• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Why didn't the Romans conquer crime?

Extracts from this document...


? Intro: What type of crimes did they have? Romans had many types of crimes. Here are some examples: >theft >murder >fraud (selling underweight goods e.g. bread) >keeping streets clean. Some of these are similar to today's crimes and some are different. There is still theft, murder, and fraud today. Keeping streets clean isn't a crime today but it can't be too dirty otherwise its unhygienic. How did the Romans try to stop crime? The Romans had detailed laws covering all aspects of life. For example, the crimes were outlined clearly, >Murder >Theft. >Dangerous buildings. >Cheating in trade. >Keeping streets clean. Over time the laws got more and more detailed. The Twelve Tables and The Digest of the Roman Laws were introduced. They also had different courts for minor and major crimes. ...read more.


They didn't have prisons, as there was no police force. Who caught the criminals? The victims and their families had to catch the criminals and find evidence on them. For example, if a theft was committed the victim had to gather evidence and summon the defendant to court. There were 2 types of cases minors and majors. These were held in different courts, magistrates court and jury trials. The minor cases, such as theft, the victim had to gather their own evidence and take the culprit to the Magistrates courts, but for major crimes, such as murder, the defendant had to be heard before a jury. It was hard for the poor as it isn't easy to catch a criminal as an individual. Also not many people would believe them, as they didn't have much money. People may have thought the poor wanted compensation money. ...read more.


In Britain the evidence was taken to the local centurion to try the case. We also know that the crimes in Rome and in Britain were similar, such as theft, murder, mugging, and etc. The laws, courts and punishments were all the same in Britain and Rome. Conclusion: Why didn't the Romans conquer crime? The Romans didn't conquer crime for many good reasons. The harsh punishments were enough for some people; the detailed laws, the courts and the juries were part of the reason for not conquering crime. The other part was because the Romans didn't have a police force as they thought it wasn't their responsibility to prevent crime. It was also too difficult to catch the criminals and prosecute them, as it was hard to get enough evidence. I think the main reason the Romans didn't conquer crime was because of the harsh punishments. By Shikha Dave ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE Law section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related GCSE Law essays

  1. Worlds Apart: Orientalism, Antifeminism, and Heresy in Chaucer's Man of Law's Tale

    recognized a relationship which aimed primarily at the destruction of Islam, and in which missionary endeavor held a subordinate place." Even as late and supposedly liberal a cleric as Robert Holcot (d. 1349) argued the right to kill Muslims who refused to convert.

  2. Justices of the Peace - Magistrates Courts

    In respect of sentencing, however, there is again some variation between benches, and the chance of a defendant's being given a custodial sentence for an either-way offence varies by a factor of more than ten. At one end, according to figures quoted by Jack Straw in November 1996, is Staffordshire

  1. The Law Relating to Negotiable Instruments

    once a wrong person takes away the payment of an open check it is difficult to trace him. A crossed check is payable only through a collecting banker and not directly at the counter of the bank. Thus, crossing affords security and protection to the holder of the check because

  2. Is Diminished Responsibility Relevant?

    at times does the theory seem to agree with the practice . This state of affairs is probably seen more often in law than other disciplines as there is a greater tendency to manipulate the available evidence to the edge of what is known as the rules of evidence , especially in serious crime where there is much at stake.

  1. Why didn't the Romans conquer crime?

    The core of the police was riot troops. The Roman Empire did not have an effective enough police force. They had three different types of police force but none of them were capable to prevent crime. There were Urban cohorts, who were three thousand soldiers; their main job was to keep order by stopping riots.

  2. Why was an allowance system introduced in Staffordshire in 1811?

    of seven then he can go to the parish and ask for relief." The Speenhamland system made parishes give paupers extra money in their wages, so that they could buy the high priced bread. Income should be For a Man For a single woman For a man and wife With

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work