>>Fornication under ancient laws of Vietnam
>>Crimes against national security in Vietnam's ancient laws
Pham Diem
State and Law Research Institute
Judiciary offenses mean acts of breaching legal proceedings. They were specified in two chapters: “Bo Vong” (Arrest) and “Doan Nguc” (Trial and Imprisonment) of Hong Duc Code (the 15th century) and in two parts of “Bat Nguoi” (Arrest) and “Xu An” (Trial) of “Luat Hinh” (Penal Law) chapter of Gia Long Code (the 19th century).
Under these two codes, the subjects of judiciary offenses were generally diversified. They might be State officials, plaintiffs, defendants, the accused, witnesses, expert witnesses, criminals… The objects of judiciary offenses were also rich, including all procedures throughout the legal proceedings: the procedures for arrest, the procedures for detention, the procedures for investigation and questioning, the procedures for adjudication, the prison regulations…
1. Offenses against arrest procedures
The violation of the arrest procedures might be committed by official-duty performers or the arrested persons.
Hong Duc Code prescribed in its Article 645: Mandarins and soldiers who are ordered to go arresting the escaping criminals (whether they are sentenced or not yet) but fail to go right away shall be penalized with corvee labor. Also according to this Article, those official-duty performers who fail to arrest criminals within the prescribed time limit of 30 days shall also be subject to penalty at different degrees, depending on the seriousness of their offenses.
Under Article 646, those who are sent to arrest criminals but the lather resist and are beaten to death or commit suicide due to their desperate plights shall not be pleaded guilty. If they have already arrested the criminals but beaten them to death, they shall be sentenced like persons who beat other people to death but one grade lighter. Those offenders who have resisted and hit the law enforcers shall be sentenced one grade heavier than the penalties imposed for the crimes they committed. They would be sentenced two grades heavier than that imposed for the crime of beating ordinary people to injury, or would be subject to beheading if their victims are beaten to death.
Meanwhile, according to Article 647, those persons who decline to respond to other people’s call for help in arresting criminals though they are capable of rendering assistance shall be regarded as committing crime; and, according to Article 648, those who disclose the hunt for criminals, thus leading to their escape, shall be sentenced like the criminals but one grade lighter.
Article 657 of the same Code stipulated that the village chief would be dismissed if his village harbors one escapee, be subject to corvee labor if his village hides 3 or more escapees, or put on exile if the village harbors 6 or more convicts.
Particularly, Hong Duc Code (Article 649) clearly stated that the arrest must be made by orders of competent mandarins. Accordingly, those who arrest people in contravention of law shall be penalized with 80 cannings. If they cause injury or death, they would be charged with beating other people to injury or intentional murder. In case of flagrant delicto, even non-duty people can seize the criminals and escort them to mandarins.
Gia Long Code also contained similar provisions.
Under its Article 352, those who are ordered to go for arrest of criminals but decline to go shall be sentenced one grade lighter than the criminals. Or if they fail to arrest criminals within 30 days, they would also be subject to penalties at different degrees, depending on the seriousness of their offenses.
According to Article 353, those criminals who hit back the arresters shall be additionally penalized with 100 cannings and exile. They would be sentenced to hanging if they beat their victims to injury, or to beheading if they beat their victims to death. Persons who are sent to arrest criminals but beat them to injury or to death even after they have been seized shall be charged with beating other people to injury or murder.
2. Violation of investigating and adjudicating procedures
Under Hong Duc Code, mandarins who receive written lawsuits ultra vires or written claims of injustice would all be relieved from office and subject to a fine of 5 “quan” (ancient currency unit) (Article 698); or who make additions to or cuts from such lawsuits or claims would be sent to corvee labor (Article 700).
Articles 667 and 668 of the Code stipulated that when questioning defendants, judges have to examine them carefully, find the truth, must not question them too many things, must not use false evidences and must not force confessions. Those who act contrarily would be relieved from office and penalized with 60 cannings.
According to Article 669, mandarins who torture convicts in contravention of law would be subject to a fine of 100 “quan”; if causing death to their victims, they would be charged with intentional murder.
This Code stipulated in Article 674 that those judges who realize that the cases are related to officials or influential people and according to law they would have been adjudicated but cover, tolerate and refrain from charging them instead, would be sentenced like the criminals but two grades lighter.
Under the Code, the judges must fully and correctly cite law provisions in their judgments. If their aggravate or lessen crimes for defendants, they would be penalized (Article 683). More specifically, if a judge, when conducting trials, intentionally aggravates or lessens crimes for people, tolerates guilty persons but charges innocent people, he would be penalized (Article 686). If he unjustly sentences a person to death he would be sent on exile. If he deliberately lessens a grave crime or vice versa, he would also be penalized.
Particularly, Hong Duc Code specified the adjudication time limits. If past such time limits, the judges fail to bring the cases to trial, they would be penalized. According to Article 671, those judges who delay the trials for one month beyond the prescribed time limits would be demoted, for three months would be dismissed and for five months would be sent to corvee labor.
The Code also prescribed the violations of legal proceedings by other subjects such as plaintiffs, defendants, witnesses, interpreters,… According to Article 672, those who initiate lawsuits to incompetent authorities would be penalized with stick-beating. According to Article 666, those who slander others would be charged with slander. According to Article 714, witnesses must be persons who have neither hard feelings against nor intimacy with the plaintiffs or defendants. Those who act against this provision would be charged with falsification of truth.
What is interesting is that Article 711 of the same Code stipulated that if judges and plaintiff act in complicity with each other in giving and taking bribes, they would all be charged with acting against law and subject to different punitive forms, depending on the seriousness of their violations.
Unlike Hong Duc Code, Gia Long Code focused its investigation and adjudication provisions on the improper trials by judges. According to its Article 374, those judges who deliberately aggravate or lessen crimes for offenders would be subject to various penalties, ranging from cannings for aggravating less serious crime to the extent that defendant was forced to corvee labor, or corvee labor for aggravating less serious crime to the extent that the defendant was put on exile, to death if they sentenced defendant to death for crimes not subject to such severity. If they lessen crimes for defendants by turning serious cases into less serious ones, they would be similarly charged with.
Article 380 stipulated that those judges who fail to fully and correctly cite law provisions in their judgments shall be penalized with 30 whippings. According to Article 387, if judges bail out the offenders for crimes they would have been sentenced or vice versa sentence the offenders for crimes which they would have been entitled to bail out, they would all be sentenced like those who aggravate or lessen crimes for others to one grade lower. Specifically, if a judge sentenced a defendant to beheading for a crime he/she would have been penalized with hanging, or vice versa if a judge sentenced a defendant to hanging for a crime he/she would have been penalized with beheading, the adjudicating mandarin would be penalized with 60 cannings.
Particularly, Gia Long Code contained one article on autopsy (Article 377), according to which if a mandarin failed to conduct the autopsy immediately and let the corpse decay, or asked other persons to perform the autopsy for him, or conducted the autopsy untruthfully, he would be penalized with 70 cannings.
3. Breach of prison regulations
In Hong Duc Code, the law-makers clearly classified the violators into two types: Official-duty performers (jail keepers) and prisoners. According to Article 658, if jail keepers fail to detain prisoner properly as prescribed (failing to yoke or fetter them according to regulations), they shall be penalized with 70 cannings. Or, under Article 659, if jail keepers fail to detain prisoners at the right places, they shall be dismissed from office and subject to a fine of 20 “quan”. Article 663 stipulated: prisoners who are injured must be cured and treated, or who are sick must be given medicines; if the jail keepers fail to do so, they would be beaten with 80 cannings; if prisoners die, they would be dismissed from office.
Under Article 707, those jail keepers who, without reasons, beat prisoners to injury or to death would be charged with inflicting injury on other persons and penalized therefor or subject to corvee labor or exile. Other jail keepers who know and fail to denounce them would be charged with the same offense but enjoy one grade-commutation.
According to Article 651, those jail keepers who, due to their carelessness, let prisoners escape, would be demoted; if they fail to re-capture the escapees within 100 days, they would be charged with the crime of escape but enjoy two grade-commutation.
For prisoners, Article 650 stipulated: Any prisoners who have been sentenced to exile or corvee labor but escape before the expiry of their punitive terms would be beheaded. According to Article 652, those prisoners who resist jail keepers and escape would be sentenced to one grade heavier than that for the former crime, or two grade heavier if they resist and beat other people to injury, or to beheading if they beat other people to death.
Regarding the judgment execution, Article 710 stipulated: Those defendants who refuse to execute the judgments against them after they have been adjudicated and convicted would be subject to the penalties for their former crimes but with one grade heavier.
Gia Long Code also contained similar provisions. According to its Article 360, if prisoners who would have been detained are not detained by jail keepers, prisoners who would have been yoked and fettered are not yoked and fettered by jail keepers, or prisoners who would not have been detained are detained by jail keepers or prisoners who would not have been fettered are fettered by jail keepers, such jail keepers would be subject to 60 cannings.
Under Article 363, those jail keepers who beat prisoners to injury shall be charged with crime of inflicting injury on other people and penalized therefor; if they beat prisoners to death, they would be subject to hanging. Article 366 stipulated: Injured prisoners must be cured and treated, diseased prisoners must be given medicines; if failing to do so, the jail keepers would be penalized with 50 whippings; if prisoners die thereof, the jail keepers would be penalized with cannings.
According to Article 357, if jail keepers, due to the lack of vigilance, let prisoners escape, they would be charged with the same crimes committed by the prisoners but enjoy two-grade commutation.
Under Article 354, those prisoners who escape from prisons would be subject to a penalty with two grades heavier; if they unlock the doors for other inmates to escape together, they would be charged with new crimes and subject to exile and 100 cannings; if they break the prisons to escape, they would be subject to beheading.-