Ancient Roman Republic
The Roman Republic's laws became what many countries, such as The United States, Great Britain, and Spain, used to frame their laws and legal systems.
There were citizens in Rome, and there were slaves. The citizens were the ones who had nearly all the rights in their hands. The slaves, who were nearly one-third of Rome's population, did not have these rights within their grasp because the Romans didn't count them as 'citizens.' The slaves played a big role in the Roman political system - they technically did all the work, but at the same time, they didn't have any civil rights. In Rome, there were two classes, or levels, of citizens which were the patricians and the plebeians. The very rich class in Rome were the patricians, and considering what was just written, the poor and middle-class citizens were known as plebeians.
In the Roman government, there were three groups - the Senate, the Assembly, and the Consuls - they were men as the women weren't allowed to vote. It was divided in such a way so that one group didn't have too much power over Rome.
Senate
Those part of the Senate (which included 300 patricians) served a role in the government for their entire life, they controlled how much the government spent, and decided when to go to war.
Assembly
The Assembly included Plebeians, who were common men, that voted what the laws should be and supervised criminal trials. Although the Assembly created the laws, the Senate had the ability to dismiss those laws. The Assembly also appointed two of the senate members to be Consuls.
Consuls
The Consuls, elected by the Assembly, served one year. If they weren't re-elected, they returned to the Senate. The Consuls job was important - they ran operations of the government, they supervised those who worked at the government, chose new Senate members (if needed), and they controlled the army. If there were war going on, a dictator, chosen by the consuls, lead for six months. If both consuls didn't agree on a decision, nothing would happen, meaning they had to agree if anything was to happen.
Law of the Twelve Tables
Eventually, the plebeians started to get annoyed at the fact that the patricians had most power and started working for more rights. The plebeians went to a sacred mountain outside Rome in 494 BC, and set up their own government, with an Assembly of tribes. Back in the city, The patricians had no body to grow food, serve in the army, or work for them. They were really desperate for the return of the plebeians, so they made another law - a good one - that was letting 10 leaders, (chosen by the assembly) called tribunes, to cancel Senate decisions if the majority of the 10 voted as such.
The Law of the Twelve Tables, which was another result for the struggle of the plebeians rights, was founded in 450 BC. The laws, much like Hammurabi's code (Mesopotamia), were listed and sorted so that all citizens knew of them. They were posted in public places, and quite clearly, if there was to be a misunderstanding between multiple citizens, there were the laws, waiting to be looked at. Children were taught to memorize the laws.
Examples
The Laws of the Twelve Tables seem tough and unfair compared to what we have here today. Some laws were that a deformed child was put to death, and marriages were prohibited between plebeians and patricians.
The Laws of the Twelve Tables
The laws of the Twelve Tables are listed below and are explained in detail.
Table One
If a man was summoned to court, he had to go. If he did not, then a witness would be called (to confirm that he did not come). Thereafter he could be brought to court by force. If age or infirmity was preventing the summoned person from coming to court, then transport was to be provided. The summoned person could be represented by an advocate. The advocate of a wealthy man had to be a wealthy man himself. (This because, by being his ‘defender’, he in law assumed the liabilities of the accused) If the two sides in court agreed to compromise then the judge (praetor) announced this. If they could not reach agreement, then they were to state their case at the Forum before noon. If one failed to show up the judge would find in favour of the one who came. If both came, the trial was to last no longer than until the sun set.
Table Two
If a serious disease or an important religious duty, or affairs of state, prevented other the summoned or his advocate to attend, then the case was to be deferred to a more suitable date. If a witness failed to turn up, the party who summoned him could shout and scream in front of his house on every third day for him to show up in court. It was deemed legal, if a thief was killed in the act of theft by night, or if he was killed by day when trying to fight back with a weapon. Regarding theft; if a thief was a freeman he was flogged and then handed to the person from whom he had stolen to repay what damage he'd done, if necessary by working for him. If the thief however was a slave he was flogged and then thrown to his death off the cliff of the Capitoline Hill known as the Tarpeian Rock.
If the thief was a child it was left to the judge (praetor) to decide if he was to be flogged and forced to make up for his deeds. If a thief was convicted, yet the stolen goods were not recovered, the thief would have to pay twice their value. Should anyone secretly cut down someone else’s trees, he would hav eot pay twenty five asses for each tree. If a man had settled with a thief out of court and received reparations he could thereafter not take him to court for the crime. Stolen goods remained the property of the owner, no matter how long he was parted from them. They cannot be legally bought by another.
Table Three
If anyone defrauded another by not returning what was given to him for safe keeping, he would have to pay twice the amount in penalty. There was now a maximum rate of interest, the unciarum faemus (foemus?) (most likely 10%) For the payment of a debt confirmed by a court one had thirty days to pay. Thereafter one could be seized by force and the court would hand one to the creditor for a term of up to sixty days (most likely for labour). Thereafter one could be sold into slavery. A non-Roman could not acquire property by usucapio (See Table Four). A Roman proprietor could always demand it to be restored back to him. A very frightening paragraph suggests that should a man owe a debt to several, then they after sixty days may be entitled to divide him into parts. It is likely that this division applied to the value he fetched as a slave, yet it is not clear. Some suspect it may indeed have been a division of the body.
Table Four
A father had the right of life and death over his children (patria potestas). Should, however, he sell the son three times, then the son should be free of this bond of authority. A father was to right to kill his deformed child.
A child born within ten months after the death of the man, is to be considered his rightful heir.
Table Five
A female was to remain under the guardianship of a man, irrespective of her age. The only exception were Vestal Virgins. A woman’s dowry could not be fully acquired in marriage, unless with her permission and that of her guardian. (upon divorce she (i.e. her guardian) received her dowry back) If a man died leaving a will, then this is legally binding. If he had no son and died without a will, then the nearest male relative from a shared male ancestor (agnate) was the heir. If there was no such man either, then the members of his extended family (the gens) would inherit his property. If a man grew insane and had no guardian, the agnates or the gens were to take care of him and his belongings. A ‘wasteful’ person (a ‘spendthrift’) could not be left to administer his own estate. For this he should be placed under guardianship of his agnates. If a freed slave died without heirs, his belongings should fall to his former patron, or the patron’s descendents. The heirs of a deceased could only be sued for the proportion of the debt according to their share of the inheritance. The same applied to their right to sue, if they were to claim from the deceased’s debtors.
Table Six
For a sale of land a formal agreement was required. This agreement could be verbal. Once made, it was legally binding. If a patron ordered his slave set free in his will, or agreed to free him on a condition which the slave fulfils, or if the slave paid his purchase price to the owner, then the slave was to be set free. Had property been sold, then it should not be deemed acquired until the purchaser had provided payment. Usucapio was the acquisition of property by possession. If it was in your hands for a year, then it was yours by right. For land and buildings the time was two years. If a women lived with a man for a year, she was his in marriage by usucapio. (Notice that this is the same rule as for a woman as for any possession.) If she wished to avoid this, she was to stay absent from his house for three successive nights a year. If there were two conflicting claims by others over a man, one claiming him a slave, the other claiming him free, then in the absence of proof the judge (praetor) shall rule in favour of freedom. No-one was to remove material from or alter a building or vineyard without the permission of the owner. Who did so, was liable to pay twice the cost of the damage. If a man wished to divorce his wife he needed to provide a reason for doing so.
Table Seven (or eight)
A distance of two and a half feet was to be left between buildings. Societies and associations could form internal rules as they wished, as long as these did not breech the law. A space of five feet was to be left between adjoining fields. If a dispute arose over the boundary between adjoining fields, the praetor was to send three investigators to review the problem. On hearing their report he should decide the boundary. One was permitted to remove a branch from a neighbour's tree which overhung one's property. In fact, one was entitled to remove the whole tree.
The owner of a tree was permitted to gather up fruit which had fallen onto his neighbour’s land. A road running straight was to be eight feet wide and where it curved it was to be sixteen feet wide. If a man’s land may next to the road, anyone would be entitled to drive their wagons or animals across it, unless he encloses it (With a hedge, wall or fence one would assume. - This law was most likely to enable travellers to veer off the road should it have been made impassable by rain.) The maintenance of roads was the responsibility of those on whose property they bordered.
Table Eight (or seven)
If an animal caused damage then his owner was to pay the cost, or was to surrender the animal to the injured party. Any accidental or unintentional damage was to be repaired or paid for by the one who caused it. For the theft or destruction of crops there was the death penalty (clubbing to death).
If the person who led to the destruction was still child, it was within the praetor’s power to order him flogged in addition to twice the price of the damage being paid. A farmer who let his animals graze on the fields of another, was to forfeit the animals as payment. Who set alight a building or grain near a building was to be flogged and burned alive. Yet if he had done so unintentionally he was to pay the cost, or given a more appropriate punishment. For an injury that was not deemed serious the penalty was twenty asses. For slander there was the death penalty (clubbing to death).
If a person injured another and does not offer reparations, retaliation was permitted. For breaking the bone or tooth of a freeman the penalty was three hundred asses. The same injury to a slave would cost 150 asses.. The penalty for insult was twenty five asses. Anyone who was a formal witness to a sale or will who then refused to testify was rendered infamous (dishonoured) and can thereafter never give evidence. If an injury was caused by a weapon accidentally leaving the hand (perhaps when exercising weapons on the Campus Martius), then a ram was to be sacrificed publicly to atone for the deed. The penalty for perjury was to be hurled from the Tarpeian Rock. The punishment for murder was death, unsurprisingly. Yet the penalty for causing a death accidentally was merely the duty to provide a ram for public sacrifice to atone for the killing and to appease the deceased’s relatives. It was an offence to cast or have a witch cast any spells on someone else. The penalty was death. To kill one’s father was deemed the worst crime. He who killed one of his fathers (father grandfather, etc) was sewn into a leather sack together dog, a viper, a cock, and a monkey and then flung into the Tiber. (Outside of Rome the leather sack was either flung into another body of water or thrown to the wild beasts.) A patron who defrauds his clients was outlawed. (This meant he could be killed by anyone with impunity, yet in practice he could flee into exile.)
Table Nine
No laws are judgements were to be made in favour of individuals to the detriment of others, irrespective of their rank and status, against the laws of Rome. (In short: Everyone is equal before the Law, at least prior to judgment.) The same rights and protections of the law were to apply to all people in the countryside as to the people of Rome. A judge found guilty of receiving a bribe shall be put to death. Death sentences now were only allowed to be issued by the law courts. And the final court of appeal in death penalties would be the Comitia Centuriata. The public prosecutors were to appointed ‘by the people’. In practice this meant they were appointed by the consuls. Assemblies at night were forbidden, by pain of death. To demonstrate in the streets against another person was forbidden. One was allowed to demonstrate for or against a particular cause, but not against a specific person.
Treason (stirring up an enemy, or delivering a Roman to an enemy) was subject to the death penalty. No one should be put to death without a conviction, no matter what the crime, or who he may be. (Previously some lenders had seen it fit to condemn some debtors to death who failed to pay.)
Table Ten
No burials or cremations were allowed within the city walls.
There are several ‘rules’ trying to restrict over-zealous mourning or overly flamboyant funerals. An individual could only have one funeral. Pyres should not be built from polished wood. Women should not lacerate their faces or scratch their cheeks in mourning, nor should they wail. Expenses for funeral ceremonies should not exceed what was deemed proper. No more than three women should prepare the body for the funeral. The funeral procession should be accompanied by no more than ten flute players. It was forbidden to place a body onto a funeral pyre with any gold upon it. All such jewellery had to be removed. The only exception was if the body had any dental gold in its teeth. No wines or fragrances should be sprinkled, on the pyre, etc, etc More practically, a pyre could not be built within sixty feet of a building without the owner’s permission. On a callous note the rules also stipulate that no dead slave should be anointed for a funeral, nor should any drinking or banqueting take place in his honour. Usucapio should not allow anyone to the approach to or any part of a tomb. Peoples Assemblies were not to take place when one had died who had distinguished himself in service to the state.
Table Eleven
Marriage between patricians and plebeians was forbidden.
(This law was withdrawn soon after) No affairs ‘of great importance’ should be decided without a vote by the people.
Table Twelve
A more recent law or court ruling on a subject overruled an old one.
Nothing can be rendered sacred (for sacrifice or as a temple) of which ownership is disputed. If a slave commits damage the owner is liable for repairs. If the slave acted with the knowledge of the owner, the owner is liable for penalty. The levels of punishment for assault were also defined; the level varied according to the status of the person who had committed the crime. Harsher for a plebeian, milder for a patrician. And should the victim of the crime be a mere slave, the sentence was reduced yet further.
The laws also distinguished between an intentional and an accidental killing.
And the historian Pliny the Elder tells us that the penalty for murder according to the Twelve Tables was less than that for stealing crops. (For murder it was death by clubbing to death. For stealing crops it was the same, yet was one hung afterwards (‘as a sacrifice to Ceres’).
How Laws Were Enforced
In the Ancient Roman times, laws were enforced in multiple ways. First of all, there were 'police officers' that went around enforcing laws and there was the court in which trials were held, and in the end, you were either put into imprisonment, or you were free.
Police Officers
Much like the police officers now, those in the time of Ancient Rome had prefects officers going around, making sure everything was okay.
The Court
The Roman Court operated poorly when it began, but slowly, it got better. The way that trials were held and all that are divided into three sections: legis actiones, the formulary system, and cognitio extraordinarem.
Legis Actiones
In legis actiones, there were four main steps that occurred - the summoning, the preliminary hearing, the full trial, and the execution.
Summoning
In the summoning, the person who's hearing was held would be summoned by voice to the court. If the defendant didn't come, then they could be dragged to the court.
Preliminary Hearing
In the preliminary hearing, ritual words were exchanged for the hearing, and to agree on the issue and appoint a judge.
Full Trial
After the judge was appointed, the full trial was able to start. This was quite 'relaxed' if it's compared with the preliminary hearing, and was judged according to the Twelve Tables to take place in public. While the witnesses couldn't be subpoenaed, the status of intestabilis would be put on to on a witness who didn't come to court, and that was a bad thing. There were few rules of evidence; both oral and written evidence was allowed, but they preferred oral. The trial had alternating speeches by the two advocates, after which the judge gave his decision.
Execution
The execution is also one part. Unlike in the legal system nowadays, parties that won had to go through the procedure of doing the verdict of the court themselves. They were given the task of capturing the one who owes money, and put him in prison until he repaid the debt. After about two months of being in prison, the acceptor, or creditor was supposed to sell the one in debt as a slave, although after 326 BC, the creditor didn't do anything besides keeping the debtor in continued imprisonment.
Formulary System
A new court system was made because of the failure of legis actiones, and it was called the formulary system. There were five parts of this system, not four. They were the summoning, the preliminary hearing, the oath-taking, the full trial, and the execution.
Summoning
In the summoning, once again, orally, but instead of having to go to court right away, like that in legis actiones, they could agree on a certain date to come to court. The person could still be dragged to the court, but it was barely used at all.
Preliminary Hearing
In the preliminary hearing, there were six parts: the nominatio, intentio, condemnatio, demonstratio, exceptio, and praescriptio.
Nominatio: This is the part when a judge was to be brought to the court, and similarly to before, the person in charge - the plaintiff - would be suggesting names from the official list until the defendant agreed. If they didn't agree on anything, the praetor would choose.
Intentio: This was when the plaintiff stated the claim on which his claim was based.
Condemnatio: The condemnatio gave the judge the power and ability to sentence the defendant to a certain sum or to discharge him.
Demonstratio: The demonstratio stated the facts out of which the claim arose.
Exceptio and Replicatio: If the defendant wished to raise a specific defence, he would do so in an exceptio. But, if the plaintiff was refusing to accept the defence, he could apply a replicatio, which explained why the defence didn't count. The person who's trial was being held could apply another exceptio, and so on. The last of these to be proved on the facts "won".
Praescriptio: This minored the problem to what it was, and it avoided litis contestatio, where the person who was judging the defendant was not allowed to bring another case against the same defendant on an issue similar to the one at hand.
Taking the Oath
Although the issue could be settled before it had to come to this, sometimes the one judging the defendant (not the judge - the plaintiff) was allowed to challenge the defendant to take an oath. If he did, he won, if not, he lost. But the defendant was allowed to ask the plaintiff to take the oath instead, but the plaintiff couldn't return the oath to the defendant.
Full Trial
The same as the one in the legis actiones.
Execution
Even though the creditor was taking responsibility for executing the judgement, he could, thirty days after the judgement, apply for an actio iudicati, which gave the debtor one last chance to pay. If he didn't in time, the creditor could publicise the bankruptcy, giving other creditors a chance to come forward, thirty days after which the creditors would meet to appoint an executor.
Cognitio Extraordinarem
This is the last of the ways trials were held. It was when the Republic turned to the empire. There were four parts of this - the summons, the trial, the enforcement, and the appeals.
Summoning
In the summoning, they called the defendant to court, but, if he didn't come, he could be arrested.
Trial
The trial was taken by a magistrate, who had control over the court. He could say whatever evidence he wanted. Documentary evidence was very important in this type of trial - they were couldn't win with only oral evidence. The magistrate's decision was read out loud in the court and was given to the parties.
Appeals
An appeals procedure was allowed for the parties. The process for the appeals was very confusing, but had the advancement of the case through higher and higher courts.
Conclusion
Some ideas of the Roman law really influenced American law. One is that all citizens are created equal under the law, and that no body should be punished for what he or she thinks. Another is that to be punished, one must be proven guilty.
There were advantages of the Roman law being written, like it stopped a great leader from denying the law or changing the definition of laws.
There were citizens in Rome, and there were slaves. The citizens were the ones who had nearly all the rights in their hands. The slaves, who were nearly one-third of Rome's population, did not have these rights within their grasp because the Romans didn't count them as 'citizens.' The slaves played a big role in the Roman political system - they technically did all the work, but at the same time, they didn't have any civil rights. In Rome, there were two classes, or levels, of citizens which were the patricians and the plebeians. The very rich class in Rome were the patricians, and considering what was just written, the poor and middle-class citizens were known as plebeians.
In the Roman government, there were three groups - the Senate, the Assembly, and the Consuls - they were men as the women weren't allowed to vote. It was divided in such a way so that one group didn't have too much power over Rome.
Senate
Those part of the Senate (which included 300 patricians) served a role in the government for their entire life, they controlled how much the government spent, and decided when to go to war.
Assembly
The Assembly included Plebeians, who were common men, that voted what the laws should be and supervised criminal trials. Although the Assembly created the laws, the Senate had the ability to dismiss those laws. The Assembly also appointed two of the senate members to be Consuls.
Consuls
The Consuls, elected by the Assembly, served one year. If they weren't re-elected, they returned to the Senate. The Consuls job was important - they ran operations of the government, they supervised those who worked at the government, chose new Senate members (if needed), and they controlled the army. If there were war going on, a dictator, chosen by the consuls, lead for six months. If both consuls didn't agree on a decision, nothing would happen, meaning they had to agree if anything was to happen.
Law of the Twelve Tables
Eventually, the plebeians started to get annoyed at the fact that the patricians had most power and started working for more rights. The plebeians went to a sacred mountain outside Rome in 494 BC, and set up their own government, with an Assembly of tribes. Back in the city, The patricians had no body to grow food, serve in the army, or work for them. They were really desperate for the return of the plebeians, so they made another law - a good one - that was letting 10 leaders, (chosen by the assembly) called tribunes, to cancel Senate decisions if the majority of the 10 voted as such.
The Law of the Twelve Tables, which was another result for the struggle of the plebeians rights, was founded in 450 BC. The laws, much like Hammurabi's code (Mesopotamia), were listed and sorted so that all citizens knew of them. They were posted in public places, and quite clearly, if there was to be a misunderstanding between multiple citizens, there were the laws, waiting to be looked at. Children were taught to memorize the laws.
Examples
The Laws of the Twelve Tables seem tough and unfair compared to what we have here today. Some laws were that a deformed child was put to death, and marriages were prohibited between plebeians and patricians.
The Laws of the Twelve Tables
The laws of the Twelve Tables are listed below and are explained in detail.
Table One
If a man was summoned to court, he had to go. If he did not, then a witness would be called (to confirm that he did not come). Thereafter he could be brought to court by force. If age or infirmity was preventing the summoned person from coming to court, then transport was to be provided. The summoned person could be represented by an advocate. The advocate of a wealthy man had to be a wealthy man himself. (This because, by being his ‘defender’, he in law assumed the liabilities of the accused) If the two sides in court agreed to compromise then the judge (praetor) announced this. If they could not reach agreement, then they were to state their case at the Forum before noon. If one failed to show up the judge would find in favour of the one who came. If both came, the trial was to last no longer than until the sun set.
Table Two
If a serious disease or an important religious duty, or affairs of state, prevented other the summoned or his advocate to attend, then the case was to be deferred to a more suitable date. If a witness failed to turn up, the party who summoned him could shout and scream in front of his house on every third day for him to show up in court. It was deemed legal, if a thief was killed in the act of theft by night, or if he was killed by day when trying to fight back with a weapon. Regarding theft; if a thief was a freeman he was flogged and then handed to the person from whom he had stolen to repay what damage he'd done, if necessary by working for him. If the thief however was a slave he was flogged and then thrown to his death off the cliff of the Capitoline Hill known as the Tarpeian Rock.
If the thief was a child it was left to the judge (praetor) to decide if he was to be flogged and forced to make up for his deeds. If a thief was convicted, yet the stolen goods were not recovered, the thief would have to pay twice their value. Should anyone secretly cut down someone else’s trees, he would hav eot pay twenty five asses for each tree. If a man had settled with a thief out of court and received reparations he could thereafter not take him to court for the crime. Stolen goods remained the property of the owner, no matter how long he was parted from them. They cannot be legally bought by another.
Table Three
If anyone defrauded another by not returning what was given to him for safe keeping, he would have to pay twice the amount in penalty. There was now a maximum rate of interest, the unciarum faemus (foemus?) (most likely 10%) For the payment of a debt confirmed by a court one had thirty days to pay. Thereafter one could be seized by force and the court would hand one to the creditor for a term of up to sixty days (most likely for labour). Thereafter one could be sold into slavery. A non-Roman could not acquire property by usucapio (See Table Four). A Roman proprietor could always demand it to be restored back to him. A very frightening paragraph suggests that should a man owe a debt to several, then they after sixty days may be entitled to divide him into parts. It is likely that this division applied to the value he fetched as a slave, yet it is not clear. Some suspect it may indeed have been a division of the body.
Table Four
A father had the right of life and death over his children (patria potestas). Should, however, he sell the son three times, then the son should be free of this bond of authority. A father was to right to kill his deformed child.
A child born within ten months after the death of the man, is to be considered his rightful heir.
Table Five
A female was to remain under the guardianship of a man, irrespective of her age. The only exception were Vestal Virgins. A woman’s dowry could not be fully acquired in marriage, unless with her permission and that of her guardian. (upon divorce she (i.e. her guardian) received her dowry back) If a man died leaving a will, then this is legally binding. If he had no son and died without a will, then the nearest male relative from a shared male ancestor (agnate) was the heir. If there was no such man either, then the members of his extended family (the gens) would inherit his property. If a man grew insane and had no guardian, the agnates or the gens were to take care of him and his belongings. A ‘wasteful’ person (a ‘spendthrift’) could not be left to administer his own estate. For this he should be placed under guardianship of his agnates. If a freed slave died without heirs, his belongings should fall to his former patron, or the patron’s descendents. The heirs of a deceased could only be sued for the proportion of the debt according to their share of the inheritance. The same applied to their right to sue, if they were to claim from the deceased’s debtors.
Table Six
For a sale of land a formal agreement was required. This agreement could be verbal. Once made, it was legally binding. If a patron ordered his slave set free in his will, or agreed to free him on a condition which the slave fulfils, or if the slave paid his purchase price to the owner, then the slave was to be set free. Had property been sold, then it should not be deemed acquired until the purchaser had provided payment. Usucapio was the acquisition of property by possession. If it was in your hands for a year, then it was yours by right. For land and buildings the time was two years. If a women lived with a man for a year, she was his in marriage by usucapio. (Notice that this is the same rule as for a woman as for any possession.) If she wished to avoid this, she was to stay absent from his house for three successive nights a year. If there were two conflicting claims by others over a man, one claiming him a slave, the other claiming him free, then in the absence of proof the judge (praetor) shall rule in favour of freedom. No-one was to remove material from or alter a building or vineyard without the permission of the owner. Who did so, was liable to pay twice the cost of the damage. If a man wished to divorce his wife he needed to provide a reason for doing so.
Table Seven (or eight)
A distance of two and a half feet was to be left between buildings. Societies and associations could form internal rules as they wished, as long as these did not breech the law. A space of five feet was to be left between adjoining fields. If a dispute arose over the boundary between adjoining fields, the praetor was to send three investigators to review the problem. On hearing their report he should decide the boundary. One was permitted to remove a branch from a neighbour's tree which overhung one's property. In fact, one was entitled to remove the whole tree.
The owner of a tree was permitted to gather up fruit which had fallen onto his neighbour’s land. A road running straight was to be eight feet wide and where it curved it was to be sixteen feet wide. If a man’s land may next to the road, anyone would be entitled to drive their wagons or animals across it, unless he encloses it (With a hedge, wall or fence one would assume. - This law was most likely to enable travellers to veer off the road should it have been made impassable by rain.) The maintenance of roads was the responsibility of those on whose property they bordered.
Table Eight (or seven)
If an animal caused damage then his owner was to pay the cost, or was to surrender the animal to the injured party. Any accidental or unintentional damage was to be repaired or paid for by the one who caused it. For the theft or destruction of crops there was the death penalty (clubbing to death).
If the person who led to the destruction was still child, it was within the praetor’s power to order him flogged in addition to twice the price of the damage being paid. A farmer who let his animals graze on the fields of another, was to forfeit the animals as payment. Who set alight a building or grain near a building was to be flogged and burned alive. Yet if he had done so unintentionally he was to pay the cost, or given a more appropriate punishment. For an injury that was not deemed serious the penalty was twenty asses. For slander there was the death penalty (clubbing to death).
If a person injured another and does not offer reparations, retaliation was permitted. For breaking the bone or tooth of a freeman the penalty was three hundred asses. The same injury to a slave would cost 150 asses.. The penalty for insult was twenty five asses. Anyone who was a formal witness to a sale or will who then refused to testify was rendered infamous (dishonoured) and can thereafter never give evidence. If an injury was caused by a weapon accidentally leaving the hand (perhaps when exercising weapons on the Campus Martius), then a ram was to be sacrificed publicly to atone for the deed. The penalty for perjury was to be hurled from the Tarpeian Rock. The punishment for murder was death, unsurprisingly. Yet the penalty for causing a death accidentally was merely the duty to provide a ram for public sacrifice to atone for the killing and to appease the deceased’s relatives. It was an offence to cast or have a witch cast any spells on someone else. The penalty was death. To kill one’s father was deemed the worst crime. He who killed one of his fathers (father grandfather, etc) was sewn into a leather sack together dog, a viper, a cock, and a monkey and then flung into the Tiber. (Outside of Rome the leather sack was either flung into another body of water or thrown to the wild beasts.) A patron who defrauds his clients was outlawed. (This meant he could be killed by anyone with impunity, yet in practice he could flee into exile.)
Table Nine
No laws are judgements were to be made in favour of individuals to the detriment of others, irrespective of their rank and status, against the laws of Rome. (In short: Everyone is equal before the Law, at least prior to judgment.) The same rights and protections of the law were to apply to all people in the countryside as to the people of Rome. A judge found guilty of receiving a bribe shall be put to death. Death sentences now were only allowed to be issued by the law courts. And the final court of appeal in death penalties would be the Comitia Centuriata. The public prosecutors were to appointed ‘by the people’. In practice this meant they were appointed by the consuls. Assemblies at night were forbidden, by pain of death. To demonstrate in the streets against another person was forbidden. One was allowed to demonstrate for or against a particular cause, but not against a specific person.
Treason (stirring up an enemy, or delivering a Roman to an enemy) was subject to the death penalty. No one should be put to death without a conviction, no matter what the crime, or who he may be. (Previously some lenders had seen it fit to condemn some debtors to death who failed to pay.)
Table Ten
No burials or cremations were allowed within the city walls.
There are several ‘rules’ trying to restrict over-zealous mourning or overly flamboyant funerals. An individual could only have one funeral. Pyres should not be built from polished wood. Women should not lacerate their faces or scratch their cheeks in mourning, nor should they wail. Expenses for funeral ceremonies should not exceed what was deemed proper. No more than three women should prepare the body for the funeral. The funeral procession should be accompanied by no more than ten flute players. It was forbidden to place a body onto a funeral pyre with any gold upon it. All such jewellery had to be removed. The only exception was if the body had any dental gold in its teeth. No wines or fragrances should be sprinkled, on the pyre, etc, etc More practically, a pyre could not be built within sixty feet of a building without the owner’s permission. On a callous note the rules also stipulate that no dead slave should be anointed for a funeral, nor should any drinking or banqueting take place in his honour. Usucapio should not allow anyone to the approach to or any part of a tomb. Peoples Assemblies were not to take place when one had died who had distinguished himself in service to the state.
Table Eleven
Marriage between patricians and plebeians was forbidden.
(This law was withdrawn soon after) No affairs ‘of great importance’ should be decided without a vote by the people.
Table Twelve
A more recent law or court ruling on a subject overruled an old one.
Nothing can be rendered sacred (for sacrifice or as a temple) of which ownership is disputed. If a slave commits damage the owner is liable for repairs. If the slave acted with the knowledge of the owner, the owner is liable for penalty. The levels of punishment for assault were also defined; the level varied according to the status of the person who had committed the crime. Harsher for a plebeian, milder for a patrician. And should the victim of the crime be a mere slave, the sentence was reduced yet further.
The laws also distinguished between an intentional and an accidental killing.
And the historian Pliny the Elder tells us that the penalty for murder according to the Twelve Tables was less than that for stealing crops. (For murder it was death by clubbing to death. For stealing crops it was the same, yet was one hung afterwards (‘as a sacrifice to Ceres’).
How Laws Were Enforced
In the Ancient Roman times, laws were enforced in multiple ways. First of all, there were 'police officers' that went around enforcing laws and there was the court in which trials were held, and in the end, you were either put into imprisonment, or you were free.
Police Officers
Much like the police officers now, those in the time of Ancient Rome had prefects officers going around, making sure everything was okay.
The Court
The Roman Court operated poorly when it began, but slowly, it got better. The way that trials were held and all that are divided into three sections: legis actiones, the formulary system, and cognitio extraordinarem.
Legis Actiones
In legis actiones, there were four main steps that occurred - the summoning, the preliminary hearing, the full trial, and the execution.
Summoning
In the summoning, the person who's hearing was held would be summoned by voice to the court. If the defendant didn't come, then they could be dragged to the court.
Preliminary Hearing
In the preliminary hearing, ritual words were exchanged for the hearing, and to agree on the issue and appoint a judge.
Full Trial
After the judge was appointed, the full trial was able to start. This was quite 'relaxed' if it's compared with the preliminary hearing, and was judged according to the Twelve Tables to take place in public. While the witnesses couldn't be subpoenaed, the status of intestabilis would be put on to on a witness who didn't come to court, and that was a bad thing. There were few rules of evidence; both oral and written evidence was allowed, but they preferred oral. The trial had alternating speeches by the two advocates, after which the judge gave his decision.
Execution
The execution is also one part. Unlike in the legal system nowadays, parties that won had to go through the procedure of doing the verdict of the court themselves. They were given the task of capturing the one who owes money, and put him in prison until he repaid the debt. After about two months of being in prison, the acceptor, or creditor was supposed to sell the one in debt as a slave, although after 326 BC, the creditor didn't do anything besides keeping the debtor in continued imprisonment.
Formulary System
A new court system was made because of the failure of legis actiones, and it was called the formulary system. There were five parts of this system, not four. They were the summoning, the preliminary hearing, the oath-taking, the full trial, and the execution.
Summoning
In the summoning, once again, orally, but instead of having to go to court right away, like that in legis actiones, they could agree on a certain date to come to court. The person could still be dragged to the court, but it was barely used at all.
Preliminary Hearing
In the preliminary hearing, there were six parts: the nominatio, intentio, condemnatio, demonstratio, exceptio, and praescriptio.
Nominatio: This is the part when a judge was to be brought to the court, and similarly to before, the person in charge - the plaintiff - would be suggesting names from the official list until the defendant agreed. If they didn't agree on anything, the praetor would choose.
Intentio: This was when the plaintiff stated the claim on which his claim was based.
Condemnatio: The condemnatio gave the judge the power and ability to sentence the defendant to a certain sum or to discharge him.
Demonstratio: The demonstratio stated the facts out of which the claim arose.
Exceptio and Replicatio: If the defendant wished to raise a specific defence, he would do so in an exceptio. But, if the plaintiff was refusing to accept the defence, he could apply a replicatio, which explained why the defence didn't count. The person who's trial was being held could apply another exceptio, and so on. The last of these to be proved on the facts "won".
Praescriptio: This minored the problem to what it was, and it avoided litis contestatio, where the person who was judging the defendant was not allowed to bring another case against the same defendant on an issue similar to the one at hand.
Taking the Oath
Although the issue could be settled before it had to come to this, sometimes the one judging the defendant (not the judge - the plaintiff) was allowed to challenge the defendant to take an oath. If he did, he won, if not, he lost. But the defendant was allowed to ask the plaintiff to take the oath instead, but the plaintiff couldn't return the oath to the defendant.
Full Trial
The same as the one in the legis actiones.
Execution
Even though the creditor was taking responsibility for executing the judgement, he could, thirty days after the judgement, apply for an actio iudicati, which gave the debtor one last chance to pay. If he didn't in time, the creditor could publicise the bankruptcy, giving other creditors a chance to come forward, thirty days after which the creditors would meet to appoint an executor.
Cognitio Extraordinarem
This is the last of the ways trials were held. It was when the Republic turned to the empire. There were four parts of this - the summons, the trial, the enforcement, and the appeals.
Summoning
In the summoning, they called the defendant to court, but, if he didn't come, he could be arrested.
Trial
The trial was taken by a magistrate, who had control over the court. He could say whatever evidence he wanted. Documentary evidence was very important in this type of trial - they were couldn't win with only oral evidence. The magistrate's decision was read out loud in the court and was given to the parties.
Appeals
An appeals procedure was allowed for the parties. The process for the appeals was very confusing, but had the advancement of the case through higher and higher courts.
Conclusion
Some ideas of the Roman law really influenced American law. One is that all citizens are created equal under the law, and that no body should be punished for what he or she thinks. Another is that to be punished, one must be proven guilty.
There were advantages of the Roman law being written, like it stopped a great leader from denying the law or changing the definition of laws.
The Roman Empire
After the Roman Republic grew into the Roman Empire, the Government and Law differed greatly. For one, it wasn't a democratic government anymore - it was a dictatorship. A dictatorship is when one person rules - in this case, it was the emperor.
In the Empire, there were no longer the consuls or the assembly, but there was still the Senate. A brief overview of what the senate is below:
Senate
Those part of the Senate (which included 300 patricians) served a role in the government for their entire life, they controlled how much the government spent, and decided when to go to war.
Emperor
The Roman Emperor was the supreme leader and sometimes was thought of as a god. Some were good, some were bad, some were dictators, and some tried to make a democratic government. The Emperor's roles were that they were in charge of the government, army, and the whole empire. Since they had control over everything, they were able to do anything they wanted and nobody had the ability to stop them. For instance, there was an Emperor called Nero, and during his reign, there was a great fire that burned almost all of Rome. Many people blame him for starting the fire to be able to create a new city and be remembered. Every Emperor left something in Roman history to be remembered by.
Some examples of emperors are Augustus, who was one of the greatest emperors of Rome. Another example of a dictator is Julius Caesar.
In the Empire, there were no longer the consuls or the assembly, but there was still the Senate. A brief overview of what the senate is below:
Senate
Those part of the Senate (which included 300 patricians) served a role in the government for their entire life, they controlled how much the government spent, and decided when to go to war.
Emperor
The Roman Emperor was the supreme leader and sometimes was thought of as a god. Some were good, some were bad, some were dictators, and some tried to make a democratic government. The Emperor's roles were that they were in charge of the government, army, and the whole empire. Since they had control over everything, they were able to do anything they wanted and nobody had the ability to stop them. For instance, there was an Emperor called Nero, and during his reign, there was a great fire that burned almost all of Rome. Many people blame him for starting the fire to be able to create a new city and be remembered. Every Emperor left something in Roman history to be remembered by.
Some examples of emperors are Augustus, who was one of the greatest emperors of Rome. Another example of a dictator is Julius Caesar.