Roman Law and the Legal World of the Romans

Social Control

least those who were not exiled entirely) or of “delicts” like theft that came near to being crimes. Or it could involve per sons who had lost trials in noncriminal cases that nonetheless touched on matters of trustworthiness (such as trusteeship or partnership) or who had been convicted of abuse of legal process (e.g., collusion or false accusation). Finally, it seems to have included some persons who engaged in behavior that was strictly speaking neither illegal nor professional, particu larly male homosexuals and dishonorably discharged soldiers. The consequences of infamia varied depending on the precise situation, but in general they involved limits on participation in public and legal life: holding office, belonging to the army, membership in the elite “orders,” public speaking, represent ing others, judging, and witnessing in court. Note that these consequences would not be particularly significant on a day to-day basis for members of the working class, including all the professions that were automatically infamous. This com bination officially tied the behavior to the social hierarchy (to which it was broadly correlated in the first place). The “right” people were checked from “deviancy” (justifying their ongo ing superior position) while still benefiting from the exploita tion of their moral “inferiors.” The Roman census had similar effects, though on a more limited scale. In addition to counting citizens (as in a modern census), the Roman version evaluated them for wealth and (at the top of the wealth scale) for moral correctness. The penal ties for a negative evaluation (a censorial “mark”) were again civic disabilities that would affect only a tiny fraction of the

73