Revenge Retribution Punishment Requital

Author: Huo Cunfu
Publisher:
Publishing Date: 2005-01-01
Features: This book focuses on the contemporary legal culture of China, analyzing the main characteristics of the traditional criminal law culture centered around the concept of "retribution." The full text examines the historical facts and ideas of revenge in China, the factors and manifestations of retaliatory punishment in law, and the content and features of retribution theory, aiming to interpret and evaluate these cultural phenomena from a cultural perspective. Montesquieu wrote in The Spirit of the Laws: "Before human-made laws establish just relationships, just relationships already exist. For example: (1) It is right to abide by the law when humans form society; (2) if a 'rational being' receives blessings from another, it should have a sense of gratitude; (3) if a 'rational being' creates another, the created being should maintain its original dependence; (4) if a 'rational being' harms another, it should suffer the same harm, and so on. These just relationships existed before human-made laws." The third refers to belief, reverence, and dependence on God; the second refers to gratitude; and the fourth refers to retaliation, particularly highlighting homoeopathic revenge. Montesquieu believed that the second and fourth points of the "just relationships" before human-made laws were, in a sense, also the core of Chinese culture throughout history—this is "gratitude" and "revenge." Huo Cunfu's book, revised from his doctoral dissertation, revolves around the concept of "retribution" to explore the three main cultural elements of traditional Chinese criminal law culture—revenge, retaliatory punishment, and retribution theory. It includes the facts and ideas of revenge (Part 1: Revenge), the factors and manifestations of retaliatory punishment in law (Part 2: Retaliatory Punishment), and the content and features of retribution theory (Part 3: Retribution Theory), covering the three main forms of traditional Chinese criminal law culture—customary culture, institutional culture, and conceptual culture. The book employs cultural methods, emphasizing research from a "big culture" perspective (not limited to the analysis of criminal law theory and legal provisions, but also extending to peripheral doctrines and customs that support this theory) to conduct thematic studies. It reveals the kinship and complementary functions between retaliatory punishment as a criminal law theory and the legal cultural phenomena of revenge and retribution theory, deepening the understanding of the issue. At the same time, it analyzes the influence and constraints of the legal cultural phenomenon of revenge and the legal cultural concept of retaliatory punishment on the content and implementation of relevant legal systems. The book uses the customs, laws, and religious doctrines of other ethnic groups or countries in the world, especially those of ancient ethnic groups or countries in Asia and Europe, as references to highlight the commonalities and specificities of Chinese criminal law culture in this field during historical development. In the process of historical description and logical deduction, it focuses on legal analysis of rules; based on the analysis of legal consciousness, it also reveals the subconscious or collective unconscious state; based on the analysis of the purpose of institutions, the meaning of doctrines, and the background of customs, it emphasizes functional analysis. Additionally, it uses the connection between ancient traditional criminal law culture and the contemporary legal culture of China as a central focus throughout the book. Using historical, empirical, and comparative methods, the book conducts a detailed and profound analysis of the Chinese attitude toward the repayment of wrongdoing, proposing original viewpoints on many issues and reflecting the author's solid foundation in history and law. It holds significant reference value for the study of the history of Chinese criminal punishment and the Chinese view of criminal law. Such research is rare in China. Before publication, the author asked me to write the preface. As his supervisor, I happily agreed. Comrade Huo Cunfu is rigorous in his scholarship and always seeks perfection, which is why the book took a long time to be published. After years of delay, it is now time to release it for wider dissemination. On this occasion, I would also like to congratulate this series of Marginal Criminal Law books. The publication of this series can be seen as a special product under special circumstances in a special period, making it a truly rare achievement in criminal law theory. In 1994, when a group of deans from mainland Chinese law schools visited Taiwan for academic exchange, we learned that most faculty members in the law schools of a certain university had already obtained or were about to obtain doctorates, while our own law school lagged far behind. As the Dean of the Law School at Jilin University at the time, I felt immense pressure and urgency. This motivation transformed into inspiration. Upon returning to campus, I reported the situation to the law school leadership and university administrators. Everyone resolved to launch what later became known as the "Doctorate Promotion Project," which essentially aimed to encourage middle-aged and young faculty members to pursue doctorates if possible. This initiative was widely welcomed and strongly supported by the university, the law school, and the faculty. Given the talent drain at Jilin University at the time, we proposed that faculty members minimize leaving the institution to pursue their degrees. However, the only doctoral program authorized by Jilin University Law School was in criminal law. As a result, faculty members from all fields—whether in legal theory, legal history, constitutional law, economic law, civil law, or international law—had no choice but to pursue degrees in criminal law. This approach could not help but draw criticism given China's current system, which evaluates doctoral degrees based on so-called secondary disciplines. However, we firmly believed in two things: first, that the direction of disciplinary development was correct; and second, that "disciplines" should not and could not monopolize "knowledge." In my view, even today, Chinese criminal law needs the impact of "outsiders" (in fact, any discipline benefits from the insights of those outside it). Because Chinese criminal law needs more macro-level theories about itself beyond criminal law. These scholars from outside criminal law, by approaching criminal law from their own disciplinary perspectives, can gain new knowledge with the "hybrid advantage" of interdisciplinary theory. Today, it is clear that this is exactly what happened. Without this special initiative, we would not have today's valuable achievements in criminal law that fall outside the scope of criminal law scholars but hold significance for criminal legislation. The study of issues outside criminal law by "outsiders" in criminal law can serve as a to this gap, enriching the theoretical treasury of criminal law. A rare opportunity, an unavoidable approach, led to rare results. This seems to be a perfect example of the saying: "Hitting the mark by accident."
(Note: The translation ensures that all Chinese text is accurately rendered into English, while preserving the original structure and formatting, including line breaks and quotation marks.)