Editing Tang Code (section)

==Organization and system of punishments==
{|align=right class="wikitable"
|+Tang Code<ref>Jacques Gernet, ''A History of Chinese Civilization'', p. [https://books.google.com/books?id=jqb7L-pKCV8C 245].</ref>
!Section
!Name
|-
| I || General definitions and rules
|-
| II || Laws relating to passing into or through forbidden places<br />(imperial palaces, town gates, walls, frontier posts)
|-
| III || Offences committed by officials in the exercise of their functions
|-
| IV || Laws concerning peasant families (lands, taxes, marriages)
|-
| V || Laws related to state stud-farms and storehouses
|-
| VI || Laws relating to the raising of troops
|-
| VII || Offences against the person and against property
|-
| VIII || Offences committed in the course of brawls
|-
| IX || Forgery and counterfeiting
|-
| X || Various laws of a special character
|-
| XI || Laws concerning the apprehension of guilty persons
|-
| XII || Laws relating to the administration of justice
|}

French historian and [[sinologist]] [[Jacques Gernet]] has called the ''Tang Code'' "an admirable composition of faultless logic in spite of its size and complexity."<ref name="Gernet 244"/> The American sinologists Wallace Johnson and [[Denis C. Twitchett]] described it as "a very rational system of justice" in which "both the accuser and the officials involved had to be careful lest they themselves face punishment".<ref>Johnson and Twitchett (1993), 135.</ref> The ''Tang Code'' contained more than 500 articles divided into twelve large sections (see right-side table).

The penalty for an offence was determined according to two factors:<ref name="Gernet 245"/>
* '''Offence''' : The Tang Code clearly associated each offence with a penalty.
* '''Relational position''' :<ref name="Gernet 245"/> For relatives, this position was measured by the kind and duration of mourning that had to be observed for each degree of kinship. Relations outside the family were defined according to positions in a social hierarchy capped by the emperor himself. In this hierarchy, officials were higher than ordinary men, who were themselves superior to persons of servile status.<ref name="Gernet 245"/> For instance, a slave committing a crime against his master was punished more severely than if an ordinary person had committed the same crime. The same offence committed by the master against his slave, on the other hand, resulted in a ''lower'' penalty than the same crime committed by a common person.<ref name="Gernet 245"/>

The [[County magistrate (China)|local magistrate]] acted as examiner and sometimes as investigator, but his final role in legal cases was to determine the proper penalty for the offense that had been committed: he had to fix the nature of the offense as defined by the code, and to increase or reduce the associated penalty depending on the social relation between offender and victim.<ref name="Gernet 245"/>

The historically famous {{Transliteration|zh|wuting}} {{Lang|zh|五聽}} 'five hearings' was a Chinese technique for eliciting the facts of a case. While questioning a witness, the magistrate would look closely for five kinds of behavior: "the person's statements, expression, breathing, reaction to the words of the judge, and eyes. Through careful observation, it was thought that the experienced magistrate could arrive at a knowledge of whether the person was, in fact, telling the truth."<ref>Johnson and Twitchett (1993), 125-126.</ref>

If a magistrate was unable to decide a case on the basis of evidence and witness testimony, he could seek the permission of higher officials to use judicial torture. The accused could be beaten no more than 200 blows in up to three interrogations held at least twenty days apart. But when the accused was able to withstand the full amount of torture without making a confession, the magistrate would use the same torture on the accuser. If the tortured accuser admitted making a false accusation, he would receive the same punishment that would have been inflicted upon the accused had this latter been convicted.<ref>Johnson and Twitchett (1993), 128-129.</ref>

The offence modulated according to the degree of social relation determined the final penalty which could range from flagellation using a [[rattan]] and [[bastinado]] with a bamboo stick, to [[penal labour]], exile with penal labour, and death by strangulation ([[garrote]]) or decapitation.<ref name="Gernet 245"/>