THE CRIME AND CAPITAL PUNISHMENT OF EXECUTING CHRISTIANS AFTER AD 64, WHY THE APOSTLE PAUL...

 When Nero was executing Christians after AD 64, why was the apostle Paul beheaded but Peter was crucified?

Rome was a military society in a brutal time. With first the Republic and then the Empire in a constant state of war for centuries, serving as a military officer was the essential first step in a “civilian” political career. It is no wonder that the men setting the rules of Roman society were hardened to what contemporary people would consider viciously barbaric treatment of those who broke the law. Capital punishment was standard in this society that built prisons mainly to hold the accused awaiting trial.

 Executions were public, and the means of execution were deliberately agonizing for the condemned and frequently entertaining for the bystanders. Execution scenes were even used for household decoration. Despite this, Rome set the standard for Western civilizations of governing by written law rather than the whims of the current ruler.

The rule of law rather than personality

Perhaps one of the greatest legacies of Rome was the establishment of a legal system based on a written code of law. In AD 530, Emperor Justinian I had almost a thousand years of Roman law (ius) compiled in the Book of Civil Law (Codex Iuris Civilis), which remained the basis of much of European law until the 1700s.

Judges oversaw courts where charges were brought and argued by prosecutors and lawyers rose to argue in defense of the accused. Records were kept of the court cases, and the results modified how the laws would be applied in future similar cases. In some cases, the convicted even had the right to appeal to a higher authority.

Starting with the Twelve Tables in 449 BC, what had been custom was written down and became well-defined laws to govern Roman behavior. For a millennium, additions and modifications to the written law were made by resolutions of the Senate (senatusconsulta), decrees of emperors, and rulings of magistrates. The practice of law was a respected formal profession. Many renowned Romans, such as Cicero, gained great fame as trial lawyers.

Lawyers for both prosecution and defense, the presentation of evidence as well as argument, a jury of one’s peers: these characterized at least some although not all trial proceedings. Although sometimes ignored or abused by emperors and governors, the written law let Roman citizens and, to some extent, even noncitizens know what to expect if they broke it.

The Roman approach to criminal justice is summed up in two words: punishment and deterrence. For most, trial came swiftly, and punishment was even swifter after judgement was pronounced. It was also public and frequently so horrible that an accused person who expected conviction might commit suicide instead. The upper classes were often given that opportunity; the lower classes, maybe not.

Prisons were for holding the accused for trial and the convicted awaiting execution. The idea of serving a specified prison term for retribution or rehabilitation followed by release was alien to Roman thought.

 Imprisonment was not a legally sanctioned punishment, although an accused person in the provinces might be locked up for a long time waiting for the judge to come to town. In the provinces, a governor had great latitude on how to punish noncitizens, and judicial actions might be neither speedy nor fair. Governors sometimes condemned prisoners to be kept in chains or prisons, but it was not an “official” legal penalty for Roman citizens.

Depending on the social status of the accused and the particular offense, punishment was usually a monetary fine, labor on public projects, exile, or a sentence that led to either speedy or lingering death.

One law and justice for all? No.

In the Roman system, the penalty for a given crime depended on your citizenship status and your social class. In general, punishments for the senatorial and equestrian orders were milder than that for the ordinary citizen. In the Republic and early Empire, punishment for a citizen (civis) was less severe than for a noncitizen peregrine (peregrinus = stranger, alien, foreigner), and citizens had a right of appeal not open to the peregrines. If the person was a slave, punishment was often even more severe than for a free peregrine.

By the 2nd century AD, criminal law officially treated the “distinguished” and the “humble” differently. Citizens were divided into two groups: the honestiores (more honorable) and the humiliores (lower). The distinction was not based on wealth alone. The honestiores included senators, equestrians, soldiers, and local officials.

 Citizens not in one of these categories were humiliores regardless of their wealth. For a given crime, beheading or exile might be the punishment for a honestior, but a humilior would die by burning, beasts, or crucifixion or become a penal slave to be worked to death in the mines or quarries. The fate of the humiliores had become scarcely better than that of noncitizens.

Thanks for reading, leave your thought in the comment section below.