Law and Order in Rome

[Cassius Loginus]

If the army was not allowed within Rome's city walls then who provided law and order in the city in the Republic era?

 

A 'police force' in Rome was later introduced in the Empire period.

[Publius Nonius Severus]

The Aediles were charged with police powers. Here is how Smith describes it:

 

William Smith, A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities:

The general superintendence of police comprehended the duty of preserving order, decency, and the inspection of the baths, and houses of entertainment, of brothels, and of prostitutes. The aediles had various officers under them, as praecones, scribae, and viatores.

 

There were also neighborhood magistrates that could police their own neighborhoods as well I believe.

[ASCLEPIADES]

If the army was not allowed within Rome's city walls then who provided law and order in the city in the Republic era?

 

A 'police force' in Rome was later introduced in the Empire period.

 

Here is a good introduction to the Cohortes Vigilum Urbani

 

I hope this stuff might be useful.

[CiceroD]

There were also neighborhood magistrates that could police their own neighborhoods as well I believe.

 

Were these magistrates among the Vintigisexviri?

[Publius Nonius Severus]

There were also neighborhood magistrates that could police their own neighborhoods as well I believe.

 

Were these magistrates among the Vintigisexviri?

 

No, mi Cicero, I believe they were called vicomagistri, neighborhood magistrates.

 

Here is a link to the appropriate article in Smith:

Vicus

 

The article discusses how they existed in the time of the Principate, but they also did pre-date Augustus.

[ASCLEPIADES]

After the Lex Iunia (Norbana?) of (probably) 19 BC (735 AUC), the Augustean regime designed an intermediary step between slaves and citizens for freedmen who were manumitted de facto but not de jure, called the Iuniani Latinii, meaning they were nominally free but with restricted civil rights.

 

From the reign of Caius (aka Caligula) onwards, one of the main available ways for them to get full citizenship (jus quiritum) was serving for a minimum of six years in the guards (vigiles) at Rome (even if they were less than thirty years old), according to the Lex Visellia of 24 AD (777 AUC):

 

"Praeterea ex lege Visellia tam maiores quam minores XXX annorum manumissi et Latini facti ius Quiritium adipiscuntur, id est fiunt cives Romani, si Romae inter vigiles sex annis militaverint."

 

(Source: Gaius, Institutionum, Commentarius Primus, Ch. VII, tit. XXXII).

Edited September 19, 2007 by ASCLEPIADES

[Psychee]

I hope I am posting this in the right place...

 

I have been reading the Marcus Didius Falco Mysteries series, which are set in Rome circa 70-76 AD, and the text mentions that the testimony of slaves was only permitted in evidence in court if the testimony had been extracted via torture.

 

Would anyone here be able to explain the logic behind that law?

 

Thanks!

[Nephele]

I hope I am posting this in the right place...

 

I have been reading the Marcus Didius Falco Mysteries series, which are set in Rome circa 70-76 AD, and the text mentions that the testimony of slaves was only permitted in evidence in court if the testimony had been extracted via torture.

 

Would anyone here be able to explain the logic behind that law?

 

Thanks!

 

It's my understanding that it was believed that a slave's presumed loyalty to his master would compel him to lie on his master's behalf, and only torture would ensure that the slave might give truthful testimony. Considering that not all slaves were quite that loyal to (or even overly fond of) their masters, I fail to see the logic, too, in torturing them.

 

Pliny the Younger wrote in one of his letters ("To Macrinus" LXXV) of "a certain lady" who suspected that her son had been poisoned by his freedmen. Pliny was counsel for the defendants, and he tells of how his clients were acquitted only after the torture of the servants.

 

In later years the Emperor Hadrian, as a humane act, issued a decree limiting the routine use of torture of slaves, so that it would only be used as a last resort.

 

-- Nephele

Edited September 26, 2007 by Nephele

[Psychee]

I hope I am posting this in the right place...

 

I have been reading the Marcus Didius Falco Mysteries series, which are set in Rome circa 70-76 AD, and the text mentions that the testimony of slaves was only permitted in evidence in court if the testimony had been extracted via torture.

 

Would anyone here be able to explain the logic behind that law?

 

Thanks!

 

It's my understanding that it was believed that a slave's presumed loyalty to his master would compel him to lie on his master's behalf, and only torture would ensure that the slave might give truthful testimony. Considering that not all slaves were quite that loyal to (or even overly fond of) their masters, I fail to see the logic, too, in torturing them.

 

Pliny the Younger wrote in one of his letters ("To Macrinus" LXXV) of "a certain lady" who suspected that her son had been poisoned by his freedmen. Pliny was counsel for the defendants, and he tells of how his clients were acquitted only after the torture of the servants.

 

In later years the Emperor Hadrian, as a humane act, issued a decree limiting the routine use of torture of slaves, so that it would only be used as a last resort.

 

-- Nephele

 

 

Thank you so much for responding, Nephele. The situation comes up rather often in the series, but never in a context where the slave owner's interests are at stake -- just things that a slave would have noticed and testified to about other people -- consequently, I couldn't make sense of it, but your explanation puts it in context for me.

 

So this was a law that was applied to all testimony of slaves, regardless of whether or not the logic of the law applied to the circumstance... Bureaucracy at work!

[Nephele]

Thank you so much for responding, Nephele. The situation comes up rather often in the series, but never in a context where the slave owner's interests are at stake -- just things that a slave would have noticed and testified to about other people -- consequently, I couldn't make sense of it, but your explanation puts it in context for me.

 

So this was a law that was applied to all testimony of slaves, regardless of whether or not the logic of the law applied to the circumstance... Bureaucracy at work!

 

You're welcome, Psychee. One of our members here at UNRV, who goes by the screen name of Flavia Gemina, also puts the situation in context in one of her novels (part of a series of mysteries set in ancient Rome and written for children, but enjoyable reading for adults, as well).

 

In The Slave Girl from Jerusalem, a main character who also happens to be the slave (and friend) of another main character has the misfortune to witness a murder. The characters are horrified when informed that the friend is in very real danger of being tortured as part of the legal proceedings.

 

This scene is doubly horrific when one realizes that the slave in danger of being tortured is just a child.

 

Btw, welcome to UNRV, Psychee!

 

-- Nephele

[Kosmo]

Maybe the measure had also the purpose of protecting the slave from the master if the testimony of the slave was against him. Or even to stop the owners to use the slaves as false witness. As long as a slave had to bow to the will of someone else there were serious reasons to refute his testimony.

We should remeber that throut the existence of the empire a women could not legaly make a testimony. Her testimony was rarely accepted when there was no other witness.

Today's law in my country does not accept the testimony of a husband against the other husband in criminal cases with some exceptions and in civil cases except divorce the relatives can not make a testimony. They are presumed as interested parts.

This roman law makes much more sense the german customs that replaced it in much of Europe. If both parts had witneses that swerd for them than the two parts were submited to "ordalie" (eng.?) that could mean placing a hand in hot water, walk on fire or duel.

In romanian Middle Ages to prove a claim you had to bring witnesess and to defeat this the other part had to bring a double number of witneses. So, you start at 4, then 8, 16, 32 etc Also despite having laws based on Justianian collections they did not have the authority of judgement, so a case was never setlled and could start all over again some times lasting hundreds of years.

Romans were good at laws...