Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T08:22:35.315Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Was there a ‘Doctrine of Manifest Guilt’ in the Roman criminal law?1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2013

J. A. Crook
J. A. Crook
Affiliation:
St John's College, Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

R.A. Bauman in his book Impietas in Principem takes at its face value the abolition of maiestas by certain emperors at the beginning of their reigns: he believes that the whole law of treason was suspended during those periods. Since executions and other criminal punishments are recorded, by Tacitus and other writers, as occurring during those same periods, Bauman is obliged to look elsewhere than to maiestas for the legal justification of what occurred. He assigns some cases to the workings of a domesticum consilium, and explains some as resting on accusations of magic and some on parricidium; but in four or five cases, particularly that of Claudius' wife Messallina, he asserts that the punishment was based on a ‘Doctrine of Manifest Guilt’ supposed to exist in Roman criminal law, whereby in the case of the criminal caught in flagrante delicto no trial was necessary and the public authority could proceed directly to inflict the penalty. Two things are to be stressed about Bauman's contention: first, he is talking about the criminal, not the civil, law; secondly, and much more importantly, he is talking not about a merely de facto proceeding, a mere exercise of naked power, but about a ‘Doctrine’, that is to say, a legally accepted rule capable of acting as a justification for the use of the power.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society (Second Series) , Volume 33 , 1987 , pp. 38 - 52
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s). Published online by Cambridge University Press 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Select Bibliography

Bauman, R. A., (1) Impietas in principem, Münchener Beiträge 67 (1974).Google Scholar
Bauman, R. A., (2) ‘La crisi del diritto’, La rivoluzione romana, inchiesta tra gli antichisti (1982) 208–16.Google Scholar
Brunt, P.A., “Did emperors ever suspend the law of ‘maiestas'?’, Sodalitas (Scritti Guarino) 469–80.Google Scholar
Crook, J. A., review of Bauman (1), Tijdschr. 44 (1976) 167–9.Google Scholar
Greenidge, A. H. J., The legal procedure of Cicero's time (1901, repr. 1971) Appendix 3, “The conditions of the provocatio’.Google Scholar
Gruen, E. S., The last generation of the Roman republic (1974) 279–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardy, E. G., ‘The Catilinarian conspiracy in its context: a re-study of the evidence’, JRS 7 (1917) 153–228.Google Scholar
Kunkel, W., (1) “Die Funktion des Konsiliums in der magistratischen Strafjustiz und im Kaisergericht’, ZSS 84 (1967) 218–44 and 85 (1968) 253-329 (= Kleine Schriften (1974) 151-254).Google Scholar
Kunkel, W. (2) “Prinzipien des römischen Strafverfahrens’, Symbolae David (1968) 111–33 (= Kl. Schr. 11-31).Google Scholar
Kunkel, W. (3) RE s.v. “quaestio’ (= Kl. Schr. 33–110).Google Scholar
Laffi, U., ‘La lex Rubria de Gallia cisalpina’, Athenaeum 74 (1986) 5–44.Google Scholar
McGushin, P., Sallust, bellum Catilinae. A commentary (1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madvig, J. N., Den romerske Stats Forfatning og Forvaltning (1882).Google Scholar
Mommsen, Th., Römisches Strafrecht (1899, repr. 1955).Google Scholar
Stockton, D., Cicero, a political biography (1971), Chap. 6, ‘Catiline’, 110–42.Google Scholar
Thomas, Y., ‘Confessus pro iudicato: l'aveu civil et l'aveu pénal à Rome’, L'aveu: antiquité et moyenâge, Ec. franç. de Rome (1986) 89–117.Google Scholar
Zumpt, A. W., Das Criminalrecht der römischen Republik I, “Die Beamten- und Volksgerichte der römischen Republik’, 2te Abt. (1865) 169–82 and 397–416.Google Scholar