112. Promisione Maleficorum
Venetian Republic
1470s-1500s
The various tangle of legislation and legal precedence was first codified in the "Promisione Maleficorum" during the late 13th century. Laws were enforced primarily through the "Avogadori", with judges drawn exclusively from the Patriciate. Known as a civil law system, the Venetian judge takes the lead in court by bringing charges, establishing facts, and applying the law. The Venetian system was in strict with punishments for monetary losses but gave considerable discretion to judges for matter such as violence and grievances. Anyone could bring charges against anyone and anonymous tips can be deposited in the mouth of the statues of St.Mark's lions that dotted the republic. There was also a court of appeals in Venice open to all, though access in practice was limited by the ability of people to travel to Venice and present their claims (ie; not slaves). Intended to maintain the Patrician monopoly on power an feeling of "Pessimistic Vigilance" pervaded the texts of the Promisione Maleficorum. To the Patriciate law enforcement was seen as an endless and unwinningable struggle against rebellion, the best case was when crime was kept to tolerable levels. Enforcement was difficult and expensive, with many crimes unsolved and patchy outside of the city. Logically the best choice in the Patriciate's view was to maximize severity in order to deter crime and reduce enforcement costs. The Patriciate attitudes was best personalities by the statue of lady justice in the ducal palace, her eyes unblindfolded and reflecting the Patrician's right to dispense justice. In practice, as Venetian rule was light outside the city and local cooperation was needed as resources were limited. [1][2]
So much has changed since then, the Patriciate are no longer a closed class nor are the institutions of a city-state the same for an empire. A expanded bureaucracy with paid and trained men and women was established for political purposes during the 1380s-1410s only to have its intended inheritor reject it relegating the system to the secondary task of administration. [3]
The most visible change was the method of punishment from the traditional fines towards jail time. Simple and lucrative fines were the standard punishment for crimes of light to moderate severity, with debtor's jail for those unable to pay. In practice fines were an non-issue with the Patriciate and rich while the paupers were unable to work in jail while their health faltered in continuous confinement. During the 1390s, the doge Niccolò Foscari decided to deal with the glut of paupers crowding the jails and costing the state money by replacing fines with jail time. Intended primarily to help keep the Patriciate in line and to reduce costs the change had positive effects for the poor, who were no longer expected to pay fines while locked up and kept away from work. In practice the poor spent less time in jail overall and a there was a greater perception of fairness.
The second most visible change was the extension of enforcement; not only had the Republic expanded its reach it but also intensified its enforcement. If a community was too small, distant, or didn't have special arrangements with Venice for a court then the locals would be left to their own devices for everyday matters while itinerant judges (mostly women around the Adratic, men around the Nile and frontiers) would come by seasonally and resolve the worst offenses in the name of the Republic. While the laws were by no means uniform as some lands entered the Republic by negotiation, conquest, or a mix of both there is a steady pull towards uniformity as the bureaucratic training is centralized and merchants lobby for uniform laws to expediate commerce. [4]
The penalties for theft was no longer punitive and monetarily proportional to property loss, punishments were still based on time/mutilation with the max penalty being the gouging of an eye (even repeat offenders). Death and mutilation was no longer the penalty for repeat offenders or theft of more than 20 soldi (240USD) as those condemned to death in the past often resorted to exile or brigandry and this was seen as an undesirable outcome for an empire with few places to run to and vast lands to police. Whether they realized it or not, the law was shifting away from vengeance towards rational repression. [5]
The penalty for assaults used to be a fine of 12 soldi (130USD), for assaults which drew blood used to be left to the discretion of the judge. In practice enforcement reflected contemporary morality of Patricians instead of a legal tradition. Homicide was to be judged at the discretion of the judge and was in theory operating under the mantra of "innocent until proven guilty". In practice the discretion of the men enforcing the institutions was more important in determine guilt while punishments were susceptible to judge bias and corruption. The most severe crimes were arbitrated through majority voting by the Council of Forty, staffed by forty amateur Patricians with little training or experience with procedures being both over-complex and personal. In practice this meant the enforcement of the forty Patrician's personal preferences as the second highest authority below the court of appeals. By the 1490s the costly fines have been replaced with jail time within a prescribed range while the discretion of the judge had been curtailed somewhat. The rationale behind the change was two-fold, the first was the prevalence of casual violence and the cost of fines, while the average Venetian laborer earned 20 ducats a year the poorest were often unwilling or unable to pay the fines and resorted to drastic measures to avoid punishment/pay fines, to say nothing of the lower standard of wealth outside the city. The second rationale was the overarching centralization of the empire, there simply wasn't enough Patricians to staff the Empire's Avogadori and schools were setup to train bureaucrats in Venetian law leading unintentionally towards standardization of law enforcement. The council of forty, had for the most part been abolished in the power-struggle between the doge and the Patriciate; it was simply too disruptive a cost to assuage the egos of Patricians and also reflected changes in Patrician culture away from vanity. [6]
The penalty for rape was clearly defined by the status of the victim with the fines leveed accordingly; whether she was a virgin, unmarried, married, and the honour of the victim (nobles>...>prostitutes). Fines were meant to cover the dowry to provide for the victim or if she was provided for the dishonour to the family patriarch and given the nature of male-orientated society cases were often dropped for lack of proof or judge leniency. The worst case would've been the rape of a Patrician for which a vengeful Patrician court would condemn to death or exile. On average non-patrician rape was at worst a fine of 4 ducats (500USD) if it was proven to be premeditated, the victim a virgin and especially sympathetic (a child, abducted, impregnated). The rape of men was judged differently as homosexuality was a capital offense, though like rape evidence was difficult to prove and judged infrequently. Unlike other aspects of law which saw standardization there was never enough interest in the manly senate to consolidate laws involving rape and enforcement was judge-dependent for better or worse. Yet there was change as growing numbers of women staffed the bureaucracy and their opinions manifested in cases. [7]
Initially used to free up manpower after the Battle of Venice inertia, lower-market wages for women, and the sheer cost of halting and replacing the bureaucrats of a running system kept women within the bureaucracy and the considerable leeway given to judges had led to a more feminine but still Patrician enforcement; the onus of proof no longer overwhelming stacked against women, the punishments more considerable with jail time, the common-woman given fairer consideration at the same time the Patrician or educated women of the bureaucracy scorned prostitutes and the paupers harshly ruling against them and the idea of destitution and disgrace that haunted the well-to-do. The cultural aspect was the shift in Patrician attitudes towards daughters as the old emphasis on the secluded virginity of daughters faded towards active family members and potential heiresses; the dowry was no longer in vogue and with it the penalty of fines meant to compensate for the dowry and in this regard encouraged rape as the difficulty of proof (even with a shift in onus) and lack of fines meant less consequences on average. [8]
Perhaps the most important change was the cultural aspects outside the legal system, the halting and uneven progress away from favoring the rich, the more rationalized punishments, and the increasing difficulty of evasion as the Republic grew has helped instill/enforce the commoners' trust in/obedience of the law. This cultural change manifests itself in subtle ways such as more helpful bystanders for investigators or more willingness to engage in court instead of extrajudicial vengeance. [9]
[1] IOTL the Promisione Maleficorum was a aggregation and attempted rationalization of Venetian law. IOTL the lion heads pervaded the republic in both public and private capacities from town squares to the small confines of a small workshop, Venetians brought their police-state habits with them.
[2] Check out Venice's lady justice, the lack of a blindfold tells volumes about the city-state before this TL.
https://st4.depositphotos.com/10059...k-photo-lady-justice-statue-palace-venice.jpg
[3] IOTL, the main difference between modern and premodern bureaucracies was training and paid positions; both of these helped ensure that office holders are qualified (as opposed to some relation or whoever paid the most) and that corruption was reduced (as opposed to offices with no income which meant only the corrupt/rich could take office).
[4] IOTL the trend in Venetian law was towards general leniency with the occasional measure bout of extreme penalties. This was IOTL partially due to the limitations of enforcement and the relatively porousness of borders, ITTL the same results occurred but more for administrative reasons in contrast to limitations.
[5] IOTL the practice of exile or harsh penalties often led to brigandry since the law usually didn't have the full confidence of the community in Italy and that the condemned had to sustain themselves, usually by staying near their network where they resided. ITTL the creation of empire helped "internalize" the problem leading to changes in law from a local to imperial scale.
[6] IOTL Venetian law was trending towards more leniency and less fines by the 1800s, ITTL the sheer demographic damage in 1378, opening of the ranks in the Patriciate, and empire drastically expedited change while sidelining/killing stubborn conservatives.
[7] Just as IOTL.
[8] IOTL and ITTL slut shaming is eternal and usual interweaved with classism, educated women tend to be better off and treat the poor little different than we do with street people downtown today. So yes more trained women in law gives justice more empathy for women, but only women viewed as part of their group.
[9] The ultimate purpose of law is to change societal behaviour, although lawmakers and enforcers often fail to grasp the point. More to come in the civil law post.