Download ARTICLE ANALYSIS “Secret Ballot and its Effects in The Late

ARTICLE ANALYSIS
“Secret Ballot and its Effects in The Late Roman Republic.”
By Alexander Yakobson
According to the author, the passage of Rome's first law in the previous year that is 180 BC,
suggests that the two forms of legislation are related as both were aimed at curbing wealth-based
inequities of power and status within the governing classes. The temptation to indulge in bribery
indicates that the traditional patron-client relationship was insufficient to gather enough votes to
win election
The candidates acquired public office by openly offering gifts the penalty at Rome for doing so
is death. The point is perhaps that ambitus could be construed as treason under some
circumstances. During the Imperial era, the ambitious politician yielded of necessity to the
bureaucrat in the holding of Roman magistracies. The Stoic philosopher Epictetus (1st–2nd
centuries AD) recoiled from the rough-and-tumble of electoral politics and ambitus
The bribery of a person already holding office was covered by laws de repetundae; provincial
governors were particularly susceptible to such charges. He believed that this is the best way to
gain a complete understanding of the nature of Roman electoral assemblies. Yakobson focuses
on the last two centuries B.C but also take reference to other centuries. According to him the
popular element in Roman elections is far more important than is often supposed. While
developing this thesis, he contributes insightful observations on the role of political patronage in
the Roman world. Evidence for elections and electoral assemblies is often vague and open to
multiple interpretations. Yakobson introduces the main lines of his argument: the wealthy did not
dominate elections, patronage does not sufficiently explain popular participation, and electoral
decisions were in part based on politics.
“The purpose of The Lex Calpurnia de repetundis”
By J S Richardson
According to Richardson, the proposed law was to have consequences to the political and legal
administrative history of the Roman republic. Through his Lex de repetundis, the practice of trial
before a jury became a standard protocol for criminal cases for over fifty years.
Many political figures tried to alter the procedure for the selection of the judices who managed
the juries. The de repetundis was the most important means that was available to Rome
provincial sublets to control the maladministration by the provincial governors. He administered
strick enactment of the law that condemned election bribery but the senate refused to give him
support pretending that the law of Cornelius was severe enough.
Generally, the distinction between an act that violated individual’s rights, property or reputation
and that which was endangering the security of the state had to be put in place. The Roman law
derived distinction between delict and crime from the former case that would compensate or
inflict punishment by private means and not through prosecution organs. He helped to coin the
difference between crime and delict. The aim of the law concerning crime is to wrongdoers with
respect to prevention of the same crime being committed while that of delict is aimed to
compensate the injured. Through this the obligation was on the part of the wrongdoer to pay a
penalty or compensate the victim for the harm caused.
References
Alexander Yakobson, (1995) “Secret Ballot and its Effects in The Late Roman Republic.”
Hermes Bd .234H.4.
J S Richardson, (1987) “The Purpose of the Lex Calpurinia de Repetundis” The journal of
Roman Studies. Vol77.