Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Were slaves ever put on trial?
#1
I had been thinking of a scenario after reading it in a book
A Centurion is being abused by one of his popular disobedient soldiers, and is about to be attacked by him. The slave of the victim centurion, lunges out in his masters defense and wounds the popular disobedient soldier. 

Who would be the one likely to be punished? A slave for attacking a free born Roman soldier? Or the free born soldier who disobeyed the centurion?
But due to the popularity of the soldier, his comrades all are in support of him, and threaten mutiny if he is punished.

In the book this scenario never ends up being resolved as the story ended there. i was always curious as to how this tricky situation would be resolved?

this all leads to my main question which is if slaves were ever given the chance of a trial or just punished immediately without hearing their side of the story
Reply
#2
(12-10-2019, 05:47 AM)Jason Micallef Wrote: Who would be the one likely to be punished? A slave for attacking a free born Roman soldier? Or the free born soldier who disobeyed the centurion?

It's an interesting legal question, and I'm not entirely sure of the answer!

Your post title at least can be answered - slaves were not legally 'people' under Roman law, so could not be tried. In the same way, slaves could not be legally raped or even murdered, as they were not 'people' - these were only crimes of property damage against the owner (in theory at least, I think - although as with many of these laws things seem to have changed over time).

In the case of a slave injuring another person, the slave's owner would presumably be liable. It seems that the injured party could cite something called Noxalis Actio (see below), meaning that the owner must either punish the slave themself or hand the slave over to the injured person to be punished; apparently this latter was done by first manumitting the slave, then punishing them as a free person with legal accountability (I would guess in these cases the punishment would probably result in death, not ongoing freedom...)

But if anyone here has more familiarity with Roman law, they may be able to give better advice!

NOXALIS ACTIO
Nathan Ross
Reply
#3
Jason Micallef Wrote:A Centurion is being abused by one of his popular disobedient soldiers, and is about to be attacked by him. The slave of the victim centurion, lunges out in his masters defense and wounds the popular disobedient soldier.

As a matter of Roman military law, there is no doubt that the soldier is the one to be punished. In the first instance, his abusing of the centurion is an offence of insolence, which is punishable according to the rank of the officer (Dig. 49, 16, 6(1)). The punishment for insolence to a centurion is not specified but, in the case of a provincial governor or military commander, it is death (Dig. 49, 16, 6(2)). In the second instance, raising his hand against the centurion (as I interpret 'about to be attacked') is punishable with death (Dig. 49, 16, 13(4)).
Michael King Macdona

And do as adversaries do in law, -
Strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends.
(The Taming of the Shrew: Act 1, Scene 2)
Reply
#4
(12-10-2019, 06:33 PM)Renatus Wrote: the soldier is the one to be punished.

Heh, good point! And his comrades too, if we take these rulings seriously:

(8) Anyone who did not defend his superior in rank when he could have done so is in the same condition as if he had attacked him; but if he was unable to resist, he should be pardoned.

Although I think we've discussed before whether and to what extent the various rulings in the various digests were applied in reality, particularly as regards very draconian-sounding military punishments...
Nathan Ross
Reply
#5
Nathan Ross Wrote:Although I think we've discussed before whether and to what extent the various rulings in the various digests were applied in reality, particularly as regards very draconian-sounding military punishments...

These may be maxima and some mitigation could have been allowed. Indeed, in some instances mitigating circumstances are set out. According to Tacitus (Agricola, 1.9), military trials were pretty rough-and-ready affairs, with a tendency to harshness, but he hints that the unit commander, in his judicial capacity, had some discretion. In the instant case, the centurion may have been particularly brutal, which might account for the soldier having threatened him in the first place, but in a trial the commanding officer would be bound to uphold the authority of the centurion and the soldier and his supporters could expect little mercy. If this were the case, the only person to come well out of the affair is the slave. I hope that the centurion rewarded him for his loyalty by granting him his freedom.
Michael King Macdona

And do as adversaries do in law, -
Strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends.
(The Taming of the Shrew: Act 1, Scene 2)
Reply
#6
(12-10-2019, 11:29 AM)Nathan Ross Wrote: Your post title at least can be answered - slaves were not legally 'people' under Roman law, so could not be tried. In the same way, slaves could not be legally raped or even murdered, as they were not 'people' - these were only crimes of property damage against the owner (in theory at least, I think - although as with many of these laws things seem to have changed over time).

I think it's an apt description of how things stood under the Republic. In most cases slaves were supposed to have been punished by the owner, perhaps after some kind of trial in 'family court' with amici as assessors. It is overwhelmingly probable that Crassus, Pompey, Octavian etc. executed rebellious slaves out of hand, i.e. without anything resembling normal judicial process.

However, even then there were exceptions when slaves ended up in court.

Valerius Maximus 8.4.2: 

Quote:On the other hand Alexander, a slave of P. Atinius, suspected of the murder of C. Flavius, a Roman knight, being tortured six times, denied to the end that he was culpable of the crime. It was as if he had confessed; he was condemned by the judges and led to the cross by the prison triumvir L. Calpurnius.


Dig. 48.2 reflects how things did change under the Empire - slaves were capable of being tried in courts of the Principate.

https://droitromain.univ-grenoble-alpes....ott.htm#II

Quote:(3) When an accusation is brought against a slave, the same rule should be observed as if he were free, according to a Decree of the Senate promulgated when Cotta and Messala were consuls.

(4) Slaves can be accused under all laws, with the exception of the Julian Law relating to private violence; because those who are condemned under it are punished by the confiscation of the third part of their property, which penalty cannot be imposed upon a slave. The same must be said with reference to other laws, by which either a pecuniary or a capital penalty is inflicted, which does not apply to slaves, as for instance, relegation. The Pompeian Law relating to parricide is placed in this category, because the First Section includes those who have killed their parents, their blood-relatives, or their patrons; which does not apply to slaves, so far as the provisions of the law are concerned. But as their nature is similar, they are punished in the same way. Again Cornelius Sylla was the author of the decision that a slave is not included in the Cornelian Law which has reference to injuries; but he is punished arbitrarily by a more severe penalty.

It is often said that under the Empire masters lost the power of life and death over their slaves to judges. However, the observations made by P.A. Brunt in “Marcus Aurelius and slavery” (M. Austin, J. Harries & C. Smith (eds), Modus Operandi: Essays in honour of Geoffrey Rickman. London, 139-50. 1998) must be noted.

Quote:In Gaius’ time the owner of a slave could charge anyone else who killed him with murder or sue him for damages (iii.213). Pius had also enacted that the owner who killed his own slave might be liable to the capital charge of murder (i.53). This was probably a restatement of existing law. Suetonius says that Claudius had forbidden owners to kill their slaves (Cl. 25); this shows at least that when he wrote the rule was not a recent innovation, still less due to Hadrian (HA Hadr. 18, a totally unreliable text).

Quote:Under Pius’ enactment, an owner was guilty only if he acted ‘sine causa;’ a contemporary jurist says that he could put to death a slave found acting criminally (Marcellus, D. xlv. 1.96, cf. Ulpian, xxx.53.3), e.g. attempting to murder the owner (Paul, xxix.5.6.3). We hear nothing of a iudex.
Sergey
Reply
#7
(01-13-2021, 09:40 AM)Flavius Inismeus Wrote: there were exceptions when slaves ended up in court... slaves were capable of being tried in courts of the Principate.

Thanks Sergey. Good to see some evidence of how the law developed, and also of how uncertain a lot of its applications appear to have been (or just appear to us today!).
Nathan Ross
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Location of trial in fifth-century Rome Anahita Hoose 5 3,427 12-04-2016, 10:55 PM
Last Post: Flavius Inismeus

Forum Jump: