At the end of the republican era, the jurisdictionof the assemblies in capital crimes had entirely disappeared.

The ordinary mode of criminal trial for serious offences featured a prosecution before a standing court (quaestio perpetua). Less serious offences were dealt with in a summary fashion by lower-grade magistrates, the tresviri capitales.

Shortly after the establishment of the Principate, the tasks of the tresviri capitales were assumed by imperial officials (vigiles) acting under the supervision of the praefectus vigilum.^{^[498]} On the other hand, the standing jurycourts remained in operation for quite a long time after they were reorganized by the lexIulia iudiciorum publicorum of Augustus (17 bc). This enactment drastically revised the composition of the jury-courts in the spirit of broadening the socioeconomic basis of public participation, and prescribed the rules of procedure governing the conduct of trials. A general list of jurors was established comprising four categories based on status and property qualifications: senatorials; equestrians; the tribuni aerarii; and finally, a new class formed by the owners of property worth 200,000 sesterces (duocentenarii) who would be summoned in cases of minor importance. Moreover, the minimum age for jury service was lowered from 30 to 25, so that there always existed sufficient citizens to serve as jurors. In 18 bc, Augustus completed the system of quaestiones perpetuae by creating two new tribunals of this kind: the quaestio de adulteriis and the quaestio de annona. The jurisdiction of the first court encompassed cases of adultery (adulterium), extramarital relationships involving women of a high social standing, and procurement.^{^[499]} The second court dealt with accusations against merchants who endeavoured to raise the market prices of foodstuffs, or who engaged in unfair practices relating to the supply or transportation of food.^{^[500]}

However, since trial by jury was not readily amenable to official control, the system of the quaestiones perpetuae was contrary to the spirit of the new imperial regime.

Apart from this fact, the standing court system had several deficiencies that were not adequately addressed by the Augustan legislation. Firstly, each quaestio was constituted in a specific manner according to the statute that originally established it (or possibly according to some subsequent statute), and could only tackle a particular offence category as specified in such statute. Hence, frequently a wrongful act that merited punishment as a crime was not punished as it did not precisely fulfill the definitional requirements of any of those offence categories for which quaestiones had been instituted. Secondly, the statutory enactment establishing a quaestio (or possibly a subsequent statute) prescribed the punishment for the specific category of offence in question, and this punishment automatically attached on conviction. Thus, the tribunal had no power to either increase or mitigate such punishment to address the circumstances of the individual case. In general, the penalties imposed for offences captured by the jurisdiction of the jurycourts were often regarded as too mild and therefore disproportionate to the gravity of the offences committed. In addition, proceedings in the jury-courts were expensive, laborious and even protracted as the cases were often heard more than once. Thus, since the early years of the Principate the work of the jury-courts was supplemented by the new extraordinary jurisdiction (cognitio extraordinaria) of the emperor and those officials to whom he delegated his judicial powers. At the same time, the princeps-emperor sanctioned the senate’s assumption of an extraordinary criminal jurisdiction. In a sense, the senate may be construed to have replaced the popular assemblies’ jurisdiction and this body was resorted to mainly in cases involving offences with a political nature or any case where the accused was a senator. In principle, these two jurisdictions were concurrent but reality exposes the more extensive nature of the emperor’s jurisdiction from the start. As more offences fell within the sphere of the new tribunals’ jurisdiction over time, the quaestiones perpetuae faded into the background and finally disappeared in the early years of the third century ad.^{^[501]}

4.4.1

<< | >>

↑

Source: Mousourakis G.. Roman Law and the Origins of the Civil Law Tradition. Springer,2015. — 339 p.. 2015

At the end of the republican era, the jurisdictionof the assemblies in capital crimes had entirely disappeared.

More on the topic At the end of the republican era, the jurisdictionof the assemblies in capital crimes had entirely disappeared.: