Criminal statutes in Themiclesian law

There are several criminal statutes in Themiclesia law (舊彝, gwre-li; lit. "old laws") that have longstanding acceptance and effect in multiple jurisdictions and under multiple dynasties. Though technically these are only ordinary statutes and could technically be altered or withdrawn like any other, they were in practice retained in situ with few changes over many centuries. The oldest statutes of this kind originate in the 4th century and are thought to be some of the oldest codified laws in the country.

Homicides

There are four statutes on homicides, dealing respectively with unintentional homicides, homicides of family members, homicides of foreigners, and intentional homicides. Interestingly, the earlier laws all deal with species of homicides under special circumstances, and it is thought that these special circumstances required explicit legislation since otherwise the rule of vengeance would have operated.

Unintentional homicides

The first statute of unintentional homicides is undated. Linguists assigning it to about 100 BCE by "surface" grammatical usage, though this does not mean the statute cannot be substantially younger, since laws are customarily written in an archaicizing diction in Themiclesia. The statute deals with how unintentional homicides are to be distinguished from other species of homicide.

又來執．謁曰眚殺人．眔來即．紹于老眔君子．屏三日眔五日于旬．允曰眚殺人．乃辟于邑曰眚殺人．遂棄才中野．勿歸執厥室眔它室于內才邑．則老于徹君子曰非眚惟殺．亦屏三五日于旬．允曰非眚惟殺．遂辟于邑曰非眚惟殺．
If someone comes with a captive and reports, saying that [the captive] slew by error, or comes himself [saying so], relay [this matter] to the elder and then to the leaders of the houses.  Inquire of them for three days, or five days, even to the tenth day.  If after this indeed they say, [the captive] slew by error, you then shall pronounce [judgement] to the city, saying that [the captive] slew by error.  [Then] you shall chase the captive to the fields of the border [of the countryside], and you shall not return the captive to his home or any house, or admit them in the city.  But if the elder and all the leaders of the houses say [the captive] made no error but slew, also inquire of them for three days, or five days, even to the tenth day.  If indeed they say [the captive] made no error but slew, pronounce judgement to the city, saying that [the captive] made no error but slew.

Jurists have noted that, at this early stage, the judge who was to abide by this law did no judging—insofar as the determination whether intention could be established, he was to accept the judgement of the elders and clan-leaders of the city as it was. A quick reading suggests that the law presents two complementary scenarios: either the consultants (the elder and clan-leaders) say that there was error or say there was no error, and indeed the law was used this way in many examples, but the actual text presents a snag. The second scenario requires "the elders and even all the clan-leaders" to deny that error was involved, and scholars have presented alternate views about its relationship with the first scenario.