Browsing by Author "Chmiel, Andrzej"
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
Results Per Page
Sort Options
- ItemPrzyznanie się oskarżonego do winy w rzymskim procesie karnym(Wydawnictwo KUL, 2017) Chmiel, AndrzejPrzyznanie się oskarżonego do winy przez cały okres republiki aż do II wieku n.e. było traktowane jako wystraczająca podstawa do wydania skazującego wyroku w rzymskim procesie karnym. Takie postępowanie było przede wszystkim wynikiem tego, iż czyn sprawcy postrzegano tylko z punktu widzenia jego skutków, a nie motywacji oskarżonego. Dopiero w okresie cesarstwa confessio zostało poddane kontroli początkowo samego cesarza, a następnie jego urzędników. W czasach pryncypatu sędzia, w którego rolę wcielał się cesarski urzędnik, został wyposażony w stosowne narzędzie, które miało umożliwić mu dotarcie do prawdy. Tym ostatnim stały się tormenta. Wydaje się, iż to właśnie pojawienie się tortur wymusiło zwłaszcza na rzymskiej jurysprudencji zainteresowanie, zarówno problematyką zawinienia sprawcy czynu, ale także, psychologiczną oceną wiarygodności jego wyjaśnień. W efekcie, to tormenta doprowadziły do tego, iż przyznanie się do winy przestało być traktowane w rzymskim procesie karnym jako regina probationum. During the whole period of the Roman Republic until the second century AD, defendant’s confession was regarded as a sufficient basis for conviction in the Roman criminal procedure. This approach resulted mostly from the fact that the perpetrator’s act was viewed only from the perspective of its effects and not the defendant’s motives. Only during the Roman Empire period confessio came under the supervision of first the Caesar himself and then his officials. During the Principate period, a judge, whose role was fulfilled by a Caesar’s official, was granted certain tools which were supposed to help him find out the truth. These tools were tormenta. It seems that the introduction of torture forced especially the Roman jurisprudence to become interested in the problem of the perpetrator’s guilt and also in psychological evaluation of credibility of the culprit’s testimony. Consequently, it was due to tormenta that confession ceased to be regarded as regina probationum in the Roman criminal procedure.
- ItemSummum supplicium in the Legislation of Christian Roman Emperors(Wydawnictwo KUL, 2019) Chmiel, AndrzejThis publication is an attempt to answer the question: what was the role of the criminal penalty, especially in its strictest form (summum supplicium) in the Roman legislation of Christian emperors? Finally, whether is it noticeable, based on the example of summum supplicium, that Christianity influenced the Roman criminal law in any way? As it has been demonstrated, the new state religion did not radically change the Roman criminal legislation. The legislation of the Christian emperors confirmed both, the division of society into servi and liberii that had existed for centuries in the Roman state and the diversity of the legal situation of individual social groups. Punishment in the legislation of Christian emperors continued to fulfil the role it had played in the previous centuries and became, even more than ever before, an essential tool for the political struggle of the present state authority. The finest example of this was the legislation of Constantine the Great, followed by all the severity of criminal repression which resulted in the issuing of this legal act. A great desire to bring about a new order, maintain power and even the fear of losing it can be detected in the strictness of the Constantine’s legislation. Finally, the once persecuted Christians began to behave like their previous persecutors.