Quaestio (legal history)

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quaestio ( Latin for search, questioning, interrogation, quaestion ) was a jury (public) criminal procedure in Roman law . After the court magistrate had brought charges , jury members ( consilium ) were selected from the list of judges, who were then presided over by a praetor to decide on the guilt of the accused.

Quaestio is also the name of the court ruling in these proceedings. The origin of the Quaestio is controversial.

Every Roman citizen was entitled to prosecute in the quaestio proceedings . He invited (spent) the accused directly to the magistrate . If the defendant denied his guilt there, the magistrate decided whether to allow proceedings before the quaestio . At the end of the trial, the jury decided by majority. The complainant received the rights and obligations of a party to the proceedings (party initiative), the decision was then announced again by the magistrate. In principle , the penalty resulted from the law on which the trial was based. In the early imperial period , the quaestio increasingly lost its importance to the imperial jurisdiction.

In the Middle Ages the quaestio took on the character of a legal question and served in the Decretum Gratiani as a structural unit for general legal propositions established there. Using the scholastic method developed at this time , legal questions could be investigated, for example the Decem quaestiones de medicorum statu (“Ten questions in the art and teaching of medicine”), written in the 15th century , which dealt primarily with canonical aspects of the medical profession . At quaestio , the basics of a question are first clarified and then answered after they have been determined. Doubts that were raised about the solution achieved had to be dispelled by refuting the counter-arguments.

See also

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Wolfgang Kunkel , Martin Schermaier : Römische Rechtsgeschichte , 14th edition. UTB 2225, Cologne / Vienna 2005, § 4. Public criminal proceedings , pp. 81–93 (85 f.).
  2. ↑ Wolfgang Kunkel: Investigations into the development of the Roman criminal proceedings in pre-Sulla times . In: Bavarian Academy of Sciences. Philosophical-historical class. Treatises, nF issue 56. Publishing house of the Bavarian Academy of Sciences, on commission from Beck, Munich 1962, OCLC 3056025 .
  3. ↑ Rudolf Peitz (Ed.): The 'Decem quaestiones de medicorum statu'. A late medieval decalogue for the medical profession. Wellm. Pattensen (now at Königshausen & Neumann, Würzburg) 1978 (= Würzburg medical-historical research. Volume 11).
  4. ↑ Christine Boot, Gundolf Keil: 'Quaestiones de medicorum statu' / 'Ten questions in the art and teaching of medicine'. In: Author's Lexicon . 2nd edition, Volume 7 (1989), Sp. 931-943.
  5. ^ Rudolf Peitz, Gundolf Keil : The 'Decem quaestiones de medicorum statu'. Observations on the medical class of the 14th and 15th centuries. In: Specialized prose research - Crossing borders. Volume 8/9, 2012/2013 (2014), pp. 283-297.
  6. ↑ Gundolf Keil: 'Quaestiones de medicorum statu'. In: Werner E. Gerabek , Bernhard D. Haage, Gundolf Keil, Wolfgang Wegner (eds.): Enzyklopädie Medizingeschichte. De Gruyter, Berlin / New York 2005, ISBN 3-11-015714-4 , pp. 1207 f .; see. also Gundolf Keil (ed.): “The question is whether the arczet is guilty or not”: an ortolf -based adaptation of the 'Quaestiones de medicorum statu' from late medieval Silesia. In: Konrad Kunze , Johannes G. Mayer , Bernhard Schnell (eds.): Editions of tradition and studies on German literature in the Middle Ages. Festschrift Kurt Ruh . Tübingen 1989 (= texts and text history. Würzburg research. Volume 31), pp. 189-209.
  7. ↑ Martin Grabmann : The history of the scholastic method . Volumes I and II (1909/1911). Akademische Druck- & Verlagsanstalt, Graz 1957, OCLC 611503421 (first edition: Freiburg / Breisgau, unaltered reprint).