12-10-2019, 11:29 AM
(12-10-2019, 05:47 AM)Jason Micallef Wrote: Who would be the one likely to be punished? A slave for attacking a free born Roman soldier? Or the free born soldier who disobeyed the centurion?
It's an interesting legal question, and I'm not entirely sure of the answer!
Your post title at least can be answered - slaves were not legally 'people' under Roman law, so could not be tried. In the same way, slaves could not be legally raped or even murdered, as they were not 'people' - these were only crimes of property damage against the owner (in theory at least, I think - although as with many of these laws things seem to have changed over time).
In the case of a slave injuring another person, the slave's owner would presumably be liable. It seems that the injured party could cite something called Noxalis Actio (see below), meaning that the owner must either punish the slave themself or hand the slave over to the injured person to be punished; apparently this latter was done by first manumitting the slave, then punishing them as a free person with legal accountability (I would guess in these cases the punishment would probably result in death, not ongoing freedom...)
But if anyone here has more familiarity with Roman law, they may be able to give better advice!
NOXALIS ACTIO
Nathan Ross
