Categories of offences

Crimen repetundarum and concussio

In the Principate period the crime of extortion (crimen repetundarum) was extended to include cases involving abuse of power by any person entrusted with public office.^{^[1044]} A person found guilty of such an offence was now subject to deportatio and could be compelled to pay four times the value of the extorted property.

Related to the crimen repetundarum was the concussio, an offence involving the extortion of property by means of intimidation and abuse of authority by a magistrate or by a person who falsely assumed an official role.^{^[1045]} If committed by a person belonging to the lower classes {humiliores} the concussio entailed severe penalties, including the poena capitalis.

Ambitus and crimen male statis

After the comitia ceased to play a part in the political process, having been deprived of their legislative and electoral functions, the offence of ambitus, concerned with electoral corruption, was redefined so as to cover cases involving corruption of judicial organs as well as buying office or promotion within the imperial civil service.^{^[1046]} The scope of the crimen maiestatis (treason) was also broadened to cover, among other things, acts threatening the safety and dignity of the emperor or his family.^{^[1047]} A refusal to take an oath in the name of the emperor and, in later years, the profession of Christianity, were treated under the crimen maiestatis.

Peculatus and sacrilegium

Peculatus, the misappropriation of property belonging to the state, and sacrilegium, the theft of things used for religious purposes (res religiosae} continued to be regarded as serious offences, although the scope of the latter offence was extended in the later Empire to cover acts against the sanctity of imperial orders or enactments.

A person convicted of such an offence was now subject to relegatio, if he was a member of the nobility, or to deportatio or the death penalty if he belonged to the lower social classes.^{^[1048]}

Calumnia, praevaricatio, tergiversatio

The offence of calumnia - wilfully bringing a false accusation against another - which had already been recognised during the Republic, was now broadened to include any ill-considered accusation, not only accusations motivated by malice.^{^[1049]} A person found guilty of such an offence was subject to the punishment which the offence he falsely accused another of committing entailed. The offence of praevaricatio, concerned with cases in which an accuser was induced by corrupt motives to conduct his case in such a manner as to secure the acquittal of the accused, was similarly redefined.^{^[1050]} The punishment for the crime of tergiversatio, committed when an accuser, without proper justification, abandoned the accusation, was extended by the senatus consultum Turpillianum (61 AD) to include infamy and a heavy fine.^{^[1051]}

Vis publica and vis privata

The scope of the offence of vis publica was broadened to include various acts of violence against public interests, such as the disruption of proceedings in a court of law, the senate or other state bodies, the exercise of pressure on judges or judicial magistrates, the disruption of public ceremonies and funerals etc. To the same category belonged also various forms of abuse of power and grave breaches of official duty committed by state officials. Moreover, certain cases of vis privata involving violence against individuals or the use of arms were now subject to prosecution by state organs, in addition to the private action taken by the individual concerned. Those found guilty of violent crimes were subject to deportatio and the confiscation of their property.^{^[1052]}

Homicidium

During the Empire the term homicidium was used to describe the intentional killing of any free citizen.

Inducing another to commit murder, assisting another in the commission of the crime and participation in armed bands of murderers were also treated under this offence.^{^[1053]} Moreover, from the middle of the second century AD the killing of a slave by his master came to be regarded as homicidium. The requisite guilty intention was inferred from the act of killing, although the lack of premeditation on the offender's part might reduce the level of liability for homicide.^{^[1054]}[1055] The offender's motive, however, was irrelevant. Infants or lunatics could not be punished as murderers since they could not form a murderous intent. The punishment imposed for homicide depended upon the circumstances of the individual case and the social status of the offender.

Falsum

The offence of forgery was the subject of the Sulla's lex Cornelia de falsis (81 BC), by which the relevant quaestio perpetua was established. During the Empire Sulla's statute remained in force but was extended, through senatorial resolutions (SC Geminianum, SC Libonianum, SC Licinianum), juristic interpretation and the practice of the courts, to cover certain acts that fell outside the scope of the original offence definition. These included the fraudulent manipulation of seals, the forging of imperial enactments, the assumption of a false name or title, giving false evidence in a court of law and withholding or withdrawing evidence, and the suborning judges or • 143

jurors.

In addition to the above-mentioned offences, a number of wrongdoings previously falling in the category of delictaprivata came to be classified as crimes. These included, for example, stealing in public places, breaking and entering, cattle stealing, the taking of things belonging to an inheritance before it was passed to the lawful heir (expilatio), the violation of tombs, the removal of border marks and various forms of fraudulent behaviour.

<< | >>

↑

Source: Mousourakis George. The Historical and Institutional Context of Roman Law. Routledge,2003. — 480 p.. 2003

Categories of offences

More on the topic Categories of offences: