The Tang code took its roots in the code of the Northern Zhou (564) dynasty, which was itself based on the earlier codes of the Cao-Wei and Western Jin (268).3 Aiming to smooth the earlier laws and reduce physical punishments (such as mutilations) in order to appease social tensions in the newly pacified Tang territories, it was created in AD 624 at the request of Emperor Gaozu of Tang. After further revisions in 627 and 637 under the influence of Emperor Taizong, the code was completed by commentaries in 653, under Gaozong.4
French historian and sinologist Jacques Gernet has called the Tang Code "an admirable composition of faultless logic in spite of its size and complexity."6 The American sinologists Wallace Johnson and Denis C. Twitchett described it as "a very rational system of justice" in which "both the accuser and the officials involved had to be careful lest they themselves face punishment".7 The Tang Code contained more than 500 articles divided into twelve large sections (see right-side table).
The penalty for an offence was determined according to two factors:8
The local magistrate acted as examiner and sometimes as investigator, but his final role in legal cases was to determine the proper penalty for the offense that had been committed: he had to fix the nature of the offense as defined by the code, and to increase or reduce the associated penalty depending on the social relation between offender and victim.12
The historically famous wuting 五聽 'five hearings' was a Chinese technique for eliciting the facts of a case. While questioning a witness, the magistrate would look closely for five kinds of behavior: "the person's statements, expression, breathing, reaction to the words of the judge, and eyes. Through careful observation, it was thought that the experienced magistrate could arrive at a knowledge of whether the person was, in fact, telling the truth."13
If a magistrate was unable to decide a case on the basis of evidence and witness testimony, he could seek the permission of higher officials to use judicial torture. The accused could be beaten no more than 200 blows in up to three interrogations held at least twenty days apart. But when the accused was able to withstand the full amount of torture without making a confession, the magistrate would use the same torture on the accuser. If the tortured accuser admitted making a false accusation, he would receive the same punishment that would have been inflicted upon the accused had this latter been convicted.14
The offence modulated according to the degree of social relation determined the final penalty which could range from flagellation using a rattan and bastinado with a bamboo stick, to penal labour, exile with penal labour, and death by strangulation (garrote) or decapitation.15
Gernet (1996), 244. Jianfu Chen (1960) p.9., Chinese Law: Context and Transformation: Revised and Expanded Edition, https://books.google.com/books?id=Q2xyDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA9 https://books.google.com/books?id=jqb7L-pKCV8C ↩
Gernet (1996),ball 244-245. https://books.google.com/books?id=jqb7L-pKCV8C ↩
Gernet (1996), 244. https://books.google.com/books?id=jqb7L-pKCV8C ↩
Jacques Gernet, A History of Chinese Civilization, p. 245. https://books.google.com/books?id=jqb7L-pKCV8C ↩
Johnson and Twitchett (1993), 135. ↩
Johnson and Twitchett (1993), 125-126. ↩
Johnson and Twitchett (1993), 128-129. ↩
Francesca Bray; Vera Dorofeeva-Lichtmann; Georges Métailié, eds. (2007), Graphics and Text in the Production of Technical Knowledge in China: the Warp and the Weft, BRILL, p. 23, ISBN 9789004160637 9789004160637 ↩
The Tang Code translated by Wallace Johnson volume II, article 482 ↩
Johnson and Twitchett (1993), 128. ↩