Judicial Corruption
Judicial Corruption
Bad Reputation. Many have claimed that the Roman courts were staggeringly corrupt. The Roman advocate and politician Marcus Tullius Cicero noted three sources for this corruption: personal favoritism, the influence of the powerful, and bribery (Defense of Caecina 73). It is certain that such problems existed, but one must keep in mind two other points. First, complaints about particular cases always come from the losing side; no one ever sees favoritism at work when he wins. Second, the idea of “corruption” is more complicated than it first appears. Romans openly depended more on personal authority and less on objective evidence than most moderns do in arriving at the truth. What, then, is the line between legitimate authority and corrupt influence? For Romans, it was probably a matter of which side one supported in a case. From a modern point of view, however, the system was certainly biased in favor of the wealthy and powerful.
Sources
Peter Garnsey, Social Status and Legal Privilege in the Roman Empire (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970).
John M. Kelly, Roman Litigation (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1966).