Conclusion

About AD 200 the main lines for the development of criminal law had already been set. Our discussion has been of the law of Rome and Italy, but the evolution of the Roman empire meant that this law became relatively less important than the law exercised in the provinces: it is in this context that we should view the decline of both the criminal tribunals and the judicial function of the senate and the corresponding growth of cognitio by magistrates.

In the later empire Rome and Italy were to become provinces and the system of provincial justice - based on the governor, the judges he appointed, and appeal to the emperor or deputies he appointed - became the general model for procedure. In the new system local justice was dispensed by a defensor civitatis subject to the governor; legal advisers were appointed to provincial governors; appeal from most of the governors was directed to the praetorian prefects or their deputies (vicarii) in each diocese: in effect, justice became one element in an hierarchically organized administration.¹³⁵ Accusation became little more than the laying of information, though threatened with dire penalties if it were proved to be calumny. The substantive law essentially grew through an accretion of imperial decisions in response to particular situations, which led to a mass of incoherent material. Only occasionally were there attempts to set this in order, above all the Theodosian Code of AD 438.1³6

It may be argued that in the course of Roman history criminal law became increasingly determined by lawyers. However, the forces that created it were for the most part political: it was a response to the needs of the community, as its leaders perceived them, and what they believed to be popular sentiment. As such the creation and reform of criminal justice were essentially reactive, like most political measures, rather than the articulation of basic concepts.

However, in spite of the lack of theory in the work of the lawyers of the Principate in the criminal field, consideration of the statutes and decrees by which the law was created suggests that those behind them did in fact deliberate about principle. For example, it was a decision of principle by those who introduced the permanent criminal tribunals in the late Republic to assign judgment to a large jury, as impartial as could be assured, as a half-way house between a popular assembly and the circle of assessors that a criminal investigator had previously gathered around him. It was equally a matter of principle to reward accusers beyond compensation. The legislators doubtless had examples from the laws of the Greeks before them,¹³⁷ but to transpose these into a Roman context required more than simple imitation. The codification of law that Cicero advocated and Julius Caesar promised was a mirage. Nevertheless, Augustus’ criminal legislation, in spite of the special pressures that determined elements in it, suggests that he aimed to create a system for the long term. It is a tribute to what he and his Republican predecessors created that the subsequent substantive law was for the most part a series of glosses on their work.

Notes

1. A. Lintott, The Constitution of the Roman Republic (Oxford, 1999), 109, 125—9.

2. See, e.g., Roman Statutes, no. 7 lines 7—13.

3. Cic. Inv. 2.66.

4. Polyb.

6.14.4-5; Cic. ad Brut. 23.3.

5. Vitr. 6.5.2; A. Lintott, ‘Legal Procedure in Cicero’s time’, in Cicero the Advocate, ed.

J. Powell andJ. Paterson (Oxford, 2004), 62—4; F. Coarelli, ‘I luoghi del processo’, in La repressione criminale nella Roma repubblicana fra norma e persuasione, ed. B. Santalucia (Pavia, 2009), 3—13.

6. Cic. Rosc. Am. 12.

7. Cic. Brut. 200.

8. Val. Max. 9.12.7.

9. Cic. Deiot. 5—7.

10. FIRA I pp. 9, 13—4, 17; W. Kunkel, Untersuchungen zur Entwicklung des römischen Kriminalverfahrens in vorsullanischer Zeit (Munich, 1962), 39fr.; J.D. Cloud, ‘Parricidium from the lex Numae to the lex Pompeia deparricidiis’, ZSS 88 (1971): 1—66.

11. Roman Statutes, no. 40 I.17face=Arial>—21; Lintott (n. 1), 13, 24, 33 n. 2.

12. Roman Statutes, no. 40 I.13—15; Exodus 21.23; Diod. 12.17.4; Lintott (n. 1), 25—6.

13. Roman Statutes, no.

40 VIII.5—6, 12.

14. Kunkel (n. 10), 97fr.; A. Lintott, Violence in Republican Rome, 2nd edn. (Oxford, 1999) 150.

15. Lintott (n. 1) 11—16, 24; A. Lintott, ‘Provocatio from the Struggle of the Orders to the Principate’, ANRW vol. I.2, 226—67.

16. Lintott (n. 15), 226—8, 235—8; Lintott (n. 14), 150—4.

17. Cic. Dom. 45; Roman Statutes, no. 13 lines 13—17; Livy 25.3.12—18, 4.7—11; A. Lintott, ‘Provocatio e iudicium populi dopo Kunkel’, in La repressione criminale nella Roma repubblicana fra norma e persuasione, ed. B. Santalucia (Pavia, 2009), 15—24.

18. Roman Statutes, no. 40 IX.1—2; Lintott (n. 1), 150—1.

19. Polyb. 6.14.7—8; Livy 25.3—4; R. Pesaresi, Studi sul processo penale in età repubblicana (Naples, 2005), 123—59.

20. Lintott (n. 1), 32—4.

21. J. Bleicken, ‘Ursprung und Bedeutung des Provokationsrechtes’, ZSS 76 (1959): 352frlang=EN-US>; Lintott (n. 1), 151.

22. B. Santalucia, Diritto e processo penale nell’antica Roma, 2nd edn. (Milan, 1998), 22—3, 54—5.

23. Lintott (n. 1), 102—5; W. Nippel, Public Order in Ancient Rome (Cambridge, 1995), 22—6; Kunkel (n. 10), 97fr.; C. Cascione, Tresviri capitales. Storia di una magistratura minore (Naples, 1999).

24. Cic. Brut.

85ff.; Kunkel (n. 10) 45ff.; Lintott (n. 1) 157-8; A. Lintott, Judicial Reform and Land Reform in the Roman Republic (Cambridge, 1992), 11—12.

25. Cic. Brut. 87.

26. Lintott (n. 24), 66—70; Roman Statutes, no. 1.

27. Roman Statutes, nos. 5—9, 11, 27.

28. Livy 43.2; Lintott (n. 24), 12—14; A. Lintott, ‘The Leges de Repetundis and Associate Measures under the Republic', ZSS 98 (1981): 164—76; C. Venturini, ‘La repressione degli abusi dei magistrati romani ai danni delle popolazioni soggette fino alia lex Calpurnia del 149 a.c.”, BIDR 72 (1969): 19—87.

29. Lintott (n. 24), 14—16.

30. Roman Statutes, no. 1; Lintott (n. 24), 88ff.

31. Lines 1—12.

32.size=1 face="Times New Roman"> Lines 12—28.

33. Lines 30—56.

34. Lines 57—88.

35. Lintott (n.

24), 27—9; Lintott (n. 28), 186—205.

36. D. 47.10.5; D. 48.8—10, 14; Lintott (n. 14), 109—24; J.D. Cloud, ‘The Constitution and Criminal Law', in CAHIX (1994), 514—30.

37. Lintott (n. 5), 74—7; A. Lintott, ‘Delator and Index: Informers and Accusers at Rome from the Republic to the early Principate', Accordia Research Papers 9 (2001—3): 109— 14.

38. Asc. Corn. 60—1 (Clark); Quint. Inst. 6.4.1ff.; A. Lintott, Cicero as Evidence: A Historian’s Companion (Oxford, 2008), 20—1.

39. Cic. Phil.1.21; J. T. Ramsey, ‘Mark Antony's Judicial Reform and its Revival under the triumvirs', JRS 95 (2005): 20—37.

40. Lintott (n. 24), 137—9 on lex rep. 56.

41. Roman Statutes, no. 25, ch. 102; Cicero, Verr. 1.32; 2 Verr. 1.25; Flacc. 82.

42. Asc. Mil. 39, ll. 20—lang=EN-US>4 (Clark).

43. Cic. Rab. perd. 16; Clu. 170; Sull. 89; Sest. 146. Contra G.P. Kelly, A History of Exile under the Roman Republic (Cambridge, 2006), 39ff.

44. Cic. Att. 3.4; Plut. Cic. 32.1; Dio 38.17.7.

45. Lintott (n. 28), 209—12.

46. Lintott (n. 28), 198—205.

47. Suet. lul. 41.2; 42.3; 44.1; Cic. Phil.1.23.

48. Ramsey (n. 39).

49. Res Gestae 6.1—2.

50. Cf. Dio 54.18.2—3.

51. Dio 51.19.6.

52. Roman Statutes, nos. 37—8, Tab. Heb. 8, 11, 17, 31; SC de aquaeductibus, Fronto, de aq.101 (= FIRA 1 no. 41).

53. Suet. Aug. 32.3; Calig.16.2; Galb. 14.3.

54. Suet. Aug. 37; Tac. Ann. 3.30; V. Ehrenberg and A. H. M. Jones, Documents Illustrating the Reigns of Augustus and Tiberius, 2nd edn. (Oxford, 1976), no. 209.

55. Suetonius, Aug. 32.2—3; O. Behrends, Die römische Geschworenenverfassung (Göttingen, 1970).

56. Santalucia (n. 22), 190—1.

57. lang=EN-US>FIRA I no. 44, col. III.

58. D. 22.5.4, cf. FIRA I no. 68, V, 116—8.

59. D. 48.14.1.4.

60. Asc. Scaur. 20, ll. 14-16 (Clark).

61. D. 48.13.5. pr.-i.

62. D. 46.6.7; PS 5.26.1-2; Lintott (n. 15), 265-6.

63. D. 48.13 ; cf. Dio 54.17.1 for changes in the appointment of curatores.

64. E.g. Livy 8.22.2-3; 10.31.9; 25.2.9.

65. S. Treggiari, Roman Marriage: Iusti Coniuges from the time of Cicero to the time ofUlpian (Oxford, 1991), 264ff., with doubts about the last point.

66. Sall. Hist. 1.61M = Plut. Sull.41.3; Collatio 4.2.2.

67. D. 48.5.23, 24.

68. D. 48.5.25.

69. Plin. Ep. 6.31.4-6.

70. Tac. Ann. 3.25.

71. 51.19.6.

72.New Roman"> See n. 39, this chapter.

73. J. M. Kelly, Princeps Iudex. Eine Untersuchung zu der Begrundung der kaiserlichen Gerichtsbarkeit (Weimar, 1957), 17ff.; contra, e.g., J. Bleicken Senatsgericht und Kaisergericht (Göttingen, 1962), 71.

74. Lintott (n. 15), 241-3, 263-4.

75. Suet. Aug. 33.

76. FIRA I no. 68, II.

77. Santalucia (n. 22), 216f.

78. Tac. Ann. 1.75.

79. Sen. Apocol. passim; Suet. Claud. 14-15.

80. Tac. Ann. 13.4; 15.55ff.

81. Tac. Dial. 7.1.

82. FIRA I no. 68, V; Santalucia (n. 22), 206-13.

83. Cic. Cat. 3.8-15; Sull. 36-42; Sall. Cat. 46.6-47.4.

84. Ov. Trist. 2.131-2.

85. Tac. Ann. 1.53; 3.24.

86. lang=EN-US>Tac. Ann. 1.72; 4.21; Dial.19.1; 26.4.

87. Tac. Ann. 3.68, cf. 67; Sen. Ira 2.5.5.

88. FIRA I no. 68, V; R. Sherk, Roman Documents from the Greek East (Baltimore, 1969), no. 31.

89. Tac. Ann. 1.74; Plin. Ep. 2.11.5.

90. J. E. Allison andJ.D. Cloud, ‘The lex Iulia Maietatis', Latomus 21: (1962) 711-31; Santalucia (n. 22), 195-6, 256-7.

91. W. Eck, A. Caballos, and F. Fernandez, Das senatus consultum de Cn. Pisone patre (Munich, 1996), 40, lines 32-3.

92. Tac. Ann. 3.50-1; 4.20.

93. Plin. Ep. 2.11.4; 4.9.17, cf. 5.20.7.

94. Y. Rivière, Les délateurs sous l’empire romain (Rome, 2002), 161ff.

95. Eck et al. (n. 91), 40, lines 23-5.

96. Tac. Ann. 3.10-11, 13.

97. Plin. Ep. 2.11.14-18; 4.9.3-15.

98. Plin. Ep. 3.9.

99. Tac. Ann. 4.19-20; cf. D. 1.16.4.2.

lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt; line-height:107%'>100. Sall. Jug. 40.

101. T. Mommsen, Römisches Strafrecht (Leipzig, 1899), 346ff.

102. Santalucia (n. 22), 213.

103. Tac. Ann. 6.10-11; Hist. 3.64.

104. Tac. Ann. 14.41.

105. Stat. Silv. 1.4.9-16, 39-48.

106. Plin. Ep. 6.11.

107. D. 1.12.1 pr., 4, 13; Santalucia (n. 22), 221—4; D. Mantovani, ‘Sulla competenza penale delpraefectus urbi attraverso il liber singularis di Ulpiano’, in Idee vecchie e nuove sul diritto criminale romano, ed. A. Burdese (Padua, 1988), 171-223.

108. D. 1.15.3.1, 5; D. 47.2.57.1.

109. D. 48.2.13; D. 48.12.3.1.

110. D.1.11.

in. Dio 69.18.3-4.

112. FIRA I no. 61.

113. Ep. 5.9.3.

114. D. 48.2.3. But see P. Garnsey, ‘Adultery Trials and the Survival of the Quaestiones in the Severan Age', JRS 57 (1967): 56-60.

115.New Roman"> Dio 77(76).16.4. See F. Millar, A Study of Cassius Dio (Oxford, 1964), 204-7 for the date.

116. D. 48.14.1.

117. D. 48.19.38.10; Santalucia (n. 22), 258h

118. Santalucia (n. 22) 260ff.

119. D. 48.10; Santalucia (n. 22), 263h

120. D. 48.16; Santalucia (n. 22), 2Ó4Ì.

121. D. 47.10.35; D. 47.11.1.1-2.

122. Santalucia (n. 22), 266-8.

123. D. 47.11.6.

124. D. 47.20; L. Garofalo, La persecuzione dello stellionato in diritto romano (Padua, 1992).

125. D. 47.12.

126. D. 47.17, 18.

127. Tac. Ann. 1.10.

128. S. H. Rutledge, Imperial Inquisitions: Prosecutors and Informants from Tiberius to Domitian (London & New York, 2001); Rivière (n. 94); Lintott (n. 37).

129. Tac. Ann. 1.53 ; 4.2; X. Lafon, ‘Les des de la mer Tyrrhénienne: entre palais et prisons sous les Julio-Claudiens’, in Carcer. Prison et Privation de Liberté dans l'antiquité classique: Actes du colloque de Strasbourg (5 et 6 décembre 1997), ed. C. Bertrand-Dagenbach (Paris, 1999), 149-61; Y. Rivière, ‘L’Italie, les ìles et le continent; recherches sur l’exil et lstyle='font-family: "Arial",sans-serif'>’administration du territoire imperial (I^er-III^e siècles)’, Entretiens Fondation Hardt 54 (2008): 261-310.

130. P. Garnsey Social Status and Legal Privilege in the Roman Empire (Oxford, 1970); R. Rilinger Humiliores — Honestiores (Munich, 1988).

131. D. 49.19.15; D. 48.22.6.2.

132. See, esp., D. 48.19.8, 19, 28.1, and 28.11ff.; Santalucia (n. 22), 249ff.

133. D. 48.19.8.9; Y. Rivière, ‘Detention preventive, mise à l’épreuve et demonstration de la preuve (I^er-III^e siècles ap. J.-C)’, in Bertrand-Dagenbach (n. 129), 57-73; J.-U. Krause, Gefängnisse im Römischen Reich (Stuttgart, 1996); J.-U. Krause, ‘Prisons et crimes dans l’Empire romain’, in Bertrand-Dagenbach (n. 129), 118-28; A. Lovato, Il carcere nel diritto penale romano (dai Severi a Giustiniano) (Bari, 1994).

134. Krause (n. 133); J. Harries, Law and Empire in Late Antiquity (Cambridge, 1999), I35f.

135. Santalucia (n. 22), 269—80; A. H.M. Jones, The Later Roman Empire (Oxford, 1964, repr. 1973), vol. 1, 470-522; vol. 2, 1202-20.

136. Harries (n. 134).

137. Lintott (n. 24), 31-2.

<< | >>

↑

Source: Johnson David (ed). The Cambridge companion to Roman Law. Cambridge University Press,2015. — 554 p.. 2015

More legal literature on Laws.Studio

Conclusion

More on the topic Conclusion: