When was Rome the Most Just and Fair

[omoplata]

It is remarkable how well the legal system worked in Rome, I think, but at the same time it is equally remarkable how easily money and influence were able to invent exceptions to the rule. Was it Crassus who would set people's homes on fire -or so it was speculated- only to show up at the worst time and offer to buy the property?

 

In your opinion, when was Rome the most just and fair? What era?

And during that time, how just was it really? If two natural-born citizens, for example, both of whom had a good standing in Rome had a dispute and neither had extreme sums of money or influence, how likely was the court to rule justly and fairly in a legal dispute? Were court decisions timely or often came so late that it mattered little by then.

 

Would love to hear your views

 

Thanks

[M. Porcius Cato]

In your opinion, when was Rome the most just and fair? What era?

 

 

There's no objective way to answer this question from our sources, but it seems like we could mark some milestones (such as the Licinian laws of 367 BCE) that achieved some advances in justice.

 

 

[Macerinus]

In your opinion, when was Rome the most just and fair? What era?

 

 

There's no objective way to answer this question from our sources, but it seems like we could mark some milestones (such as the Licinian laws of 367 BCE) that achieved some advances in justice.

 

 

 

I would say definitely during the republic and then before 100 BC

 

And what do you call just? most of the times "just" was only good for half of the population.

Edited December 18, 2010 by Macerinus

[GhostOfClayton]

Having served their terms as Consuls, the Patricians used to chose a nicely anarchic and rebellious province to govern, in order to make a fat pile of cash. They used to say that the first year would pay back what they borrowed to be elected Consul, the second year was to make that fat pile of cash, and the third year was to pay off the Senators involved in their trials when they were hauled up for the various shady practices they'd used to make the cash in the second year. In short, it was relatively easy to buy your way off a charge if you had sufficiently high status.

 

As for the monumentally rich Crassus. I hadn't read that he started fires, but there certainly were a lot of them in Rome, so he probably didn't need to. He'd just wait for nature to take its course, offer a riduculously low sum to someone whose property was in imminent danger but not yet aflame, and then (having become owner of the at-risk property) have his professional fire team put out the fire. He became very rich off this 'scam'.

Edited December 18, 2010 by GhostOfClayton

[omoplata]

Thank you very much GhostOfClayton.

This helps put things in perspective.

 

If I may ask an unrelated question:

What exactly is the best translation of "Curiositatum Omnium Explorator" in your signature

When I google it, I get several translations, including: "a searcher-out of all strange things"

[GhostOfClayton]

What exactly is the best translation of "Curiositatum Omnium Explorator" in your signature

When I google it, I get several translations, including: "a searcher-out of all strange things"

 

Quite honestly, there are more suitable ladies and gentlemen than myself here to answer that question (strong hint: help me out here, please). My belief is that you've pretty much nailed it. "A seeker of all things strange and interesting," is what I tell my clients. Apparently it was how Tertullian described Hadrian. I chose it because I seem to have itchy-feet and and an enquiring mind.

Edited December 19, 2010 by GhostOfClayton

[caldrail]

In your opinion, when was Rome the most just and fair? What era?

 

 

There's no objective way to answer this question from our sources, but it seems like we could mark some milestones (such as the Licinian laws of 367 BCE) that achieved some advances in justice.

 

 

 

I would say definitely during the republic and then before 100 BC

 

And what do you call just? most of the times "just" was only good for half of the population.

 

As MPC states, a difficult question to answer, especially since justice was not a consistent or evenly applied force in Roman society. There was a spiteful and exploitative edge to the Romans which resulted in many false accusations. Money was the backbone of status, and thus wealth (and perhaps a little judicious bribery) dictated who received justice. That said, the question is somewhat innocent isn't it? There's an assumption that Roman justice could be just and fair. Now I agree there were laws and individuals that we regard as positive, but isn't this a case of looking at Roman justice from our perspective? More revealing might be to see how the Romans themselves saw justice, and inevitably, there's a great deal of dissatisfaction, but at the same time a level of acceptance of the status quo.