Ancient Rome was a complex system of law, comprising written, coherent codifications and statutes, customary practices and procedures, and even the oral admonitions of eminent jurists. Roman jurisprudence was based on laws created by elected magistrates and ratified by the legislative assemblies. In this way, an impasse was often avoided where judges could not find backing in the law for the decision they wished to make. This system enabled local communities to build up their legal tradition over time, while also introducing a method of ensuring greater consistency within the court and across the wider Roman Empire.
At the heart of Roman jurisprudence was a system of justices, or quaestores paradici, who were elected to resolve cases based on the law instead of the whims of a local magistrate. The primary power of the juries was to make legal decisions, not to pass sentences. Roman legal verdicts were set by justices, who were appointed by the local community and empowered to render judgments without the imposition of imposed punishments, should they decide a case was not covered by existing law.
The court process in Ancient Rome was quite stringent, requiring four processes before judgment. After a complaint was lodged, a prosecutor would be elected by the assembly to make a formal juristic inquiry. Once investigated, the assembly would select a panel of jurors, and a judge, who could be a quaestor, prastor, or magistrate. This panel convened to consider the facts and evidence, and to make a decision as to whether or not a person was found guilty. If the plaintiff was proven guilty, the judge, who was independent of the outcome, was required to pass a verdict.
Ancient Roman legal verdicts were not always unanimous. The courts made decisions with much deliberation, considering the law and the facts, and with the perspective of the witnesses. Jurors had to decide on the guilt or innocence of a defendant, often with five being required to concur, meaning that a jury might take several hours to come to a verdict in a case.
The administrators of Roman law believed it was important for justice to be impartial. Thus, judges could not be influenced by any external factors, such as wealth, economic status, race or political views. This is reflected in the Roman judicial system, where the judge or magistrate is solely responsible for deciding what verdict to reach. This is in contrast to modern systems, in which the judge is not the only decision-maker, but the whole court.
Authority of Judge in Ancient Rome
In ancient Rome, the judge had ultimate authority in every case. He was responsible for making the final decision, based on his interpretation of the law, taking into consideration the opinions of the jurors. This authority was necessary because, in most civil matters, there were no rules of evidence to follow, and it often fell to the judge to decide the facts of a case. This left a wide scope for debate, with the judge often having to use his own discernment and wisdom to draw a conclusion.
Furthermore, the Roman judge had to consider the social and cultural context of the case, such as the prevailing morals and customs of the time, before deciding what course of action to take. This might involve acquitting the accused if his actions were seen to be more necessary for the greater good than for personal benefit. They could also find a certain punishment suitable for the wrong-doing.
In order to ensure impartiality, the judges would take an oath, swearing to render justice without fear or favour. This oath bound them to their decisions and they were seen as the ultimate authority. This was further reinforced by the fact that their decisions were seen as sacred and could not be challenged.
Remedies of Ancient Rome
In Ancient Rome, legal verdicts were enforced with a variety of remedies, depending on the type of case. These included financial penalties, reparations, imprisonment and physical punishment. Fines were imposed in order to encourage defendants to abide by the court’s ruling. Reparations usually was an order to make the plaintiff whole by providing goods, services or land. Imprisonment was used as a deterrence from committing similar crimes in future, as well as to protect the plaintiff from further harm.
Physical punishment such as mutilation, branding and flogging were also used as severe punishments to make an example of the defendant and prevent similar incidents from taking place. These punishments could be carried out in public in order to act as a deterrent for any potential wrongdoers. In some cases, death sentences were passed, although these were rare and used mainly as a way of protecting society from potential danger.
The remedies enacted were often harsh, but they were seen as necessary in order to ensure justice was meted out. Roman judges were mindful of protecting their people and ensuring justice was conserved and that the right punishment was given.
Appeal System in Ancient Rome
Ancient Roman legal verdicts were binding, and were not always reversible. However, Rome did have a means of appeal. A defendant could appeal their conviction to a higher court, if they believed there had been some miscarriage of justice in the previous proceedings. The appeals had to be brought within a certain period of time and allowed for a trial to take place with the upper court looking at the original evidence, as well as allocating a new hearing for the defendant. The defendant was also allowed to present additional evidence and witnesses to reflect on the initial discussion.
The appeals court also had the power to overturn previous judgments, should they find any evidence of misconduct or a miscarriage of justice from the original hearing. Furthermore, the appeals court also had the power to reduce the sentence, should they find it to be too harsh.
Despite the ability to appeal, these instances were often rare, as most judges and juries would take their responsibility seriously and reach a verdict that accurately reflected the facts of the case.
Changes to the System in Ancient Rome
Over time, the Roman legal system evolved and laws became more codified. By the time of the reign of Emperor Justinian, judicial officers had been appointed in the provinces and their decisions were considered the most authoritative. The implementation of these officers and the codification of laws meant that court proceedings and legal verdicts became more consistent, with the authority of the judge becoming more concrete and feared.
The evolution of Roman law also meant that people seeking justice could take their case to a local court, as opposed to having to travel to Rome and seek the opinion of an imperial prince. This gave the courts more legitimacy, as they were now able to be trusted to pass legal verdicts without the supervision of the Emperor.
However, despite these changes, the basic principles of the Roman legal system, such as the impartiality of the judges and the ultimate authority held by them, remained the same. This ensured that justice was done, regardless of the location of the court.
Impact of Ancient Roman Legal System
The influence of the Roman legal system is still evident in legal systems around the world. It set the foundation for many civil laws by codifying procedures and providing a consistent set of rules and principles that could be followed to reach a verdict. While there have been changes over time, the basic principles of the system are still relevant today.
It is also important to recognise that the Roman legal system of impartiality that was enshrined in the Code of Justinian is still held as a cornerstone of justice today. Even though many countries now have a two-tier justice system, the same basic principles of fairness, mercy and impartiality are still being followed.
Furthermore, by having a judicial system that was respected and trusted to deliver justice without favour, the Roman legal system created an atmosphere of security and equality where everyone had a sense of safety when seeking justice.
