Ming Dynasty "wind Constitution Officials Guilty Of Handling Stolen Goods" Law

The Criminal Rule of Judicial Superintendent, a rule in the Law of Ming Dynasty (Criminal Law, Corruption), focuses on economical crimes by the Judicial Superintendents who were known as the "Rulers of Officials". Applying the methodologies of Law, History and Politics, this thesis undertakes systematic research on the Criminal Rule of Judicial Superintendent that was first introduced in Ming Dynasty, as well as a comprehensive analysis considering legal aspects,such as legislation, judicature, implementation and impact.A systematic interpretation is given on the historical evolution of the rule, categories of crimes in concern, and the concepts critical to the final conviction and punishment. The handling process, stages, and the problems existing in the stages of suit, inquisition, sentence and legal responsibilities are studied for the Criminal Rule of Judicial Superintendent. Combined with dynamic case studies in various periods of Ming Dynasty, a summary is given on the implementation of the rule. All in all, the thesis concludes that the Criminal Rule of Judicial Superintendent had its advantages in ensuring the official rule and centralization of power. However, we believe that in Ming dynasty the rule was not strictly followed in dealing with actual cases. The function of law not only was distorted in the legal implementation, but also caused a lack of dignity the law deserves.The emperor autarchy, a highly developed system of power centralization, was characterized by human reign, in which the King rules his official by "tactics" and the officials esteem the King by "doctrines". The law inevitably became the tool for political battles of the time. The flexibility of law in its actual implementation made it possible to confuse right and wrong by playing with the language of law, which brought high tendency of flaws. Embedded in a highly developed system of power centralization, the Criminal Rule of Judicial Superintendent was created for maintaining the absolute power of King. As the law reflected the will of King based on the understanding of the King, not on the varied ideas of the countless people, the lack of restriction, the tremendous power and the personal preference of King resulted in the arbitrariness of the implementation of law. With regard to the Criminal Rule of Judicial Superintendent, we observe that "The Judicial Superintendent had no control of the corruption under the emperor autarchy, while the corruption in emperor autarchy had irresistible power over the Judicial Superintendent" (Montesquieu Quotes). Expecting the Judicial Superintendents to restrain the corruption, however, provided the Judicial Superintendents with the source of power for corruption.