Quaestiones Perpetuae

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

There were at least nine of these permanent courts (Quaestiones Perpetuae) in Rome.

 

1. Quaestio de Majestatis - Treason court

 

2. Quaestio de vi - Violence court

 

3. Quaestio de sicarriis &c - Assassination court

 

4. Quaestio de venificiis - Poisoning court

 

5. Quaestio de parracidio - Parricide court

 

6. Quaestio de falso - forgery court

 

7. Quaestio de repetundis - Extortion court

 

8. Quaestio de pectulatus - Embezzlement court

 

9. Quaestio deambitus - Bribery court

 

To preside in these courts there were six praetors but as there were more courts than praetors a senator called judex quaestionis was appointed annually where a president was wanting. The praetor or judex quaestionis presided over the judices in each court, and the judices returned a verdict by a majority of votes, sometimes given by ballot, sometimes openly. In choosing these judices this was the process. The whole number available was ,it is said, 300, divided into three deuriae. In any given case the praetor named the decuria from which the jurymen were to be taken, and then drew from the urn containing their names the number assigned by law for the case to be decided. Each side could then challenge a certain number, and fresh names were drawn from the urn in place of those challenged.

[Faustus]

In any given case the praetor named the decuria from which the jurymen were to be taken, and then drew from the urn containing their names the number assigned by law for the case to be decided. Each side could then challenge a certain number, and fresh names were drawn from the urn in place of those challenged.

Isn't this the foundation of, or even the first of its kind of a process called the Voir dire in the U.S. trial system today? ( "In the United States, it now generally refers to the process by which prospective jurors are questioned about their backgrounds and potential biases before being chosen to sit on a jury." )

[P.Clodius]

Weren't these Sullan innovations?

[Lost_Warrior]

Does anyone happen to know the reason why there were so many of these courts? It would seem that one or two would be sufficient (in other words, why couldn't one court handle more than one type of case?)

[Faustus]

Does anyone happen to know the reason why there were so many of these courts? It would seem that one or two would be sufficient (in other words, why couldn't one court handle more than one type of case?)

Rome, with a population of perhaps a million, would have needed many courts because of "case load" or legal actions being taken. (I've read Rome was a litigious society). They seem to have found it efficient to "specialize" these jurisdictions rather than "generalize" them.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Weren't these Sullan innovations?

 

Sulla added 4 praetors, but the courts were made permanent in 149. See PP's table.

[Lost_Warrior]

Rome, with a population of perhaps a million, would have needed many courts because of "case load" or legal actions being taken. (I've read Rome was a litigious society). They seem to have found it efficient to "specialize" these jurisdictions rather than "generalize" them.

 

That makes sense. The courts would also be better, I would think, as they were 'specialized' to a particular area, therefore, the judge would be experienced in that sort of case.

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

Weren't these Sullan innovations?

 

Some of these courts were attributed to Sulla but how many and which one's ,we're unsure of.

 

There were possibly even more courts such as Quaestio de adulteriis (adultery) and Quaestio de plagiis (enslavement of freedmen) but these we can neither be sure of.