>>Crimes against national security in Vietnam's ancient laws
>>Group of military offences in ancient laws of Vietnam
Pham Diem
State and Law Research Institute
I. The differentiation between stealth and robbery as well as acts of crime commission
Hong Duc Code contains one article (Article 429) stipulating stealth and robbery in general. Under this article, the first-time stealers would be sentenced to exile to remote areas while notorious stealers or recidivists would be beheaded; those who committed stealing in the broad daylight would be sentenced to corvee labor; those who stole other people’s property had to pay compensation therefor; those who harbored stealers would also be penalized but one grade less severe and with compensation made for the material evidence; those who knew but failed to denounce offenses would also be penalized but two grades less severe; stealers who carried weapons would be charged of robbery and even murder if they killed other people.
The differentiation between stealth and robbery, between acts of stealing and acts of robbery were specified in a number of other articles. Article 426 of the same Code stipulated that the robbers would be beheaded while the accomplices would be sentenced to hanging in addition to compensation for the property they had robbed and the confiscation of their land for public fund; those who committed murder and robbery would have their head cut and displayed at public places and their accomplices would be beheaded besides having to pay damages to the victims; those who harbored robbers for a long period of time would be sentenced like the offenders; if only for about 10 days they would enjoy one-grade commutation but had to pay compensation equal to one third of the robbed property for remittance into the public fund; those who knew but failed to denounce offenders would be sentenced to corvee labor.
According to Article 428, those who committed robbering and raping simultaneously would have their heads cut and displayed at public places and their land confiscated for compensation to the victims. Meanwhile Article 435 stipulated that those who took advantage of steatlh, robbery, fires or floods to filch property of other people, or rob other people and beat the victims in the broad day light were all considered robbers and penalized at one grade lower; those who robbed children, insane people or drunkards of their clothing and/or objects would be subject to corvee labor and double compensation to the victims.
Under Article 436, those who intimidated other people and rob them of their property would be charged with robbery but entitled to one penalty grade commutation; though the intimidation was not fearful, the victims got scarce and to surrender their property to the offenders, the latter would also be charged with robbery.
So, the feudal law-makers under the Hong Duc time were fully aware of the difference between stealth and robbery, thereby defining the penal liability and applicable penalties, under which acts involving one of the three following elements would be considered robbery:
- Using force or threat to take other people’s property (murder for robbery, using weapons, threatening victims,…)
- Committing stealth in special circumstances (fires or floods).
- Taking property by force from persons who were unable to defend themselves (children, insane persons, drunkards).
These are really new things in ancient law, which are very close to the contemporary legal concepts about such offenses.
The law-makers during the Hong Duc time clearly distinguished acts of stealing and robbery, the role and liability of each offender: the principal and the accomplice, the seasoned offender, recidivist and the first-time offender, the person who harbors offender or fails to denounce the offender. All such persons, at different extents and degrees, would be subject to not only the penal liability but also the civil liability (compensation for the material evidence, confiscation of property).
Moreover, they also saw the difference between the day-time and night-time stealers and robbers, thereby defining clearly the penal liability for each specific case. It can be said that the Hong Duc law-makers’ general concepts demonstrated many distinctive points.
Similarly, Gia Long Code also contained provisions on stealth and robbery, which were generally prescribed in Article 235 as follows:
- Those who use force to take other people’s property or anaesthetize other people to take their property or beat other people in order to take their property shall all be considered robbers.
- Those who join hand in committing stealth or robbery shall be charged as the principal or the accomplice, according to completed or uncompleted attempts. Explaining this, the then law-makers said using force meant carrying weapons or resisting when caught red-handed are all considered robbery; or committing robbery and raping or murder simultaneously would be considered robbery and raping or murder. The culprits would be classified into the principal, the accomplice, the person who harbors or fails to denounce the offender,….
Article 242 additionally stipulated that those who intimidate other persons in order to take their property would also be charged with robbery. Under Article 243, appropriating other people’s property through deceit would also be charged with robbery. Particularly interesting is that Article 238 prescribed the penalty degrees determined according to the value of the robbed property: If the property is valued at under 1 tael of gold, the offender would be penalized with 60 canings; at between 1 and under 20 taels, with 80 canings; at between 20 and under 30 taels, with 80 canings; at between 30 and under 40 taels, with 90 canings; at between 40 and under 50 taels, with 100 canings; at between 50 and under 60 taels, with 60 canings and one-year corvee labor; at between 60 and under 70 taels, with 70 canings and one-and-half year corvee labor; at between 70 and under 80 taels, with 80 canings and two-year corvee labor; at between 80 and under 90 taels, with 90 canings and two-and-half-year corvee labor; at between 90 and under 100 taels, with 100 canings and three-year corvee labor; at between 100 and under 110 taels, with 100 canings and 2,000-mile exile; at between 110 and under 120 taels, with 100 canings and 2500- mile exile; at 120 taels, with 100 canings and 3,000-mile exile; at over 120 taels, with hanging.
Also according to this Article, apart from the above-prescribed penalties, the offenders would have their right hands tatooed with words “trom cuop” meaning stealer or robber (if they are the first-time offenders), and their left hands also with such words (if they are recidivists); if they repeated their offense for the third time, they would be subject to hanging.
II. Specific offenses of stealth and robbery
On the basis of the general provisions on stealth and robbery, the ancient law-makers defined each specific stealing and robbing offense which had often occurred in daily life. Generally, the definition of specific act of stealth and robbery was based on two element: the social status of the offenders and the type of objects stolen or robbed.
Article 427 of Hong Duc Code stipulated that those who committed offense of recapturing prisoners would be sentenced to exile; injuring people to recapture prisoners would be beheaded; killing people to wrest back prisoners would have their heads cut and displayed at public places, and have to pay compensation for the casualties they caused.
Article 430 prescribed the crime of stealing the king’s seal or belongings, for which the offenders would have their heads cut and their property confiscated.
Under Article 431, those who committed the offense of stealing the worshipping objects in the kings’ mausoleums or temples would also be subject to beheading and property confiscation, while, according to Article 432 of the same code, those who stole worshipping objects in temples or pagodas would be considered common offenders. Similarly, Article 434 stipulated that those who worked in the royal court and stole things therein would be penalized one grade more severely than those who committed stealing in common places.
According to Article 437, store-keepers who steal things therein would be charged with stealth and subject to the double compensation. Article 438 stipulated that those who stole things of foreign envoys would be penalized one grade heavier than the common thieves, who stole tributes would be penalized one more grade heavier and subject to treble compensation.
Under Article 439, relatives who stayed under the same roof but stole things from each other would be penalized one grade lighter than non-relatives. Meanwhile, Article 440 stipulated that children and grandchildren who led strangers into their houses for stealth would be penalized one grade lighter than the common stealers and such stealers would be sentenced like other stealers and had to pay compensation therefor; if injuries or deaths were caused, they all would be charged with murdering people for robbery.
According to Article 457, children who still lived together with their parents and committed stealth or robbery, not only the children would be sentenced but also their fathers would be considered having committed the offense and subject to corvee labor, then also had to pay compensation in stead of their children. Article 441 stipulated that the servants who stole things of their masters would be penalized one grade heavier than the common thieves. Under Article 456, if masters failed to report to local mandarins on the stealth committed by their servants against people outside their houses, they would also be charged with such offense and subject to corvee labor. Under Article 450, those who entered other people’s houses at night without reasons would also be considered stealers and subject to corvee labor.
In addition, Hong Duc Code also stipulated other acts of stealth and robbery, such as children stealthily selling their parents’ property (Article 378); stealthily selling land and fields of other people (Article 382); servants stealthily selling their masters’ land (Article 386); the stealing of land mortgage deeds (Article 448), buffaloes, horses or boats (Article 444), etc.
Particularly the Code also set in various measures to prevent and examine penal liabilities for stealth and robberies. Article 449 stipulated that those who bought stolen or robbed things would be sentenced like stealers and robbers. According to Article 459, those who arrested robbers but arbitrarily released them would be sentenced to exile, and those who arrested stealers but arbitrarily set them free would be sentenced to corvee labor, if taking bribes to do so, they would be sentenced like the offenders.
Gia Long Code also prescribed such specific acts of stealing and robbery such as stealing worshipping objects in the kings’ mausoleums and temples (Article 226), stealing the kings’ books (Article 227), stealing the kings’ seals (Article 229), stealing keys to citadel’s gates (Article 230), stealing military weapons (Article 231), stealing paddy in the fields (Article 240), buying things stolen or robbed by others (Article 247), etc.-