate in major Criminal cases or difficult Court. Trial System can therefore be said in ancient China, the burgeoning judicial democracy - democracy embodies factors. Some people might think that this reference is wrong, that the judicial democracy, there must be broad public participation. In fact, judicial democracy also has the characteristics of the times, modern society, technological advances, public participation and judicial significantly enhanced opportunities for social activities, so "the mass of justice" appeared: no need to judge the legal rational and effective decision to resort to public feelings, the suspect or the right of the defendant is difficult to be fully protected, because they are a threat to society. changeable public opinion far superior to Law [3] (P.144. Such a trial is often destroyed in the process in the real internal mechanism, resulting in procedural justice loss. So in a way, the modern "democratic justice" and "the mass of justice" are two different things, it is more focused on facts and Law, most people involved in the case, the collective wisdom and careful detail undertake a comprehensive judgments, and finally come to an impartial referee. to the ancient Trial System, the traditional concept of non-defendants involved in restricting people's positive action in favor of executive branch officials by the major and difficult cases in the trial, both highlight the Political rulers of the Ching Ming, and that the democracy of ancient justice.

As some scholars have said, any time and place of the formation of the judicial system, are not only at that time, the local people's rational creation, but also the social integration of traditional and cultural heritage of accumulated experience. More importantly, as a direct involved in a case facing the formation of the system of dispute resolution, and only reflects society's expectations of people and value for Dispute pursuit, only to set a system based on the proper [4].

Trial System in Ancient China trying to form multi-sectoral joint work quickly and fairly resolve difficult cases, to meet the community and the trust of the people on the official. Meanwhile, mixed system, the legal profession through the absorption of other officials involved in the judicial decision-making, benefit the ruling group's solid rule. Here, the traditional social democratic values of justice to be reflected through the Trial System.

Third, mixed value assessment system
(One Trial System in Ancient China several features
First, the Trial System highlights the strong executive position, regardless of the Administration of justice in ancient China, a typical example. Ancient China "to exercise jurisdiction over the executive go, no independent trial court. Center trial, although a specialized agency, but monitoring Administration may also be trying the case "(Note: Xie Youping: <<Criminal Justice configuration and operation of power Research">, the Chinese People's Public Security University Press, 2006, P.52 .. "administrative" the word first appeared in the <<History discipline. Zhou Ji fourth>>: "To win the public, two-phase Duke Administration, Xiao Yue republic", referring to the common two-phase exercise all the powers of governing the country. Chinese traditionally defined as the state administration's policy activities, the country's government agencies and their responsibilities, have also demonstrated decision-making and administration, regardless. China confuse the traditional administrative and judicial, and Political regardless. the executive power includes the right decision, as the ruling class of bureaucrats using state administrative authority to manage state affairs, the Executive making the ruling class. administrative powers to infiltrate every aspect of state power, the traditional model is the authoritarian era of administrative centralization of Political normality. that is in a highly centralized system of administration under the state policies and the formulation of Laws and regulations, major crime and the final decision on punishment by the administrative authorities who palm, although the trial judge plays an important role, but the final decision is the Chief Executive. this does not mean that the administrative system in ancient China there is no executive power control mechanism, establishment of authoritarian rule from the Qin Dynasty, when the play until the fall of the Qing Dynasty, after two thousand years, largely through twelve dynasties, the executive power are more or less supervision system play its due role. Ancient Trial in China system to accommodate the administration of justice, administrative management, supervision of officials in conjunction with senior officials in the field of hearing difficult cases, the majority of which administration officials, highlighting the strong executive position.

Second, the number of joint trials generally no fixed limit. From the Western Zhou Dynasty's "three thorns" Start, the number of officials in ancient China joint trial is not a fixed limit. Some scholars had during the Han Dynasty to the Northern and Southern Mixed number of officials have done Research, that Supreme Court Official West Northern and Southern formed, Book of Taiwan and Imperial jointly in charge of the size of the central administration of justice, but did not form a fixed system, is not necessarily important cases heard by the joint trial of these three organs, but rather a "hybrid governance ", that is, with the emperor for the judiciary to appoint officials in conjunction with major, sometimes without the judiciary, composed of the trial group directly. This will depend on the emperor at that time head of the judiciary and judicial officers of the trust [5] (P. 226. to the Tang Dynasty, the Trial System in the further development, although the inside and outside the joint hearing of the points, but still has not fixed the number of joint trial. "Division III Judge" is usually by the supreme court, the Executive Board of Punishments and the Imperial in conjunction with the trial form, but there are more officials from the joint special circumstances. "Third Division history" is the school supreme court, Board of Punishments and Imperial subordinate officials tried to go places, but the exact number has not been defined. until the Ming Dynasty, Trial System truly institutionalized, made provision for joint hearing officers, but there is no clear on the specific number, only a few joint hearing more clearly the form of, for example, "Jiuqing round review" by nine Central Chief Executive in Council a review of the national death penalty cases . As for the "toward trial", "hot audit", "The trial" so there is no fixed number of explicit constraints. Xiangyan the Qing Dynasty, many government officials to participate in the autumn trial, there Jiuqing, Zhan Shi, Branch Road, military ministers, cabinet University Woods, etc, the exact number is not limited.

Again, mixed effect is uncertain, the final award by the Emperor. In other words, a significant or difficult for Criminal cases, although many officials in conjunction with the trial, but the result of the referee, but the final decision for the emperor to provide a reference, Mixed effect reflects the uncertainty of the Emperor or the result of the adoption of joint trials, or does not accept the result of joint trial. "ages in different degrees, there is a major case of 'hybrid proposal' and 'set of proposals' system, this proposal Penalty is actually a sovereign right to control derivative of the highest judicial means, because the discussion of the program must be the ruling monarch. "[5] (P.229 that, mixed system of centralized monarchy in ancient China, reflected in the judicial field. At the national power Run the external manifestations, the ancient Chinese political system is a centralized political, embodied in the rulers of exclusive state power, its gone through the founding of the Shang and Zhou to Qin's centralized packet and then to the monarch Sui centralization, to the Qing reaching the extreme, to the late Qing Dynasty finally disintegrated. judicial power as a state power in ancient China is always controlled and dominated by the rulers, but their individual power is limited, so the specific operation is dependent on their appointed officials to carry out. In order to prevent injustice in the specific operation or non-standard, but also enable Trial System in order to play the role of supervision and operating accuracy.

(B value of Ancient Trial System
"The concept of the value of the common people will take to meet their needs from the external relations materials produced" [6] (P.406, the trial system as the main content of litigation, the value of a concern. Trial System is a traditional Chinese judicial system "Cautious Punishment" the embodiment of thought, in a particular historical period has its special value, for the correct solution of difficult cases, monitoring of judicial officials has played a positive role.

First, is conducive to the interests of justice. Justice is the pursuit of ancient and modern concept of universal human, and social justice is the judicial pursuit of the common people. Trial System in a number of officials focused on the wisdom and strength to solve difficult, complex cases, ensuring justice. As a scholar of the Han Dynasty "Miscellaneous governance" as the evaluation, "Miscellaneous governance" system compared with the sole system, more reasonable, it can play a collective wisdom, to prevent individuals from arbitrary, subjective and one-sided favoritism fraud, is conducive to find out the facts of the case, the reduction of unjust, false or wrong cases from occurring, have a positive effect. So, Han "miscellaneous rule" system for future generations inherited dynasty (Note: Zhang Zhaokai: <"China ancient judicial system "A History> Yuelu Tract Society 2005 Edition, P.186. because they are familiar with the case Law officials to participate in the trial and deliberations, and you can witness the performance of the parties in court, the parties can be more fully heard confessions and witness statements, and then analysis based on experience, examination and excavation evidence, accurate analysis of facts and applicable law. but also that this collective trial and Research, you can quickly clear geographical relationship between fact and law to make decisions, judges make up the defects and personal knowledge lack of understanding. and thus help ensure the quality of handling cases, the interests of justice. the course of justice, including justice and procedural justice entities, joint hearing procedures for safeguarding the system from justice. that some scholars believe: Mixed system is to use the ancient method of procedure to control the judicial system of a death penalty [7]. due process is known as the cornerstone of a fair death penalty, many people believe that lack of procedural fairness in ancient China, in fact, is a misunderstanding, mixed system is a typical ancient Chinese representative of procedural justice. In historical conditions at that time, comprehensive knowledge, his integrity is not a common ideal of a judge, so many people involved with the trial of major and difficult cases, brainstorming, to minimize possible bias awareness, to make an accurate judge, which is procedural justice design of the system. As the famous British judge Lord Denning expressed in the evaluation of the jury as: "a jury trial is just a tool, the wheel of the Constitution, it shines like a beacon of freedom exist." (Note 18: This sentence is not the famous British Faguan the famous Lord Denning himself, but he was quoting the jury in evaluating their colleagues to express the words of Lord Devlin, and see HarryKalven, TheAmerican Jury, TheUniversity Chicago Press, 1966. P6. Ding cited the rise: "Elite and Popular Justice", "" Modern Law> "-2004 2. Ancient Trial officials involved in joint trials, in a sense, but also conducive to the interests of justice. Western Zhou Dynasty," three-barbed " conviction system, can make up for "five" (Note 19: "Five" is a basic form of the ancient hearings, in fact, ancient Chinese judicial officials observe the parties in cases of mental activity of the five methods, namely, listening to speech, hearing and color , gas, listen, ears and head to listen, means the observation of the parties in language, facial expressions, respiratory status, and hearing and vision. The "five" method was first seen in <<Zhou. Adam. small Sikou>> later The dynasties are as criminal trials important means, "<Tang Six Code>> states: Where a police prison of the officer, prior five. off the prison's deficiencies." five "settle a lawsuit focus is not evidence, but simply by the interrogators for the external expression and speech, it is easy to misjudge victimizes. "Three thorn" is a conviction though not conclusive evidence as the starting point of investigation, but it already contains the contents of the investigation, and prevent miscarriage of justice [8] (P.565.

Second, help to curb judicial corruption. "Bound for the judicial power, in the case of judicial power can not rely on external forces to carry out, but must be within the jurisdiction of a principle or system design out" [9] (P. 19. justice is the ancient Chinese doctrine of the model terms of reference, arbitrary justice is strong, so let the other executive officials in joint trials, can be restricted to a certain extent, played arbitrary judicial power and the role of inhibition of justice. <<Week Li>> set: "To settle a lawsuit sparse, the fear of abuse-specific, so all the prison officials were listening to." administrative power in ancient China developed, the Technology is relatively weak in the case of the trial, the administration of justice regard the balance of power is necessary. But this does not mean that joint trial of cases heard absolutely no corruption, but at least reduce the likelihood. As a number of officials to participate in the trial, but also a shared responsibility, it can be mutual supervision and mutual constraints to prevent the case unjust judges of the phenomenon, inhibition of arbitrary conduct of the trial and verdict, therefore, mixed system can prevent a certain degree of judicial corruption. reposted elsewhere in the Research Papers Download http://www.hi138.com third, to the promote the development of the law. In the joint hearing process, judicial officials and non-legal professional by the executive officers of major difficult to hear the case in its legal knowledge, social knowledge, understanding, and so learn from each other, inspire each other to jointly increase their knowledge and skills, and ultimately promote the development of the law. historical fact that "American political common sense and practical knowledge applied mainly in the long Civil jury, which received." [10] (P.317 can be said that through to hear the case, is conducive to the growth of knowledge and the enhancement of skills. In particular, administration officials is to make contact and work with the judicial process, quick to learn, understand the legal expertise, and through its extensive social connections to their popularity among the public. And administration officials from other the perspective of the field of the analysis of the case, the law itself will make up for shortcomings. Practice has proved that the law must be applied and social values, social values relative to communication, or mechanical use of legal, will only lead to alienation of the people of the law, which reduced the value of the law. officials can participate in joint trials of life people experience in the legal sense of moral values and brought the case to be used during the trial, with very good social effect. And, in law or legal deficiencies in the lack of time, moderately social attitudes to dilute the law's rigidity is also critically important. Meanwhile, in law there are many cases in itself is a social concept as a basis, such as "public order and morals" are often the principles of law and judgments of the basis. In addition, In some cases, must be "all right thinking people can feel right" [11] (P.92, as the basic criteria for identified, so as to promote the specific procedural rules related to the improvement of legal interpretation, in order to advance the law development.

Today, scholars almost unanimously of the view that joint hearing system is the modern collegiate system, the predecessor of the trial. Today's world can be found in the shadow of Trial System, the implementation of the assessor system of Civil law countries, the majority of court cases, especially in major cases, almost by the judges and collegiate assessor who formed part of division, the common trial. in the implementation of state common law jury system, the social impact of large criminal cases, generally by the jury hearing the case. in today's China the right to charge the death penalty review Supreme People's Court handled return, in fact, the tradition of the spirit of Ancient Trial System. Trial System in modern interpretation is just proof of the value of its own lies.

(C limitations of Ancient Trial System
System is not a panacea, any system has its limitations can not be overcome. Trial System, although some value, but it is after all a product of specific historical, political and economic conditions specific to adapt in today's perspective, it has the following Limitations:
First, the Trial System to some extent, an increase of litigation costs. While officials are worthy of adjudication of cases the value, but to some extent, an increase of litigation costs and the country's fiscal expenditure. In particular, certain administrative officials are not versed in the laws, participating in the trial of the case, if he irrational, bent on hearing the case will play the opposite role, potentially increasing litigation costs. Qianwen Yi stated, the ancient Chinese officials, the law required, but that does not belong to the occupation, so the lack of legal knowledge of the officials a lot of people, even judges their legal knowledge is very general. It is recorded that a large number of Scholars, or lifts, Ming and Qing Dynasties origin judicial officials lack of legal knowledge, often in the handling of error be punished, it is difficult promotion. In order to ensure career success, during the Ming Dynasty began to officials appoint their own private legal counsel of the atmosphere, they are modeled on the past, military officials set off to self-provision of staff of the practice. to the Qing Dynasty interim, there have been new processing judicial affairs professional staff - Legal Advisors screen friends, specifically for the provision of judicial officer recommendation [12] (P.21. This phenomenon reflects the ancient officials from the side of the legal quality of the situation, not that of ancient China, the formation of the legal professional bodies, because it was "legal professional is not subject to national attention, mostly judges came from the Civil service examination, who do not understand the law, need to be supplemented with other staff, but the only subsidiary of the status of staff, officials do not formally belong to the state "[13] (P.19. officials the quality of their legal case, their involvement in the joint hearing, the role is very limited, but increased the cost of litigation.

Second, the Trial System, in a sense also affected the efficiency of the trial. A fair trial is a trial system in the eternal pursuit of the construction, but efficiency is unavoidable. Litigation is a costly security system of relief, and any community litigation support and investment is limited, it is clear in the judicial and litigation activities, their value is not just justice, but also efficiency. Efficiency is the economics of the term, refers to the ratio of input and output. When efficiency was introduced in the trial areas, resulting in an efficiency trial. to judicial institutions, judicial efficiency is achieved by the implementation of the legal process in line with legal purposes and social purposes, useful results and the ratio of legal costs. Here's the cost of including human and material resources and time. efficient speedy resolution of disputes brought the trial, can create social good operation environment in which a reasonable distribution of social resources and use the law to achieve stability and social stability. to the ancient Mixed concerned, a certain extent increased costs of legal proceedings means that the trial efficiency. especially the Ming and Qing dynasties, will be held to focus on crime prisoners "autumn assizes" and "towards the trial" the trial period, long-term custody of the parties, no way to talk about trial efficiency since, just nowhere to be found. According to the information reflected in the relationship between the Qing Dynasty Division three methods are not coordinated. Three Methods Division in the administration of justice affairs, headed by Board of Punishments, although the joint hearing, but in fact almost independent operation Board of Punishments jurisdiction. As <<History of Qing Dynasty. Study of Law>> says: "clear the provincial criminal cases, systems review by the Board of Punishments. is not law are, the hospital, and the temple without the say in who should be law, also increased from the Ministry of Punishments clerk. prison litigation in Beijing, both played the consultation, both heard by the Board of Punishments, and the Ministry of the right to special weight. "Punishments right to special weight, hospital, temple to participate in the joint hearing, intended to be a form of nuclear doctrine [14] (P.284. Although" speaking from the law, the Secretary three methods can have different views on joint trial, if the review is still not unified, each with two views can be played by the emperor ruling. However, in practice, it is rarely that happens, all views are subject to Board of Punishments, three methods Mixed It seems to be the Secretary only. "[14] (P.285 This situation only increased joint trial litigation costs and reduce the efficiency of the trial only.

Third, the Trial System in Ancient China the focus has demonstrated the unique administrative and administrative jurisdiction of the legal traditions, this tradition on later had a deep-rooted Chinese judicial influence. Ancient China, there is no clear between the judicial and administrative boundaries, the judiciary is a special part of the administration. "in the central Suiran set up a special judiciary, but always Congshu Yu administration, the emperor is the highest level of judicial review, and in administrative and judicial areas are combined into one, there is no lawyer, notary other professional activities "[15] (P.26 Indeed, the Trial System in the ancient Concurrent Judicial typical performance at the central level, local administrative and judicial management Needless to say, such a judicial system and administrative system has been confused with the mode of operation affect the subsequent judicial philosophy. like a scholar said, "Over the years, some important aspects of the court there is no way under the administration of justice in judicial activities, instead of borrowing to deal with cases of administrative work, management of trials, thus ruling out the trial activities characteristics, the role of the trial functions are affected. "[16] (P.3 even" some local authority ignored the essential characteristics of the trial, the court treated as the executive branch, to judge management as administrative officials, thereby increasing the activities of the trial administration of "[17]. This effect arises from the Trial System, the delay can not be eliminated. (Note 20: At present, the implementation of some of the president of the Court, the President for approval, the decision system of specific cases, the trial of the more common practice practice . In particular, the judge in the case of a number of difficult cases, the President, the President should always intervene, comments, or attend collegiate, final decisions, when the President, the President issued instrument that the full court reviewed the cases of improper handling, and thus can not be issued, and the right to convene members of the collegial panel "review" and so on. See Ruanji Ping, Xiao Jie: <<trial management Administrative Problems and Solutions - Also on the presidents, chief judges and judges of the duties and relationship, "End of the World Legal Network http://www. hicourt. gov. cn/homepage/show4_content. aspid = 297 & h_name. shows the limitations of Ancient Trial System is also very obvious.

In summary, the ancient Chinese thousands of years and replacing it with more chapters Diego system, has accumulated valuable experience in the legal system, mixed system is one of the representatives. Trial System generated from the Western Zhou period, with the historical changes and evolving, gradually institutionalized and standardized. It is the formation and development of ancient China "careful execution," the carefully thought criminal, administrative and judicial management inseparable political mode, and it is a sign of China's burgeoning judicial democracy. the system in a particular historical period has its special value, for the interests of justice, prevent judicial corruption, judicial supervision of such officials the right to solve difficult cases has played a positive role. However, its limitations, such as increased litigation costs, efficiency of the trial is more obvious. by its impact, today's judicial activities of the Chief of the phenomenon is more serious, can be said that the ancient Chinese system of the traditional concept of Mixed caused, seriously affected the fairness of the administration of justice today. Therefore, the current work of the ancient trial Mixed system must be critically inherited, absorbed Trial System "Cautious Punishment", "democratic" spirit, removing the "executive" of the factors. because since the modern times, China's political system has undergone major transformation - administrative and judicial separation, and trials of modern society has embarked on a path of specialization and professionalism, have to "Chief of the trial" in order to achieve the scientific and standardization of modern trials, but also to realize justice and efficiency of the contemporary judicial mission.




Notes:
[1] Wu Ming: <<Criminal Justice, Democratic Theory>>, the Chinese People's Public Security University Press, 2007 edition.

[2] Lam Kin: "System of Ancient China Tingyi constraints on the throne", containing <"Social Science Front>> 1992 4.

[3] Left Min: <<Rights Discourse and Power Technology in the "Between>, Law Press, 2002 edition.

[4] Hu Yuhong: "'People's Court' and the jury system - the classic writers in the eyes of judicial democracy," set <<Political Forum> "-2005 No. 4.

[5] Wei Qingyuan, Bo Hua: <"China Bureaucracy" A History> Oriental Publishing Center Edition 2001.

[6] <"Marx and Engels Collected Works>> No. 19, People's Publishing House 1963.

[7] Ao Hui, Xu Xiaoguang: "Trial System in Ancient Thought", in <<Ethnic UNIVERSITY "" (philosophy and Social Science 1, 2005.

[8] Hu stay Yuan, Feng Zhuohui: <<Xia and Shang Zhou Legal History>> The Commercial Press, 2006 edition.

[9] Guo Chengwei: <<foreign legal system overview>>, Jiangsu People's Publishing House, 2001 edition.

[10] [Law] Alexis de Tocqueville: <<Democracy in America> "(first volume, translated Liang Dong fruit, Commercial Press, 1991 edition.

[11] [Germany] Robert. Horn et al: <"German Civil and Commercial Law Introduction">, Chu Jian translation, China Encyclopedia Press, 1996.

[12] GUO: <<Five Penalties VI Code - the penalty and the legal system>>, Changchun Press, 2004.

[13] Fan Yu: <<Introduction to the judicial system>>, China Renmin University Press, 2003.

[14] Pursue for: <<Qing Legal History>>, Law Press, 1994.

[15] Xiong Xianjue: <<Justice Studies>>, Law Press, 2008 Edition.

[16] Chen Wenxing: <<course of justice and choice of system>>, the Chinese People's Public Security University Press, 2006.

[17] Xiao Yang: "The Court, judges and judicial reform", containing <<jurists> "-2003 1. Links http://www.hi138.com Research Papers Download