晚清法律改革以前，清代赎刑体系可分为“律内赎刑”和“律外赎刑”两部分，前者由载于《大清律例》内的收赎、纳赎和主要用于官员正妻等的“赎罪”制度构成，后者乃虽未入律但普遍行用的捐赎制度。虽然《顺治律》几乎全面继承了明代赎制，但受关外习惯法的强力干预，赎刑的适用一度存在旗民有别、内外不一的问题。自顺治朝后期起，赎刑开始在旗人间推行，于康熙时大致完成了旗民画一的进程。纳赎银数在顺、康时期屡次上调，但不久后便因明代赎制的遗留问题和部分官员的滥赎趋势而回归旧制。自此，中原法律传统中的赎刑制度方被正式接纳。之后，赎刑在雍正、乾隆朝的修律进程中进一步规范化。乾隆五年版《大清律例》确定了清代赎刑的基本架构，其颁行可视为赎刑在清代得以巩固的标志。 从立法与司法层面来看，律内赎刑中，规则最为繁杂者乃收赎，其适用条件大抵可归纳为两种立法思路：其一为其人可悯，故因特定身份而赎；其二为其罪可原，故因特定罪行而赎。部分收赎对象因其罪得赎而肆行无忌，清廷不得不通过增修限制性条款等方式在立法和司法层面予以约束。变化幅度最大者乃纳赎，最初杂犯死罪以下财力充裕的人犯皆可纳赎，嗣后，受法律、社会和习惯等多种因素影响，纳赎适用范围持续收缩，于嘉庆以后主要限于士绅群体的笞杖轻罪。“赎罪”制度用于官员正妻、有力纳银之妇女及例难的决者，因有宽纵之嫌，亦经历了限缩性调整。从执行层面观察，清代取消了前朝的监追规定，并对贫苦收赎人犯予以豁免。所收赎锾部分解赴户部，部分存留地方。在征收、保管和解交赎锾的过程中，财政体制和“无讼”追求滋生了官员和吏役隐漏侵蚀赎锾等问题。因赎银数额微薄且未随经济情势上调，国家收得的赎银总量不丰。与前身明代赎刑相比，清代律内赎刑仍发挥了矜恤功能和对士绅的优待作用，但经济价值大幅下降。为扩充财源，赎银数目巨大的捐赎制度于顺治末年萌芽，在乾隆朝正式确立并完善，成为了律典外的一项常行赎制。捐赎用于依据律例不得赎罪但情有可原之人，对限制较多的律内赎刑起到了补充作用，增加了清代赎刑在审判和适用上的弹性。捐赎的经济价值较律内赎刑突出，但因年均案数较少，不宜过分高估。 赎刑于晚清法律改革进程中废止，其间并未引发激烈争议。原因主要有二：其一为清代赎刑体系在适用范围和价值功能上的萎缩趋势，以及收赎法轻易犯的制度困境；其二为西方刑法适用平等原则、近代罚金刑、刑事责任能力理论及相关制度的传入。

Before the the legal reform in the late Qing Dynasty , the redemption system of punishments in the Qing Dynasty could be divided into two parts: “redemption within the Code” and “redemption outside the Code”. The former consisted of the system of shoushu（收赎）, nashu（纳赎） and “redemption” mainly for the official's wife and wealthy women（赎罪）,which were clearly contained in The Great Qing Code. The latter was juanshu（捐赎），which was not stipulated in the Code but widely implemented.From the Ming Dynasty to the Qing Dynasty, although Shunzhi Code almost inherited the redemption system of punishments in the Ming dynasty, due to the strong interference of the custom law of Manchu, the application of the redemption system of punishments was once different between bannermen and commoners, and different in the capital and outside. Since the late Shunzhi period, the redemption system began to be implemented among the bannermen. The application of the redemption system became unified between the bannermen and commoners during the Kangxi period. The amount of the redemption silver for nashu was repeatedly adjusted upward during the Shunzhi and Kangxi periods, but soon returned to the original rules due to the remaining problems of the redemption system in the Ming dynasty and the tendency of some officials to abuse the redemption system. Since then, the legal tradition of the redemption system had been formally accepted. The Great Qing Code of the Fifth Year of the Qianlong Emperor (1740) established the basic structure of the redemption system in the Qing Dynasty. The promulgation of the Code could be regarded as a sign of the consolidation of the the redemption system of punishments in the Qing Dynasty.From the perspective of legislation and justice, the most complicated rule of the redemption system in the Code was shoushu, and the conditions of its application could be roughly summarized into two legislative ideas. One was that certain people could be pitied, and therefore redeemed for a specific identity; the other was that certain sins could be forgiven, and therefore redeemed for a specific crime. Some people acted recklessly because they could redeem for their crimes, so the Qing Dynasty had to restrain them at the legislative and judicial levels by adding restrictive clauses and other means. Nashu changed the most. Initially, nashu was available to nearly all offenders who committed crimes below the true capital crime and had enough money. After that, the scope of application continued to shrink due to various factors such as law, society and custom, and after the Jiaqing period, it was mainly used for the minor crime of gentry. The system of “redemption” was used for the official's wife, wealthy women, and those who had difficulty in executing the sentence, and it application was also limited because of the problem of indulgence. In terms of enforcement, the Qing dynasty abolished the previous dynasty's rule of forcing offenders to pay money by imprisoning them, and also exempted poor offenders. Some of the redemption silver collected was paid to the Board of Revenue, while some of it was kept at the local government to pay for the clothing and medicine for the prisoners. In the process of collecting, storing and delivering the redemption silver, the financial system and the pursuit of "no lawsuit" gave rise to the problems such as concealment and embezzlement of the redemption silver by officials and petty officials. Because the amount of redemption silver was very small and had not increased with the economic situation, the total amount of money received by the state was not much. Compared with the Ming dynasty, the redemption within the Code in the Qing dynasty still played a compassionate role and functioned as a preferential treatment for the gentry, but the economic value was significantly reduced.In order to expand the financial resources, the system of juanshu with a huge amount of redemption money sprouted in the late Shunzhi period and was formally established and perfected during the Qianlong period. It became a common redemption system outside The Great Qing Code. Juanshu was used for those who were not allowed to redeem themselves according to the statutes and sub-statutes but had extenuating circumstances. Juanshu played a complementary role to the redemption within the Code, increasing the flexibility of the trial and application of the redemption system for the punishments in the Qing Dynasty. The economic value of juanshu was more prominent than that of the redemption within the Code, but it should not be overestimated because the average annual number of cases was small.The redemption system for the punishments was abolished in the process of legal reform in the late Qing Dynasty, and its abolition did not trigger intense controversy. There are two main reasons for the abolition. First, the redemption system for the punishments in the Qing Dynasty showed a shrinking trend in the scope of application and the value , and shoushu had the institutional dilemma of being too lenient. Second, the principle of equality in the application of criminal law, the modern penalty of fine, the theory of criminal responsibility and related systems were introduced into China from the West. The similarity of the law between ancient and modern times, between East and West, had contributed to the smooth fading out of the redemption system.