Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
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.