In the early years of Rome there was no police force in the city. If a Roman was attacked or robbed, then they had to catch the criminal themselves, with help from friends and neighbours. This often led to more violence. In AD6 the Emperor Augustus set up forces to police Rome. However, the situation with crime did not change much. Most were occupied with fire fighting. 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. They did not patrol the streets so they were not able to prevent crime.
Praetorian Guards were the Emperor’s household guards. They were used only in emergencies to protect the Emperor from riots so they also were incapable in stopping crime.
Last, there were Vigiles, who were seven thousand men, their main duty was preventing and putting out fires so they were to busy putting out fires to be able to help prevent crime.
So still, the victims of crime had to investigate and supply evidence themselves. When the victim had the evidence, they took it to the local centurion who summoned the accused person to court to put their side of the case.
Many a time the criminal would have got away with the crime.
Magistrates dealt with minor case in local courts but all important cases were sent to the Governor’s courts in the chief towns.
Theft was regarded as a minor crime because it did not effect the ruler or the majority of the people. If you were burgled in Ancient Rome you could not expect any help from the Vigiles, Urban cohorts or Praetorian Guards. You had to find the criminal yourself and summon them to court.
At the court a judge was chosen, he was not a lawyer although he could take advice from lawyers and both sides presented their evidence. Then the judge reached his decision.
There was a different system for more serious cases such a murder. Cases were tried by magistrates with a jury. Anyone could bring a case to court for trial. When the suspect appeared, both sides gave evidence and the jury decided if he or she was guilty. The magistrate then decided the sentence. Therefore there were three basic principles at work in Roman trials:
- Any Roman citizen could bring a case to court.
- The defendant was innocent until proved guilty.
- The defendant had the right to present evidence.
There were various different punishments, depending on how serious the crime was.
Citizens (ordinary Romans) could be put to death for serious crimes such as Arson, Attacking the Emperor, Robbing temples, Stealing farm animals.
Punishment for lesser crimes, such as thefts or selling under-weight bread, included whipping, repaying the cost of goods and confiscation of property.
Prison sentences were not used as punishments. Prisons were only for people in debt or those awaiting trial or execution.
Over time, Roman punishments became more violent, including amputation of limbs, death by pouring molten lead down the convicted persons throat and crucifixions for those, like Christians and Jews, who refused to recognise the Emperor as a god. Anyone convicted of Patricide (killing their father) was tied in a sack containing snakes and thrown into the river to drown.
The big idea of Roman punishments was to deter potential criminals by harsh punishment. How you were punished depended on who you were.
Nobles could be sentenced to death for serious crimes but they were allowed to go into exile and avoid execution.
All the slaves in a household were crucified if one of them murdered or tried to murder their master. Slaves could give evidence in a trial, but only if they had been tortured first!
There were three key principles of Roman law that are still part of the British legal system today:
- Defendants must know the charges against them.
- Both accuser and defendant must come to the court.
- Defendants must have the chance to give their evidence to defend themselves.
The Romans were still obviously not good at preventing crime.
So why is Britain, today, still using the age-old laws of the Roman Ages.
Can Britain really conquer crime efficiently? Or are they not much better at preventing crime than the Romans were!?