Roman Law & Arson

[Avatar]

Salvete!

I have hit upon a query after a discussion with a friend. You see, my sources, which includes History Channel, Discovery Civilization, and various textbooks used in school, indicate that arsonists were sentenced to death by burning. My friend, who failed to cite sources, claims to recall reading that such punishments were only in the case of a fire leading to the death of a person, whereas a simply fire that "merely" destroyed a building would lead to less strict punishment, such as flogging, crusifiction, etc.

Do anyone have more reliable info? I'd like to get this one settled for good or ill.

[Tarbicus]

Incendium (note the difference between accidental and malicious arson, and copy and paste the whole link):

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/R ... ndium.html

[Avatar]

Many thanks!

[Gaivs Antonivs Satvrninvs]

less strict punishment, such as flogging, crusifiction, etc.

I'm not sure I'd consider crucifixion less strict than death Yikes. hock:
Better not to burn anything down.

[Avatar]

To continue the discussion, how would they treat a pyromaniac? After all, he's "bound" to light something up, and perhaps get caught. I'm assuming it would be treated as malicious arson?

[john m roberts]

In the city of Rome itself, arson was among the most serious crimes because it endangered the whole community. Rome was a firetrap. There were few free-standing buildings and the streets were extremely narrow so fires spread quickly. Consequently, the citizenry took a dim view of anyone who would deliberatle set a building ablaze.