WI: No Immunity for Roman Magistrates

What if the Romans decided that imminuty from prosecution during someone's term of office was not sicha good idea, and removed their protections?

Follow up: How on Earth could you convince the (office holding) Romans this would be a good idea? Perhaps a Plebeian uprising led by some zealous tribunes? Or perhaps something more convoluted, such as the realization that the immunity encouraged the advancement of corrupt officials, and that the ending of that immunity would encourage officials (corrupt or otherwise) to pursue rash actions (Caesar crossing the Rubicon comes to mind).
 
What if the Romans decided that imminuty from prosecution during someone's term of office was not sicha good idea, and removed their protections?

The Romans were known for believing in many gods, but I never heard that they believed on things like honesty and integrity.

How on Earth could you convince the (office holding) Romans this would be a good idea?

Unless Jupiter goes to Rome and tells them he is tiered of their corrupt ways you can't, at least during the Republic.

During the Empire it's fair game. The Emperors accepted corruption, but only so much.

Perhaps a Plebeian uprising led by some zealous tribunes?

The tribunes were probably among the more corrupt.

Or perhaps something more convoluted, such as the realization that the immunity encouraged the advancement of corrupt officials, and that the ending of that immunity would encourage officials (corrupt or otherwise) to pursue rash actions (Caesar crossing the Rubicon comes to mind).

Are we talking about the same Roman Republic?

The Senators were mostly corrupt and if someone made tried to pass this on the Senate or the People's assembly, he would find himself on the wrong end of a blade and the laws would be abolished.
 
Without immunity, roman magistrates would be more busy to defend themselves against a flood of lawsuits initiated by their political enemies, than doing their job. That was the good reason for immunity in the first place. Furthermore every roman magistrate could be accused after his year of service. So what's wrong with immunity?
 
Last edited:
Without immunity, roman magistrates would be more buys to defend themselves against a flood of lawsuits initiated by their political enemies, than doing their job. That was the good reason for immunity in the first place. Furthermore every roman magistrate could be accused after his year of service. So what's wrong with immunity?

Alea Iacta Est
 
If the Romans had written their laws on paper Caesar would've used them to clean himself after relieving his bowels, I think.

Sure. Law was whats enforceable. Nevertheless Caesar tried to go the "legal way. His plan was to get another consulate after legal 10 years, followed by another proconsulate. This way he perhaps goaled for an endless immunity or he hoped to solve his issues during the consulate.

The problem with Caesar was not immunity, but the extraordinary command for 5 years prolonged by another 5 years with support of Pompeius. This enabled Caesar to go Sulla's route, if needed. With just a 1 year proconsulate of a minor province in 58BC, Caesar would have been accused after returning to Rome. Well, as a member of the Populares Caesar could have managed to avoid accusation or win the case with support of the people, the comitia and the triumvirate.

So we should blame the roman senate, who allowed extraordinary commands and a triumvirate acting against the constitution. Not immunity.
 
Last edited:
What if the Romans decided that imminuty from prosecution during someone's term of office was not sicha good idea, and removed their protections?

Follow up: How on Earth could you convince the (office holding) Romans this would be a good idea? Perhaps a Plebeian uprising led by some zealous tribunes? Or perhaps something more convoluted, such as the realization that the immunity encouraged the advancement of corrupt officials, and that the ending of that immunity would encourage officials (corrupt or otherwise) to pursue rash actions (Caesar crossing the Rubicon comes to mind).

The question is wrongly put.

The romans did not need to be able to prosecute a magistrate during his term.

Firstly, because it was not their conception of magistracies and most of all of imperium (which means power to command, constrain and inflict penalties).


Secondly because they had other check and balances.

All magistrates, except dictators (although that was a formal exception), were held to account as soon as their term was over. Which means they could be put to trial and, if they were condemned, their political career could be terminated.

And during their term, there was the possibility to block any magistrate's initiative through veto by his colleagues or veto by one tribune of the Plebs.

Other way : the Senate could, through its Auctoritas, decide to suspend the mandate of a magistrate or to put and end prematurely his term if he had committed a very serious fault.
 
The senate could also ask a consul, who does weird things, to convene the senate. Now the senate could issue a senatus consultum, which was binding for the magistrate. From the senates point of view, the senate was the prime executive. The magistrates were just responsible for daily routine business. In any other case, they had to ask the senate for advice or a consultum. Only exception: military campaigns. And even there they tried to control the magistrates somewhat. Which did not really work in far away provinces.

Of course a consul could legally decline to convene the senate. Or just let the senate discuss but not decide. But that was not very healthy for the magistrates further career. Well, in the last century of the roman republic, bypassing the senate, more or less legally, became popular. But this was not, how the republic was supposed to work, and how it worked succesfully for centuries.
 
Last edited:
Matteo is right.

Especially during the late Republic, prosecution for crimes in office was highly politicized. Allowing them to happen while the magistrate was still in office would only increase the dysfunction and corruption, not lessen it.
 
Top