Law Courts in Ancient Greece

Athenian law courts differed from modern law courts, which look to legal rules that have been passed and precedents in cases. In other words, many court cases are an attempt to dissect and parse the laws enacted by governments to determine what should be done. In addition, precedents have helped shape the particular situation and how a law has been applied in the past.

In ancient Athens, the trials did not focus on enacted laws, which were often few and not related, or precedents, although they were potentially mentioned, but not with the impact on a case that modern courts give them. Instead, the trials in Athenian courts focused more on how the litigants presented their case to their fellow citizens.

Another difference lay with the officers of the court. Modern American court settings, especially for criminal cases, have a judge who rules on the admissibility of evidence and attempts to ensure that both sides present material that is germane. In doing so, the judge often rules on how questions are asked, whether material outside the case can be presented, and determining if certain precedents can be used. In addition, the case is determined by a panel of impartial individuals, typically twelve, often called a jury.

In these modern cases, a person accused of criminal crimes can be found guilty only if everyone agrees—even one dissident can produce a hung jury, requiring the case to be either dropped or retried. In ancient Athens, there were no independent judges, as in modern times, and juries acted as the judges. In addition, the number of jurors was an odd number in order to prevent ties, and there was no need for the jurors to be unanimous; a simple majority was enough.

In modern cases, especially in criminal courts, the state pursues prosecutions. The idea is that for the protection of society, the state puts together a case based on the evidence and attempts to bring about a successful conviction. In ancient Athens, except for arson and patricide, cases were not handled by the state; rather, individuals brought forward a charge. Typically, the family or close friends of the family would bring a charge against the defendant.

The state was the one to bring charges for arson and patricide because these crimes were seen as crimes against the state, and no regular criminal would commit such an act. In other words, the defendant was unbalanced, an idea that in some ways led to the modern idea of being criminally insane. Trials in modern times can extend for weeks, or even months, while in Athens, they were limited to just a day.

Finally, in modern law courts, there are two teams or individuals advocating, one for each side. Here, lawyers argue their cases before the judge and jury using legal precedents and evidence. Professional lawyers advocate for both the state and the defendant. In Athens, each side advocated for its position through a series of speeches, with the occasional use of witnesses to attest to the speaker’s point— no lawyers. In Athens, the cases were personal and revolved around how well either side could convince the jurors of their position.

Since the number of jurors on a case was large (at least 201), a complicated process was created to select them. The hallmark of the Athenian system was being chosen by lot, or sortition. The Athenians believed that this would ensure having a cross-section of the citizen body. Whereas in modern court systems, jurors are not supposed to know about the case or the individuals, there was no such policy in Athens. Indeed, it would have been difficult for most Athenians not to know the individuals, or even the circumstances, of any case since it had a small population compared to modern cities.

The Athenians would begin the process ofjuror selection by enrolling 6,000 citizens over the age of thirty, nearly one-fifth to one-seventh of the citizen body as jurors, or dikastai. These individuals would then be able to serve in the courts as needed throughout the year. If selected for a court trial that day, the juror received a payment of two obols, later increased to three, which for a day laborer was about half to two-thirds of a day’s pay.

On days when the courts were in session (some days were reserved for festivals or declared as nonbusiness days), the jurors would arrive and be given a ticket to determine if he was needed for a trial. A machine with color handles to match the courtrooms and black and white balls to determine if the juror candidate was to be used were then employed. The ticket for a juror would be placed in the machine, and if selected, the juror would be sent to one of the three courts; in addition, the person could also be selected for a task related to the trial, such as paying jurors or watching the water clock to monitor the time for speeches.

This fact that this process was done by lot not only prevented a juror from being bribed, but also gave an allure to being chosen by the gods since they, not city officials, knew the randomness of the selections. It also lent the jurors prestige since they could claim that no one determined the process except for the city as a whole and the gods. The process, therefore, prevented anyone from either canvassing to be on a jury or from being selected by either litigant. In many ways, it allowed the jurors as a whole to be a cross-section of the population and unbiased.

This did not mean that the case was subdued or conducted in a respectful manner; on the contrary, since there was no judge as in modern courts; and magistrates could not expel a noisy juror, it was common for jurors to heckle and berate the litigants. In some of the speeches that survive, a litigant often beseeches the jurors to not interrupt or shout at him. The jurors may have not been averse to discussing the merits of the case openly, either—again, something not seen in modern cases.

The courts were not a free-for-all, where anyone could bring forward a case before the Athenian people. If, for example, an individual was attacked in the street by another, there was no police to get involved; rather, defending himself or a friend and hoping bystanders would help, the aggrieved party would gather the names of those who agreed to be witnesses and would institute the proceedings. No one was arrested; rather, the aggrieved would give a summons to his opponent to come to court. Once the aggrieved was wronged, he could attempt to get justice by his own acts or threats, which were often risky. He and the other party could submit their respective cases to a binding private arbitration or go to court.

The two types of legal cases were private, which included cases of murder, called dikai, and public, called graphai. Graphai appear to be crimes or cases that affected the whole community, such as malfeasance or impiety. These cases were typically allotted a longer trial and a heavier fine, 1,000 drachmas (1000 days’ wages) if the prosecutor did not get a conviction, or at least one-fifth of the vote; the fine went to pay for the cost of the trial, payment to jurors, for example. The Athenians were concerned that someone might bring a frivolous lawsuit in hopes of extorting a settlement (these individuals were called sycophants), and if convicted, a heavy fine was imposed.

If going to court, the aggrieved drew up a summons and personally delivered it to the opposing party, requiring them to appear before the magistrate. In addition, he would give notice to witnesses to appear before the magistrate as well. On the specified day, the aggrieved or the prosecutor delivered his charges to the magistrate, who collected the fees and set in motion the preliminary hearing. It appears that this hearing was where each side put forward all of the documentary evidence, such as wills, contracts, pertinent laws, and other evidence, which was placed in a sealed jar. Both sides would now know what evidence each side planned to use.

These magistrates did not rule on the admissibility of the evidence or decide if the case should go forward; rather, without any formal training themselves, they probably ensured that both sides knew the process and submitted the necessary materials. If the amount was small, then the magistrate through public arbitration could decide; ultimately, in private cases, public arbitration was required, although either or both sides could reject it. This nonbinding arbitration nevertheless probably reduced the number of cases coming before the law courts.

If a case went to court, and after the jurors were selected, the individuals bringing the charge or the prosecutors stated their cases. While not under the rules of evidence as in modern cases, the prosecutors would provide details to back up their charges. While they may have used hyperbole and perhaps even dragged up old issues and charges, they needed to convince the jurors that there was a real issue.

They were limited in their presentation by time, controlled by monitoring a water clock. A simple device, a jug or amphora, would have a spout in the bottom, and the water was released into a lower jug. Once the water emptied from the upper jug, the time was over. Presenters could judge how much time they had left by the force of the water flow. Once over, the defense presented its case, again limited by time with the water clock. They could bring up matters that may not have been directly germane to the case, such as the credibility of the prosecutors or the very act involved. After both sides presented their cases, the jurors voted by placing a white or black marble in a jug. If the person was found guilty, then the two sides entered the penalty phase.

The prosecution would present their punishment, perhaps arguing for a fine, exile, or in severe cases death. The defendant would then give his side, perhaps a smaller fine instead of a steep one, or if the prosecution was arguing for death, perhaps exile or a heavy fine. The jurors would then vote for the side they favored, with a simple majority winning, and the sentence was carried out. If not guilty, the individual was freed, and in some cases, the prosecution could be fined.

One of the most famous cases in Athens was the trial of Socrates. Living during the Peloponnesian War, the famous philosopher was brought up on charges in 399. He was charged with corrupting the youth of Athens and impiety, or not believing in the gods of Athens. The first related to his friendship with Alcibiades, a nephew of Pericles who had continually heaped disasters on Athens by his policies. One of them was the disastrous Sicilian expedition in 415; another was his defection to Sparta, giving them the Athenian plans. Alcibiades then returned to Athens at the head of the democratic faction but was pushed out again after the Battle of Notium at Ephesus in 406, when the Athenian fleet was destroyed. He was then assassinated in 404.

Another charge related to Socrates and his association with the Thirty Tyrants, a group of oligarchs who ruled Athens in 404-403. Although some were students of Socrates, most had already fallen out with him, probably because he did not believe in their cause. The final charge was that he did not believe in the gods of Athens. He argued for a personal spirit, but he did not believe that it was all encompassing. His accuser was Meletus, and in his trial, there were 501 jurors, about 300 of which voted against him. It was a relatively small margin; if only 50 or so of the jurors had changed their vote, he would have been acquitted.

In the penalty phase, Meletus urged death, while Socrates suggested that perhaps he should get a pension or pay a fine of 100 drachmas (one-fifth his estate), although ultimately, he raised it to 3,000 drachmas, which his friends said they would pay. He was then found guilty and sentenced to death, with the penalty vote being even more than the first. Although urged to flee, he did not; instead he committed suicide by drinking hemlock.

In many ways, the trial of Socrates was an attempt to purge the city of its disasters by Alcibiades (such as the loss at Sicily or the battle of Arginusae), who could not be charged since he was already dead. By going after his teacher, the leaders sought to show that someone would pay for his crimes. The trial showed Athens at its best (the concept of democratic trials opened to all)—and its worst (being motivated by past political issues and trying to find a scapegoat). Nevertheless, the Athenians did not believe that their system, even here, was limited or corrupt.