Tags
Tab Item Content
Join Us!
Archives Meta
Notifications
Clear all

How Thieves were Punished in Different Eras in Vietnam

2 Posts
1 Users
0 Reactions
842 Views
Doraemon
Posts: 96
Topic starter
(@doraemon)
Member
Joined: 5 years ago

Ancient Vietnamese dynasties gave thieves some of the harshest punishments, sometimes as harsh as murder crime. 

When @SailorNeptune; and I read records of Tonkin and Cochinchina by Western authors of the 17th century, we were astonished at how harshly thieves were punished by the court law (having all their fingers cut off). 

Some research into Vietnamese annals by Tran Quang Duc revealed a more detailed account of how Vietnamese dynasties dealt with thieves. The crimes discussed below are only civil crimes (stealing from normal persons and households). 

Lý dynasty

We don't have as much detail into laws of the Lý dynasty but we know that buffalo thieves were beaten 100 times by large staff. If the buffaloes were killed, the thieves had to compensate to the owner and perform penal labor in the household of the owner.

It should be noted that the punishment for murder crime in the Lý dynasty (as of 1125) was 100 beats by staff and 50-character carve into the face. So comparatively, stealing was punished almost as harshly as murder crime. 

Later, historians of the Lê dynasty called laws of the Lý dynasty "too lax". It's understandable because the national religion in the Lý era was Buddhism, which overall was more tolerant than other religions.

Trần dynasty

Trần dynasty laws specified 3 degrees for stealing crime:

- First offense: Beaten 80 times by staff, carved into the face 2 characters: Phạm Đạo 犯盜. Additionally, the thieves had to compensate at least 9/10 the value of stolen property. If he can't compensate, then his wives and children would be made into slaves/servants for the owner of the stolen properties.

- Second offense: His hands and limbs would be chopped off. 

- Third offense: Beheading

Lê dynasty

We have more detailed accounts of Lê dynasty laws (mainly because more documents survived). Stealing crime in Lê dynasty are punished as followed:

- First offense: exile

- Second or repeated offense: beheading

- Stealing properties of little value during the day: penal labors, compensation to the owner. 

Women are given lighter punishment (doesn't specify how in this case, but the Lê codes always gave women lighter punishment than men when committed the same crime). 

In some cases, the thieves had their limbs cut off, in other cases, the thieves had their fingers chopped off.

Nguyễn lords in the south (17th-18th century in the south)

If the stolen properties were of high value: beheading

If the stolen properties were not of high values (eg: chicken)

- First offense: Chop off one finger

- Second offense: chop off another finger (or all the fingers?)

- Third offense: Cut off the ears

- Fourth offense: Beheading

Nguyễn dynasty

If the thieves failed to obtain property: 50 whips

If the thieves successfully obtained the properties: whips + carving characters into right limb for the first offense, left limb for the second offense, and beheading for the third offense. 

More details to the law:

Stealing from 1 tael to 10 taels: beaten by staff 70 times
Stealing 20 taels: beaten by staff 80 times
Stealing 30 taels: 90 times
Stealing 40 taels: 100 times
Stealing 50 taels: beaten by staff 50 times + penal labor for a year
Stealing 60 taels: beaten by staff 70 times + penal labor for two years
...
Stealing 100 taels: whipped 100 times + exiled 2000 miles 
Stealing 120 taels or above: Hang! 

Reply
Topic Tags
1 Reply
Doraemon
Posts: 96
Topic starter
(@doraemon)
Member
Joined: 5 years ago

 found this blog post about Vietnamese decapitation interesting. It depicts the punishment methods the Nguyen periods conducted on criminals. This is probably how severe offence of thievery would have played out.

There were 2 phases within the ritualistic punishment. The first phase was about Intimidation and the execution. The second phase was what they did after the execution.

Phase 1 - Ritual and Punishment

Intimidation
The criminal had no last words and was subject to taunting and ritualistic dancing by the executioner to increase the intimidation on the felons part before his beheading, as well as the crowd watching the execution. 

Execution
The executioner strikes a fast blow of his sword, slicing the criminals head off. The executioner can be seen licking the blood off his blade to create intimidation.

Phase 2 - Post-execution

After the criminal has been executed the executioner would pick up the head and throw it up in the sky. 

The shaman would then conduct a blood-soaked dead ritual and initiate their rites.

They would then display the head upon a spear. Probably to display intimidation to the crowd watching.

Something more interesting is that after the execution, rites, and head display on the spear, relatives and family of the criminal will go to the guillotine where the criminal was executed. Before burying the criminal they would sew back the body and the head to appear as if they were not beheaded.

^ Thanks.

I suppose there were some differences between Lê period and Nguyễn period?

When Alexander de Rhodes described a public execution in Tonkin, he said the convicted was first given a table full of food so he could have his last meal but most people didn't have the appetite to eat by that time. Sometimes, the convicted or family of the convicted would give money to the executioner so that the executioner could try his best to strike accurately and make everything end as quickly as possible. After the execution, the head and the body were either given to the family for burial or in the case of severe crime, the head was displayed for several days to intimidate people then returned to the family. Alexander de Rhodes did not describe any ritual before or after the death. 

The Nguyễn dynasty was a period of constant revolts from peasants and Lê restoration movements (there were like some 400 in half a century), perhaps they added in some rituals to scare the watchers.

Reply