CHAPTER VIII

OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON (CONTD.) — INDIRECT RESPONSIBILITY FOR DEATH

The most curious chapter in Chinese Law is that dealing with the punishment of those, who by misconduct, have in some way been responsible for the death of another that is to say, have caused another's death, though taking no positive part therein, and not even contemplating it. The subject has in some slight measure already been touched upon, but is so important as to need some attempt at concentration.

This responsibility, then, is of two chief kinds, according as it arises from the death of a senior relation, or of one not a relation and the former variety is the more curious, and being

so, will be dealt with first. But because it is so dealt with, it must not be taken that it is the more important on the contrary, the wider application of the doctrine is of quite equal importance, but requires far fewer cases to illustrate it.

SECTION II

-

RESPONSIBILITY OF JUNIOR RELATIONS

RESPONSIBILITY OF JUNIOR RELATIONS.

This form may arise, as will be seen, from a cause of nearly any sort be it serious and patent, or trivial, accidental, and obscure: but, once the death of a senior relation can be traced to the misconduct of a junior relation, no matter by how circuitous a route the connection between cause and effect be traced, the junior must suffer.

The nature of the misconduct, and how proximate a cause it was to the death, are matters of weight in considering the sentence, and also the passive knowledge of the relations

C. E. G.

21

as to the misconduct, or their active approval and instigation.

In cases of murder, lechery, or robbery, by a child, no matter how indirectly the child's offence may be connected with the parent's death, or whether the parents are killed or die by their own hand, the sentence is strict and instant performance of the capital penalty. Simply becoming liable to a capital sentence does not, however, bring a child within the meaning of the above, although the parent's death be caused thereby (H. A. H. L. vol. XLIX. p. 52) and in this large class of cases

the offender is still allowed the benefit of the consideration of the circumstances by the Board. So in the case of Cheng Wen-chia, (H. A. H. L. vol. XLIX. p. 48), a lunatic capitally sentenced for killing his wife, and in the case of Meng Hê Shuang Hsi

(H. A. H. L. vol. XLIX. p. 49), capitally sentenced, for killing his uncle, in defence of his father both Cheng and Mêng being recommended to mercy.

In the case of Li Ch'üan, it was

decided that, in respect of grave offences such as robbery or lechery committed by a

son, the discovery of which leads to the death of the parents or parent by suicide or otherwise, and whether or not the parents approved of the misconduct, the offending son will become capitally liable; and in respect of trivial offences, similarly, the offending son will become liable to transportation for life (H. A. H. L. vol. XLIX. p. 4). This decision was, however, a hard one, and its effect has been modified (v. cases of Chang Wên-hsiu and Wang Têshêng infra).

As to the knowledge of the parents in respect of the offence, the following distinctions are drawn:

(1) Cases where the parent simply knew of the offence 知情縱容.

(2) Cases where the parents suffered and approved the offence 縱容袒護

(3) Cases where the offence was committed at their instigation 聽從一教合.

But though there is, of course, the very broadest of distinctions between cases coming

under each of these categories, responsibility, though of varying gravity, attaches to the son in each and all.

The knowledge of the parents may, however, lead to a very considerable mitigation in the penalty. Thus, if the crime be robbery or lechery, the child is sent to a penal settlement instead of being straightway hanged; and in minor cases, though there is precedent for sentencing the responsible child to transportation for life (v. case of Li Ch'üan supra), the better rule is that the penalty should be mitigated to three years penal servitude in cases where the parent approves the offence (v. case of Chang Wên-hsiu and Wang Tê張文秀 sheng H. A. H. L. vol. XLIX. pp. 17 & 18).

The whole of this somewhat tangled portion of the subject has been clearly unravelled in a leading work. It is therein stated that where the parents are ignorant of a grave offence (by which is meant larceny or lechery) the offender is to be sentenced to strangulation without appeal, if they commit suicide, or are