Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 11.pdf/124

 Trials in Athens.

103

TRIALS IN ATHENS. IT was a peculiar feature in the trials at Athens, that they were divided into two classes, assessed (rifiTp-ot) and non-assessed (aTt^irp-oi). In the former, if the case was in the nature of a civil action, the plaintiff laid his damages at a certain amount; or, if it was a criminal case, the prosecutor named a certain penalty to be paid by the accused. The court then, after hearing the evidence, gave judgment first simply for or against the defendant, and if their verdict was unfavorable, provided it was not a cap ital case, he was allowed himself to name the punishment or penalty ((briTifujfia) which he thought ought to be inflicted up on him. Afterwards the dicasts voted a second time, and decided whether the orig inal penalty or the one proposed by the defendant, or even in some cases, one dif fering from both, should be finally adjudged. Those members of the court who were of opinion that the severer sentence should be pronounced, drew a long line (/xaxpa1') across the waxen tablet with which each of them was provided; those who took the more lenient view drew a short one. Hence we may understand the full force of the proud and lofty reply of Socrates, who, when he was asked by his judges after his convic tion what sentence he deserved, said, " If I am to receive my deserts, I ought to have the highest honors paid to me, and be entertained at the public expense in the Prytaneum." This answer, according to Cicero, so exasperated the court, that they immediately condemned him to death. In the second class of actions the nature and amount of the penalty was determined by the law, and the judges, if they gave their verdict against a defendant, were obliged to award that punishment. The mode of procedure in conducting state trials at Athens is involved in more or less obscurity, owing to the scanty notices

of them contained in the works which we possess of the ancient writers. But the following is an outline of what took place. First of all, as a preliminary step, a motion was made in the popular assembly, or Ecclesia, by the prosecutor, that the ac cused should be put upon his trial, and this question was fully debated and put to the vote. We may call this the finding of the grand jury. If the people determined in favor of the motion, a day was fixed for the trial, and the party charged with the offense was, unless he gave sufficient bail, forthwith committed to prison. Shortly afterwards it was referred to an assembly of the people to decide upon the mode of trial, and the punishment that should be awarded, in case the party were found guilty. On the day of trial, if it took place before the people at large, the prosecutor rose, and formally stated the charge, sup porting it with proofs, and he might be followed by any other speaker who wished to press the accusation. The prisoner then pleaded his own cause, and sometimes with fetters on his limbs, while officers stood on each side to prevent his escape. Two urns, or ballot-boxes, were placed for the use of each tribe, and into these the people cast the tablet of acquittal or condemnation, according as each wished to deliver his ver dict. If found guilty, the prisoner under went the punishment which had been previously appointed. Sometimes, however, the people deter mined that they would not in a body try the accused, but ordered that he should be brought before the criminal judges, called Heliastae; and it was the duty of certain public officers, named Thesmothetae, to undertake the management of the pro ceedings. In order that the interests of the state might be fully represented, it was customary to appoint, besides the pro