La visión ateniense de un juicio ateniense* Por Edward m. harris** ...
Modern scholars have different opinions about how the Athenian courts judged legal cases. Some believe that the courts made ad hoc judgments (Lanni); others think that the courts were an arena for elite competition (Ober) or the site of feuding behavior (Cohen). This essay examines the evidence prov...
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Otros Autores: | |
| Formato: | Artículo publishedVersion |
| Lenguaje: | Español |
| Publicado: |
Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Derecho. Departamento de Publicaciones
2017
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | http://repositoriouba.sisbi.uba.ar/gsdl/cgi-bin/library.cgi?a=d&c=juridica&cl=CL1&d=HWA_3916 https://repositoriouba.sisbi.uba.ar/gsdl/collect/juridica/index/assoc/HWA_3916.dir/3916.PDF |
| Aporte de: |
| Sumario: | Modern scholars have different opinions about how the Athenian courts judged legal cases. Some believe that the courts made ad hoc judgments (Lanni); others think that the courts were an arena for elite competition (Ober) or the site of feuding behavior (Cohen). This essay examines the evidence provided by speakers in court about the reasons for the decisions of the courts. There is no reason to question this evidence because the speakers would in several cases have served as judges or could have asked judges why they voted the way they did. Before examining this evidence, however, one must bear in mind several important features of the legal system. When an accuser submitted his case to a magistrate, he had to choose a procedure found in a law and state how the defendant had violated the substantive norm found in the law about this procedure. When the court voted after the trial, the judges had only two choices: they had to vote to accept the substantive charges in the accusation or to reject them. When litigants discuss other cases, they state that defendants were convicted because the court found that they had violated the substantive norm contained in the relevant statute. Conversely, litigants state that defendants were acquitted because the accuser did not prove the legal charges in the plaint (engklema). When litigants state that a verdict was unjust, the usual reason is that one of the parties submitted false evidence. Alternatively unjust judgments are seen as the result of procedural violations. On the other hand, no litigant ever states that the judges ignored the law, that the judges favored one party because they took his side in a feud, or that one party won because he gave the better performance. The judges might take extenuating circumstances into account, but this should not be construed as a rejection of the law's authority. |
|---|