| Summary: | Many legal systems show evidence of having evolved out of a decentralized system of privately enforced law. Our very imperfect information on early Roman law, in particular the surviving texts from the law of the Twelve Tables, suggests that that was the case for it as well. Punishments for what we would consider crimes largely consisted of damage payments, while enforcement of court verdicts seems to have been largely the responsibility of the plaintiff, as was compelling the defendant to come to court. The earliest procedure for trial ( legis actio sacramento ) took the form of a bet on which side’s claim was true, with the money deposited by the losing party forfeiting to the state. Arguably its function, like that of a trial in a feud system such as that of saga-period Iceland, was to establish for third parties which of the two litigants was in the right and so entitled to use force if the losing litigant refused to obey the judgment. There was, however, an exception to that pattern for offenses against religion or directly against the state. Privately enforced systems, most notably early Irish law, make use of sureties to enforce contracts and judgments. The same was true of Roman law throughout its history, although with many detailed differences from the Irish. Over time, responsibility for prosecution and enforcement shifted from the plaintiff to state actors. But even in its final form as codified by Justinian, prosecution of both civil and criminal offenses was primarily the responsibility of private citizens.
|
|---|