scholarly journals POJĘCIA I ŻYWOTNOŚĆ RZYMSKIEGO PRAWA KARNEGO

2017 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 7
Author(s):  
Luigi Garofalo

THE NOTIONS AND VITALITY OF THE ROMAN CRIMINAL LAWSummary In the recent studies one tends to revaluate the influence of the Roman criminal law on the later penal doctrine, as well as the achievements of the Roman criminal law itself, rejecting the previous theories presenting it as significantly inferior. It is noticed in this study that the medieval jurists idolized the Roman law, adopted it to the new circumstances, and obviously made mistakes interpreting it. And thus the influence of the Roman jurisprudence on the penal doctrine of the ius commune Europe was thoroughly substantial. Notwithstanding the popular opinion also many of the Enlightenment jurists (as, for instance, Gaetano Filangieri and Francesco Mario Pagano) not only knew but also benefited from the Roman criminal law legacy. The doctrine of crime of the successive period was less inspired by the Roman criminal law, which however did not totally lose its significance. It still had some indirect influence, as the nineteenth century codifiers did not stop using the notions of criminal law shaped-up by the mediaeval jurists overwhelmingly impressed by the Roman law.The main part of the study presents a brief overview of the Roman criminal law, especially of the principal rules constituting today the general part of criminal law, principles which could be directly or indirectly found in the experience of the Roman prudentes. It is pointed out that the only Roman lawyer who tried classifying Roman criminal law was Claudius Saturninus (D. 48,19,16). His classification is later discussed in the article as well as some of the crimina (public law crimes), observing that the Romans never separated the Roman criminal law from ius. On this occasion it is underlined that one of the rules often ascribed to the Romans, nullum crimen, nulla poena sine praevia lege poenali, not only was not their own invention but it was clearly contrary to the criminal law practice in their times (the principle itself being probably formulated only by a German lawyer, Feuerbach). The Romans tried describing the subjective and objective element of the crime as well as presenting various defences available to the culprits (e.g., age, necessity, self-defence, mistake, etc).In the last part o f the paper the possible influence of the Roman criminal law constructions on the Middle Ages is pondered over. The often wrong interpretations of the ancient sources led to some embarrassment and paradoxes. This explains Baldus’ famous statement allowing the judge to construe the (Roman) statute according to the principles of the ius commune, which would in turn revive the statute and save it from an inevitable decay. The mediaeval lawyers studied and analysed the figures of deliberate misconduct and unintentional negligence (anyway without further effects in clarifying vague issue o f the subjective element of the crime). Some of the defences, like the most important figure of self-defence, known and elaborated in the Roman law came to the teachings and studies of the doctores in their original shape and significance, sometimes even stimulating further development of the penal doctrine. The mediaeval ius commune jurists adopted Roman considerations applying different responsibility regarding the doer’s age as well as Roman systématisations of the crimes subordinated to various legal principles. And therefore the doctores, following the Roman example, drew a line between public and private crimes, these which were officially prosecuted and those which were brought to court on a basis of a private motion. The jurists distinguished between lay-public and ecclesiastical crimes, between ordinary and peculiar offences, dishonourable and regular wrong-doings. Similarly the mediaeval lawyers took over the Roman considerations about attempt and iter criminis as well as concurrence of crimes and offenders.In conclusion the paper, wishing for a future development of the studies on the subject, summarises that the theoretical solutions and considerations in the Roman criminal law wrought out above by the classical jurisprudence outlived their times and became the source of the doctrinal inspirations in the coming centuries.

2000 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-18 ◽  
Author(s):  
WDH Sellar

This article is the revised text of the lecture delivered to the Stair Society at its Annual General Meeting in November 1997. It defends the proposition that Scots law, from the time of its emergence in the Middle Ages, has been a “mixed” system, open to the influence of both the English Common Law and the Civilian tradition. It also compares and contrasts the Reception of the Anglo-Norman law with that of Roman law. The former was quite specific as regards both time and substantive legal content. The Reception of Roman law, on the other hand, took place over a considerable period of time, and its effects were complex and diffuse. Above all, the Civilian tradition and the wider ius commune provided an intellectual framework against which to measure Scots law. Both Receptions exercised a profound influence on the continuing development of Scots law.


Author(s):  
John Child ◽  
David Ormerod

This chapter deals with general complete defences that the accused can use to avoid liability. The focus is on defences that can apply (with one exception) to offences throughout the criminal law and will result in the accused’s acquittal. Five kinds of general complete defences are examined: insanity (as a defence), duress by threats, duress by circumstances, the public and private defence (also known as self-defence), and necessity. The chapter first considers the categorical division between excuses and justifications, before explaining the elements of each of the defences in turn. It then outlines potential options for legal reform concerning individual defences and concludes by discussing the application of the general defences to problem facts. Relevant cases are highlighted throughout the chapter, with brief summaries of the main facts and judgments.


2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 469-482
Author(s):  
Ivan Milotić

The protocol of Petar Lazarić, who was simultaneously a domestic priest, prebendary and a notary of Mošćenice, dates back to 1621. It originated in Mošćenice and records in glagolithic script a resolution of a private dispute concerning the property division which was achieved in arbitration. Although the wording of the documents reveals the glagolithic script and is fully made in the Croatian language, if we go beyond that and explore the origins of the essential terms and expressions, we may reach a conclusion that the document substantially records Latin (or Italian) legal technical language which was slightly Croatised in the process of its adoption into the legal system of the commune of Mošćenice. Moreover, the content of the document puts forth legal principles, concepts and institutes of the extrajudicial dispute resolution which were consistently applied in Mošćenice following the model of arbitration in Roman law. All the essentials of the document at hand reflect the strong influences of the Roman legal tradition and the ius commune. The author provides an analysis in this paper which addresses all the relevant institutes that were applied in the arbitration dispute at hand referring to the procedural and substantive law at the same time. The author searches for the Roman model of these institutes, evaluates them from perspective of Roman and canon law of the Middle and New Ages and, finally, he brings this particular legal source in relation to the other two which originated in Mošćenice in the first half of the 17th century that both record significant influences of the Roman legal tradition of the time: The Statute of Mošćenice of 1637 and the boundary dispute between Lovran and Mošćenice of 1646.


Author(s):  
Emanuele Conte

In this article I wish to show how history of legal doctrines can assist in a better understanding of the legal reasoning over a long historical period. First I will describe the nineteenth century discussion on the definition of law as a ‘science’, and some influences of the medieval idea of science on the modern definition. Then, I’ll try to delve deeper into a particular doctrinal problem of the Middle Ages: how to fit the feudal relationship between lord and vassal into the categories of Roman law. The scholastic interpretation of these categories is very original, to the point of framing a purely personal relationship among property rights. The effort made by medieval legal culture to frame the reality into the abstract concepts of law can be seen as the birth of legal dogmatics.


Author(s):  
Phillip Hellwege

AbstractA liferenter has the right to use the fiar's property. Furthermore, he has the right to possession. Only after the termination of the liferent, the fiar can take up the possession and the use of the property himself. In the meantime, the fiar will want the liferenter to maintain the property, e.g., to carry out repairs. In Roman law, the liferenter was first only under an enforceable obligation to repair if he had rendered the cautio usufructuaria. However, in the further development of Roman law an actio in factum emerged in order to enforce the liferenter's duty to repair even if no cautio usufructuaria had been given. The exact point of time when this actio was developed is unclear. It is suggested that it emerged towards the end of the era of classical Roman law. During the time of the ius commune it was uncontested that the liferenter's duty to repair was enforceable even if no cautio usufructuaria had been given. As a consequence the liferenter did not have to nd caution in every case but only if the liferenter's conduct gave rise to fear a material infringement of the fiar's rights. The cause to revisit the question of the enforceability of the liferenter's duty to repair in its historical development is a decision of the Scottish Court of Session in 2002.


Author(s):  
Allars Apsītis ◽  
Osvalds Joksts

Rakstā atspoguļoti atsevišķi rezultāti no autoru realizētās romiešu tiesību pirmavotu izpētes saistībā ar tajos atrodamo informāciju par noziedzīgiem nodarījumiem pret īpašumu, kas mūsdienu Latvijā kriminalizēti Krimināllikuma 175. pantā “Zādzība”, 176. pantā “Laupīšana” un 179. pantā “Piesavināšanās”. Apskatīta un analizēta tiesiskā reglamentācija attiecībā uz abigeatus – mājlopu zādzību jeb aizdzīšanu, kas tika uzskatīta par bīstamāku un smagāku nodarījumu nekā parasta zādzība (lat. furtum) un tāpēc bargāk sodīta. Aplūkoti arī minētā noziedzīgā nodarījuma kvalifikācijas un sodīšanas politikas legālie kritēriji romiešu tiesībās. Saskaņā ar autoru informāciju Latvijas pētnieki šo tematiku visai maz apskatījuši, un pētījums varētu dot zināmu ieguldījumu nacionālās tiesību zinātnes attīstībā, īpaši jautājumā par romiešu tiesību principu ietekmi uz Latvijas Republikas normatīvajos aktos ietvertajiem mūsdienu tiesību institūtiem. The article deals with the results of research performed on the primary sources of the Roman Law regarding offences against property contemporaneity criminalised in the Criminal Law (Sections 175. Theft, 176. Robbery, 179. Misappropriation) of modern-day Latvia. It describes and analyses the Roman Law legal regulation regarding abigeatus – the offence of cattle stealing or “rustling” which was considered as a more dangerous and serious offense than ordinary theft (furtum) and therefore more severely punishable. According to the information in the possession of the authors, Latvian researchers have not yet in particular studied the current theme, and the publications in the Latvian language have not been detected yet. Accordingly, the current article could provide certain contributions to the development of the national field of law, especially regarding the impact of Roman legal principles on the development of modern legal institutes incorporated in the law of the Republic of Latvia.


2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 231-244
Author(s):  
S.N. Shishkov ◽  
E.V. Makushkin ◽  
E.G. Dozortseva ◽  
V.D. Badmaeva ◽  
E.V. Nutskova

The problem of juvenile criminal responsibility /liability, minimum age, and measures of influence for juvenile offenders is relevant and often becomes the subject of public discussion. However, very little is known about the history of criminal law attitudes towards minors in Russia. The purpose of the article is to analyze the development of this relationship from the beginning of Russian statehood to the 18th century. It is shown that at the initial stage in the practice of applying the criminal law to children and adolescents, the traditions of Roman law were traced, however, there was practically no legislative differentiation of adult and juvenile offenders. The turning point was the 18th century, at the beginning of which the need for such differentiation became apparent, and at the end it was implemented along with certain humanistic tendencies that reflected the ideas of the Enlightenment in Europe, including the creation of special courts to consider juvenile crimes.


Author(s):  
Reinhard Zimmermann

What is today referred to as ‘compulsory portion’ or ‘forced heirship’ was subject to a very complex regulation in Roman law. The development went from family succession to freedom of testation and subsequently led to the establishment of a balance between the testator’s freedom of disposition over his property and the ‘natural claims’ of his closest relatives to benefit at least to some extent from the estate. In the process, the Roman lawyers developed a number of interesting ideas, among them, in particular, protection of descendants by means of form requirements; the availability of a querela inofficiosi testamenti (complaint concerning an undutiful will); and the establishment of a minimum quota to which a testator had to appoint his closest relatives (‘legitima’) as well as the introduction of an actio ad supplendam legitimam for cases where the testator had failed to do so. Justinian also saw the necessity to provide for the testator’s widow; she could, under certain circumstances, demand one quarter of the estate by way of statutory legacy. Unfortunately, Justinian, in his Novel 115, failed in his attempt to simplify and streamline the law. From its inception in the High Middle Ages, therefore, legal scholarship based on the ius commune was faced with considerable difficulties in the application of the Roman rules.


Author(s):  
Janet Loveless ◽  
Mischa Allen ◽  
Caroline Derry

Complete Criminal Law offers a student-centred approach to the criminal law syllabus. Clear explanation of general legal principles is combined with fully integrated extracts from the leading cases and a wide range of academic materials. This text aims to engage the reader in an active approach to learning and to stimulate reflection about the role of criminal law, offering a complete guide to the LLB/GDL criminal law syllabus with extracts from key cases, academic materials, and explanatory text integrated into a clear narrative. It provides a range of pedagogical features, including concise summaries, diagrams, and examples. Thinking points are included to facilitate and reinforce understanding. Students are referred to the social and moral context of the law, wherever relevant, to encourage them to engage fully with the topical subject matter. This new edition includes coverage of several recent cases of importance including: Highbury Poultry Farm Produce Ltd v CPS, Lane and Letts (strict liability); Tas, Crilly, Dreszer, Harper (secondary participation); Petgrave (duress of circumstances); Cheeseman, Wilkinson (self-defence); MK v R and Gega v R (modern slavery: compulsion); Taj [2018] EWCA Crim 1743 (intoxicated mistake and self-defence); Loake v Crown Prosecution Service [2017] EWHC 2855 (insanity); Offensive Weapons Act 2019; BM (consent in offences against the person).


Author(s):  
John Child ◽  
David Ormerod

This chapter deals with general complete defences that the accused can use to avoid liability. The focus is on defences that can apply (with one exception) to offences throughout the criminal law and will result in the accused’s acquittal. Five kinds of general complete defences are examined: insanity (as a defence), duress by threats, duress by circumstances, the public and private defence (also known as self-defence), and necessity. The chapter first considers the categorical division between excuses and justifications, before explaining the elements of each of the defences in turn. It then outlines potential options for legal reform concerning individual defences and concludes by discussing the application of the general defences to problem facts. Relevant cases are highlighted throughout the chapter, with brief summaries of the main facts and judgments.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document