Roman Law and the Legal World of the Romans

Crimes and Punishments

changes in public opinion, and in practice more and more acts were deemed “against the state” over time. The definition also lent itself to a utility defense. That is, a defendant might more or less admit the violence but claim that it was for the public good. The penalty was capital. Falsum . The charge covered counterfeiting of coins and forgery of wills. The former offense was more narrowly defined than one might expect today. Nothing prevented persons from producing coinage in metals not used for the official currency. (Since money drew much of its value from its precious-metal content, this would not be a silly thing to do.) The penalty was capital. Peculatus . While ordinary thefts were delictal matters, theft of state-owned property fell under this criminal category. A person who had legitimate possession of that property (at least initially) could not be charged with this offense, though he might be liable on other charges. The penalty was a combi nation of exile and restitution (the latter requiring a separate hearing to calculate the amount stolen). Maiestas . Literally “majesty” or “greater-ness,” the full name of this offense was “diminishing the majesty of the Roman people.” Like the laws on vis , those on maiestas speci fied a (growing) number of particular acts, but both prosecu tion and defense could always fall back on the more abstract definition. It was a standard rhetorical exercise to argue how one’s supposed acts of maiestas had actually increased the majesty of the Roman people. While the term is sometimes translated “treason,” that is misleading. The main overlap is

201