Please read through this translation of the the Twelve Tables, Rome's first written laws (also available in an abridged version here). How impressed are you with this law code? Cite an example of what you consider to be a particularly good law or a particularly bad law from this code. Explain how the law you cite would have tended to either strengthen or weaken the Roman Republic.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
The Twelve Tables
Please read through this translation of the the Twelve Tables, Rome's first written laws (also available in an abridged version here). How impressed are you with this law code? Cite an example of what you consider to be a particularly good law or a particularly bad law from this code. Explain how the law you cite would have tended to either strengthen or weaken the Roman Republic.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
Im pretty impressed with the laws they seem to cover most loopholes and have a way of always getting the case into court to be settled, not really anyway you can avoid going to court unless you leave town without anyone knowing. Law ten which states that sundown is when the judge must reach a discision I think should be changed to maybe a few days and let the court resume on the next morning. I do not know how they divided up the time between both parties but you might not be able to go through all your case and your witensses and such. I think this might help out though if the case is simple and short and make sure cases are not taking forever and the courts are not backed up. But if they case is really important it might hurt the system if the judge makes a wrong decision
I am impressed the Roman law codes for the most part. There were punishments for crimes but in many of the laws they were also trying to be fair. For example in Table VIII with the burning of someone's property it was capital punishment if it was on purpose but if on accident they would just need to repair the damage. If they were to poor to pay then they would get a lighter punishment. I think that this kind of approach to their laws would strengthen the Roman Republic. Any society that has severe punishment for every crime brings fear and doubt into the people which weakens the society. The Romans were trying to make a confident society with a strong national pride. This can easily be done if the people feel they are being treated fairly by their government.
If you cause any unlawful damage .... accidentally and unintentionally, you must make good the loss, either by tendering what has caused it, or by payment (Fest., Rupsit, Sarcito)." This is a law that I like because it is pretty similiar to the laws today. If somoeone damages your property they must repay you for the damage. These days the repayments are usually made by prison time and/or restitution payments to the victim. This has been a longtime law and even as far back as the Roman civilizations had a form of property laws. Of all of the laws that I read, this one in my opinion was the the most similiar law to todays laws. There were several other laws there that are similiar to todays laws though in the Roman civilization, the punishment was far more severe. The law that I mentioned was similiar to todays law of property damage and the punishment was pretty similiar. Alex Mason
in table 8 it says > If one has maimed a limb and does not compromise with the injured person, let there be retaliation. If one has broken a bone of a freeman with his hand or with a cudgel, let him pay a penalty of three hundred coins If he has broken the bone of a slave, let him have one hundred and fifty coins. If one is guilty of insult, the penalty shall be twenty-five coins.
i find this to be a fairly good law, becouse it descourages one fomr hurting others, its not too unlike our laws today in which you have to pay the other persons medical bills if your the one who caused it.
this i think strengthans teh romans cuz it takes into acount the responsablitiy of ones actions. so you dont have a buch of people running a mucc doign whatever they want, they know that what they do may have a consiquence.
-allison
For the times and for the beliefs of the Roman people these laws seem to have been adequate for them. Judges appointed to hear cases were warned against taking bribes on penalty of death to ensure fair justice for all Roman citizens, in theory anyway, and speedy decisions were required in most cases by sundown. A law I thought that has stood well throughout time handed down by the Romans is the concerning new laws, that "Affairs of great importance shall not be transacted without the vote of the people, with whom rests the power to appoint magistrates, to condemn citizens, and to enact laws. Laws subsequently passed always take preference over former ones." It leaves hope that laws that restrict and place penalties on what are choices of personal freedom could be overturned one day. -Louis Brown-
I thought the laws were really intresting. most of them made sense even though there were a few i just didnt get. Like the whole "women shall not tear their faces nor wail on account of the funeral" in table 10. The law i did like though and thought was proper planning on there part is "A child born after ten months since the father's death will not be admitted into a legal inheritance." in table 4. There are loop wholes but all and all very good laws for a society to conduct it self by.
Please read through this translation of the the Twelve Tables, Rome's first written laws (also available in an abridged version here). How impressed are you with this law code? Cite an example of what you consider to be a particularly good law or a particularly bad law from this code. Explain how the law you cite would have tended to either strengthen or weaken the Roman Republic.
I think the set of laws is actually pretty advanced for the time. I know that the Greeks had set up a good foundation for roman society but it seems very advanced. I like that they cover many different situations and scenarios. I like the that the even cover post-mortem laws. They set strict standards for everything and they seem to cover most if not all bases. The thing I don't understand is the selling of a son. I don't know what it means so it is really confusing to me. I think it would strengthen the empire for the sole reason of how broad the laws are and how it effects all in the empire, from slaves to thieves. it shows that they were an advanced people and that they were able to include and care for all their subjects
I can't decide if Table IV, Part 2(If a father sell his son three times, the son shall be free from his father)is a good law or not. The fact that a father can sell his son twice (not to mention, at all) without penalty (it appears) certainly does not fall under the category of good, but the fact that there is a limit is.
As for how this would strengthen or weaken the Roman Empire, I honestly don't know. My off the cuff response would be no, but I honestly am not sure. Father's being able to sell their sons (without any reference to their mothers, who were supposedly in charge of their households, seems to be a bit of a discrepancy, but I suppose the argument that this is a financial arrangement) doesn't strike me as a good thing, but I suppose that would depend upon to whom they sold their sons to. I am curious, though, as to how this applied to daughters. The law doesn't appear to say.
It would be interesting to see with what consistency this, as well as the other laws, is upheld. Weas this law, or any of the others typically ignored, or held sacred? Were there certain assumptions made about when or to whom these applied, other than when specified?
Cassandra Stangeland
I can't decide if Table IV, Part 2(If a father sell his son three times, the son shall be free from his father)is a good law or not. The fact that a father can sell his son twice (not to mention, at all) without penalty (it appears) certainly does not fall under the category of good, but the fact that there is a limit is.
As for how this would strengthen or weaken the Roman Empire, I honestly don't know. My off the cuff response would be no, but I honestly am not sure. Father's being able to sell their sons (without any reference to their mothers, who were supposedly in charge of their households, seems to be a bit of a discrepancy, but I suppose the argument that this is a financial arrangement) doesn't strike me as a good thing, but I suppose that would depend upon to whom they sold their sons to. I am curious, though, as to how this applied to daughters. The law doesn't appear to say.
It would be interesting to see with what consistency this, as well as the other laws, is upheld. Weas this law, or any of the others typically ignored, or held sacred? Were there certain assumptions made about when or to whom these applied, other than when specified?
Cassandra Stangeland
Well overall it seems that most of the laws seem to be pretty useful with a few of them that either could be taken out or changed in some way. When they have a law that says a dreadfully deformed child shall be quickly killed. I guess in this time it would seem cruel to do something like this, but for the Romans, they just probably felt it was best, rather than that child having to go through life with a major deformity. There is also the law where no person shall hold a meeting in the city at night. This seems like an odd law, but I think it probably strengthened Roman society because if someone felt strongly about something they would have to gather people during the day and do this in the public’s eye rather than trying to keep it secret and gather support without a lot of others knowing.
Eric Bengs
I am impressed with some laws but with other laws I can definitely see some problems. It seems like they tried to be fair with everyone with the laws except women once in awhile. I think a law that is a particularly bad law is that plebians can't marry patricians. I understand that their thinking is that you don't want to have people who are supposedly smarter (patricians) marry people who aren't as smart (plebians) but I think that is a dumb law. Also that a woman can't cry at a funeral of her husbands it really dumb. I think that the law with the patricians and plebians might strengthen the Roman Republic because it doesn't allow the plebians to try and marry a patrician to gain power. It keeps the plebians in place. Overall I think the laws were very good.
I am very impressed with this set of laws. They obviously spent a lot of time working on different procedures and setting up sets of rules for specific situations. The laws are impressive in that they have a set punishment that go along with most of them. Living in Roman Times you would pretty much know what was what. I noticed that some other students commented on this too but the law that caught my eye the most was the procedure for theft in law 10. The trial will last from sun up until noon and the judge will get from noon till sundown to make a decision. Talk about some swift justice. I would love to see the justice system have a speed control like that. I doubt that will ever happen here but wow. I think that the Roman system would be a hard sell to today's people because they do seem to regard human life more casually. I don't think the Romans had people win emotion damage claims.
I think that it is a really good start of laws. I really like the law were the judgment must be made before sundown. This dosent let people linger around and passes judgment alot quicker,even though it may weaken the collection of evidence i believe they were gonna either get the punishment of not regardless of the time to the judgment. I dont like the law that states that gives the goverment the right to make decisions with out the people if it is an important issue. they should be included but the laws the romans made were all around fair and good.
I'm quite impressed with this law code. When you look back to older codes such as Hammurabi's Code that simply stated if you steal something you lose a hand, and simple stuff like that, this is a real step forward. They have stuff in there that helps prevent bribery, fights witchcraft, battles against treason, accounts for self-defense and all sorts of stuff that we've done in the modern times. One law I think is particularly bad is law 6.1. It states that should someone deny a verbal agreement they shall be taken to court and pay double the agreed upon amount. The problem with this is that no one would honestly know who is telling the truth. I think this law would weaken the Republic by making it easier for people with high clout and reputation with the judges and arbitors to get trials ruled in their favor even if the defendant was innocent. Back then it seems they hadn't comprehended the concept of heresay and that what one person may say, even if under oath, isn't necessarily true.
-Nik Aberle
These laws are pretty intense. At first when I was reading them I thought these are pretty good and then I came to the part about dividing up the body after being in the stocks for three days. This was a bit appaling! The next law stated that if a baby was deformed it shall be killed right away.
The Roman laws were harsh which could be a good deterant, but when a society is punishing people so harshly I feel it shows that the society might not be very moral and could lead to it's decline.
These laws are impressive in that they teach people a lesson. They know that the laws will punish them for something they have done. The laws cover most loopholes as well and there isn't much that people can get away with at this point in time. These laws are what should be enforced this day in age and there wouldnt be as many sick crimes committed.
I think the laws were quite applicable to society at the time...most of them i guess would be applicable today. They all applied to things that were of important nature to the well being and overall functionality of the city. I rather enjoyed the law about protecting one's property. Back in the day if someone broke into your house you could shoot em fair and square. Now they have to be IN the house and armed...rediculous. I like the Roman idea....if the thieves are killed by the owner of the property...well they should have thought about the consequences of their actions. I think this law would have strengthened the republic. I mean....if I knew that someone could kill me if i was trying to take their stuff....well I wouldn't take their stuff. The law makes the decision real easy if you ask me.
Post a Comment