The Roman assemblies from their origin to the end of the RepublicBotsford, George Willis
History
The Roman assemblies from their origin to the end of the Republic
Botsford, George Willis
Constitutional law -- Rome; Rome -- Politics and government
By an arrangement referred to in the preceding chapter,[1731] partly
based on the law of the Twelve Tables relating to capital cases[1732] and
further developed in 449, possibly by an article of the Valerian-Horatian
statute, a division of popular jurisdiction was made between the
centuriate and the tribal assemblies, on the basis of a distinction
in the nature, not of the crime, but of the penalty.[1733] The tribes
punished with fines, the centuries with the extreme penalty—banishment
or death, to which was always added total confiscation of property.
The prosecutor, accordingly, first thought of the penalty, to which he
then attempted to adapt the form of action. The people were not guided
to their decision by legal formalities and precedents,[1734] but were
often swayed by the emotions of favor and anger.[1735] No juror’s oath
was imposed upon them to decide according to law and without personal
or party bias, such as the Athenian heliasts swore. If the prosecutor,
in addition to believing that the case merited the severest punishment,
hoped to persuade the people to vote the death or banishment of the
accused, he pronounced a capital condemnation, and the case was
accordingly appealed to the centuriate assembly. If on the other hand he
doubted whether he would be able sufficiently to excite the anger of the
populace against the accused, however heinous the crime may have been in
his own opinion, he satisfied himself with a finable action, and allowed
it to go before the tribes. Sometimes while the evidence was being taken
in the latter form of action, the rage of the people was so inflamed
against the accused that they clamored for the extreme penalty, in which
case the prosecutor might change the form of action agreeably to their
wishes.[1736] The greater ease with which the tribes were summoned,
together with the growing disinclination of the people to pronouncing
the death penalty, induced the magistrates more and more to make use of
finable rather than of capital actions. Fines were generally estimated
in cattle and sheep till in 430 the consuls L. Julius and L. Papirius
Crassus passed a centuriate law establishing a hundred pounds of copper
as equivalent to an ox and ten to a sheep.[1737] Probably the same law
provided that no fine should exceed half the value of the estate on which
it was levied.[1738]
For the period immediately following 449 the authorities—uncritically
as will soon be made evident—assign to the tribunes of the plebs a
formidable jurisdiction in finable actions, not only over private
persons,[1739] but also, on account of official misconduct, over
functionaries of every grade from ambassadors and tresviri coloniae
deducendae to consuls and dictators. Such prosecutions were usually
brought after the retirement of the accused from office. A chronological
list of the principal cases reported will be instructive.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account