Drunkenness – a “Passion” in Roman Criminal Law?SummarySince ancient times jurists and lawyers have had to handle offencesconnected with alcohol abuse. There are only three texts on drunkenness in the Roman legal sources: two relate to offences committed byinebriate soldiers, and the third contains the basic division into intentional offences, accidental offences, and crimes of passion. In all threecategories drunkenness was a mitigating factor, which may be surprising for modern lawyers. Other Roman sources present public opinionon drinking, which seems to have depended on the circumstances– heavy drinking and alcoholism were disapproved of. A precise analysis of the rhetorical writings shows elaborate distinctions betweenintentional and unintentional acts. Drunkenness was regarded as anemotional state which could influence the penalty, but the specific circumstances of the offence were crucial. The rhetorical works confirmthe views presented in poetry and philosophy. Contrary to the legalsources, the facts seem to show that a judge could sentence an offenderto a severe or mild punishment, or even acquit him if drunkenness hadbeen a factor contributing to the offence. The rhetorical works may beconsidered to provide not only an important theoretical background tothe legal sources, but also crucial supplementary information givinga better insight into Roman criminal law.

Do źródeł poznania szariatu, oprócz Koranu oraz tekstów sunny, należą również dzieła jurysprudencji islamskiej. Umdat al-Salik jest podręcznikiem tego świętego prawa napisanym w XIV wieku n.e. przez Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misriego i jest jednym z najbardziej godnych zaufania dzieł szafickiej szkoły prawniczej. Jego tłumaczenie na język angielski dokonane przez N.H.M. Kellera zostało uznane przez autorytety świata muzułmańskiego za dzieło wartościowe i wiarygodne. Uzyskało również akceptację rządów kilku państw muzułmańskich. Podręcznik ten zawiera między innymi opis szczegółowych regulacji dotyczących najpoważniejszych przestępstw prawa islamskiego - hudud. Bezpośrednio godzą one w islam oraz całą społeczność muzułmańską, a karane są z mocy boskiego nakazu. Źródłem ich penalizacji każdorazowo musi być Koran lub sunna. W ich wypadku sędzia nie ma swobody w zakresie wymiaru kary, stwierdza jedynie winę oskarżonego, a sankcja karna jest sztywno określona w źródłach i nie można jej zmienić. Zaliczyć można do nich: cudzołóstwo (zina), oskarżenie o cudzołóstwo bez wymaganych zeznań świadków (qadhf), kradzież (sariqa), rozbój (hirabah albo tariq), picie alkoholu (khamr), bunt przeciw kalifowi (baghy) oraz apostazję (riddah).

Istniała też grupa gladiatorów walczących na rydwanach, jak się okazuje jednak co do zasady wjeżdżali oni jedynie na arenę, a następnie walczyli już pieszo, zob. ibidem, s. v. essedarii. 46 Tę różnorodność podkreśla w szczególności J. C. Edmondson (Dynamic Arenas..., s. 75 i n.), prezentując przy tej okazji metody wpływu walk gladiatorskich na kulturę oraz strukturę społeczną Rzymu. O tym także idem,

The opinion that Roman jurists were giants in the field of private law and dwarfs in criminal law is nowadays a little bit out of date. However, upon a closer analysis of the use of the term ‘accident’ (casus), such a statement seems to be justified. Casus for Roman jurists was not only, as in the sphere of private law, a pure random fact, but also a culpable human act. It is not hard to guess that their writings and opinions were inconsistent in that field and sometimes suggested quite surprising legal classifications of deeds committed in such a way. In order to understand this paradox it might be helpful to take a closer look at historical regulations of crimes committed unintentionally, including above all homicide, but also rhetorical sources, especially works of Cicero. His writings were a canon for learning rhetoric in later times, as well as inspiration for next generations of Roman jurists. His remarks and specific character of the metaphorical phrase si telum manu fugit quam iecit, constituting a kind of definitional topos of crimes committed unintentionally, can lift the veil of secrecy and enable penetration of Roman jurists’ philosophy of life and their intellectual formation.

‘DAMNATIO AD BESTIAS’ – KIND OF DEATH PENALTY OR MODE OF EXECUTION? Summary Damnatio ad bestias was one of the most amazing institutions of Roman criminal law. It was closely connected to gladiatorial games and this relation caused and influenced its dynamic and complex nature. The goal of this paper is to answer the question about the legal characteristic of damnatio ad bestias, whether it was a kind of death penalty or only a mode of its execution. On the basis of legal sources one can affirm that, at least in the roman jurists’ opinion, damnatio ad bestias was a poena, although sometimes it was omitted in the legal catalogs of penalties used in the field of Roman criminal law. This fact may be reasonably explained by the nature of this punishment – it depended on organization of the games with wild animals, so not everywhere there was appropriate infrastructure and necessary beasts. On the other hand, texts describing this penalty, mostly concerning martyrdom of Christians, may suggest that it was a mere mode of execution. But as it seems, these sources refer to the moment of infliction of damnatio ad bestias and other aggravated forms of death penalty, like burning alive and crucifixion, and to the governors’ jurisdiction. All these three penalties were interchangeable accordingly to the circumstances, which fact may create an idea that they were only forms of execution.