Discount Price: $26.95
Price fluctuation possible.
How soon does it ship: Normal ship time within one day
Shipping? Absolutely FREE if you qualify for Super Saver Shipping.
Type of bind: Paperback
Dewey Decimal Number: 951
EAN num: 9780804734691
ISBN number: 0804734690
Label: Stanford University Press
Manufacturer: Stanford University Press
Quantity: 1
Page Count: 288
Printing Date: August 01, 1998
Publishing house: Stanford University Press
Sale Popularity Level: 929158
Studio: Stanford University Press
Other books you might be interested in perusing:- Sex, Law, and Society in Late Imperial China (Law, Society, and Culture in China)
- Code, Custom, and Legal Practice in China: The Qing and the Republic Compared (Law, Society, and Culture in China)
- Civil Law in Qing and Republican China (Law, Society, and Culture in China)
- Disgraceful Matters: The Politics of Chastity in Eighteenth-Century China
- Soulstealers: The Chinese Sorcery Scare of 1768
- see more
Editor's Notes and Comments:
Product Description:
To what extent do newly available case records bear out our conventional assumptions about the Qing legal system? Is it true, for example, that Qing courts rarely handled civil lawsuits—those concerned with disputes over land, debt, marriage, and inheritance—as official Qing representations led us to believe? Is it true that decent people did not use the courts? And is it true that magistrates generally relied more on moral predilections than on codified law in dealing with cases? Based in large part on records of 628 civil dispute cases from three counties from the 1760’s to the 1900’s, this book reexamines those widely accepted Qing representations in the light of actual practice.
The Qing state would have had us believe that civil disputes were so “minor” or “trivial” that they were left largely to local residents themselves to resolve. However, case records show that such disputes actually made up a major part of the caseloads of local courts. The Qing state held that lawsuits were the result of actions of immoral men, but ethnographic information and case records reveal that when community/kin mediation failed, many common peasants resorted to the courts to assert and protect their legitimate claims. The Qing state would have had us believe that local magistrates, when they did deal with civil disputes, did so as mediators rather than judges. Actual records reveal that magistrates almost never engaged in mediation but generally adjudicated according to stipulations in the Qing code.
Find other books like this one: