La visión ateniense de un juicio ateniense

Modern scholars have different opinions about how the Athenian courts judged legal cases. Some believe that the courts made ad hoc judgments (Lanni); others think that the courts were an arena for elite competition (Ober) or the site of feuding behavior (Cohen). This essay examines the evidence prov...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal:	Harris, Edward M.
Otros Autores:	Buis, Emiliano J., trad.
Formato:	Artículo publishedVersion
Lenguaje:	Español
Publicado:	Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Derecho. Departamento de Publicaciones 2017
Materias:	Juicios Atenas clasica Justicia Proceso juridico Denuncia Historia del derecho Proceso judicial Doctrina Derecho griego antiguo Trials Classical Athens Justice Legal procedure Plain
Acceso en línea:	http://repositoriouba.sisbi.uba.ar/gsdl/cgi-bin/library.cgi?a=d&c=juridica&cl=CL1&d=HWA_3916 http://repositoriouba.sisbi.uba.ar/gsdl/collect/juridica/index/assoc/HWA_3916.dir/3916.PDF
Aporte de:	Repositorio Digital de la Universidad de Buenos Aires (UBA) de Universidad de Buenos Aires

id	I28-R145-HWA_3916
record_format	dspace
institution	Universidad de Buenos Aires
institution_str	I-28
repository_str	R-145
collection	Repositorio Digital de la Universidad de Buenos Aires (UBA)
language	Español
orig_language_str_mv	spa
topic	Juicios Atenas clasica Justicia Proceso juridico Denuncia Historia del derecho Proceso judicial Doctrina Derecho griego antiguo Trials Classical Athens Justice Legal procedure Plain
spellingShingle	Juicios Atenas clasica Justicia Proceso juridico Denuncia Historia del derecho Proceso judicial Doctrina Derecho griego antiguo Trials Classical Athens Justice Legal procedure Plain Harris, Edward M. La visión ateniense de un juicio ateniense
topic_facet	Juicios Atenas clasica Justicia Proceso juridico Denuncia Historia del derecho Proceso judicial Doctrina Derecho griego antiguo Trials Classical Athens Justice Legal procedure Plain
description	Modern scholars have different opinions about how the Athenian courts judged legal cases. Some believe that the courts made ad hoc judgments (Lanni); others think that the courts were an arena for elite competition (Ober) or the site of feuding behavior (Cohen). This essay examines the evidence provided by speakers in court about the reasons for the decisions of the courts. There is no reason to question this evidence because the speakers would in several cases have served as judges or could have asked judges why they voted the way they did. Before examining this evidence, however, one must bear in mind several important features of the legal system. When an accuser submitted his case to a magistrate, he had to choose a procedure found in a law and state how the defendant had violated the substantive norm found in the law about this procedure. When the court voted after the trial, the judges had only two choices: they had to vote to accept the substantive charges in the accusation or to reject them. When litigants discuss other cases, they state that defendants were convicted because the court found that they had violated the substantive norm contained in the relevant statute. Conversely, litigants state that defendants were acquitted because the accuser did not prove the legal charges in the plaint (engklema). When litigants state that a verdict was unjust, the usual reason is that one of the parties submitted false evidence. Alternatively unjust judgments are seen as the result of procedural violations. On the other hand, no litigant ever states that the judges ignored the law, that the judges favored one party because they took his side in a feud, or that one party won because he gave the better performance. The judges might take extenuating circumstances into account, but this should not be construed as a rejection of the law's authority.
author2	Buis, Emiliano J., trad.
author_facet	Buis, Emiliano J., trad. Harris, Edward M.
format	Artículo Artículo publishedVersion
author	Harris, Edward M.
author_sort	Harris, Edward M.
title	La visión ateniense de un juicio ateniense
title_short	La visión ateniense de un juicio ateniense
title_full	La visión ateniense de un juicio ateniense
title_fullStr	La visión ateniense de un juicio ateniense
title_full_unstemmed	La visión ateniense de un juicio ateniense
title_sort	la visión ateniense de un juicio ateniense
publisher	Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Derecho. Departamento de Publicaciones
publishDate	2017
url	http://repositoriouba.sisbi.uba.ar/gsdl/cgi-bin/library.cgi?a=d&c=juridica&cl=CL1&d=HWA_3916 http://repositoriouba.sisbi.uba.ar/gsdl/collect/juridica/index/assoc/HWA_3916.dir/3916.PDF
work_keys_str_mv	AT harrisedwardm lavisionateniensedeunjuicioateniense
_version_	1766026271621382144
spelling	I28-R145-HWA_39162021-04-14 Modern scholars have different opinions about how the Athenian courts judged legal cases. Some believe that the courts made ad hoc judgments (Lanni); others think that the courts were an arena for elite competition (Ober) or the site of feuding behavior (Cohen). This essay examines the evidence provided by speakers in court about the reasons for the decisions of the courts. There is no reason to question this evidence because the speakers would in several cases have served as judges or could have asked judges why they voted the way they did. Before examining this evidence, however, one must bear in mind several important features of the legal system. When an accuser submitted his case to a magistrate, he had to choose a procedure found in a law and state how the defendant had violated the substantive norm found in the law about this procedure. When the court voted after the trial, the judges had only two choices: they had to vote to accept the substantive charges in the accusation or to reject them. When litigants discuss other cases, they state that defendants were convicted because the court found that they had violated the substantive norm contained in the relevant statute. Conversely, litigants state that defendants were acquitted because the accuser did not prove the legal charges in the plaint (engklema). When litigants state that a verdict was unjust, the usual reason is that one of the parties submitted false evidence. Alternatively unjust judgments are seen as the result of procedural violations. On the other hand, no litigant ever states that the judges ignored the law, that the judges favored one party because they took his side in a feud, or that one party won because he gave the better performance. The judges might take extenuating circumstances into account, but this should not be construed as a rejection of the law's authority. Fil: Harris, Edward M. Durham University. Department of History. Cátedra Ancient History. Durham, Reino Unido Fil: Harris, Edward M. University of Edinburgh. School of History, Classics and Archaeology. Edinburgh, Reino Unido Buis, Emiliano J., trad. Antigua Atenas Grecia Harris, Edward M. 2017 Tema: Derecho Griego Antiguo / Coordinador Emiliano J. Buis. -- Traducción del inglés al español por Emiliano J. Buis (Facultad de Derecho / Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Universidad del Centro de la Provincia de Buenos Aires y CONICET). -- Resumen: Los estudiosos modernos tienen opiniones distintas acerca de cómo los tribunales atenienses decidían en los asuntos judiciales. Algunos consideran que las cortes tomaban decisiones ad hoc (Lanni), otros piensan que los tribunales eran un espacio para la competición de élites (Ober) o el ámbito para un comportamiento combativo (Cohen). Este trabajo examina la evidencia proporcionada por los litigantes ante la corte acerca de las razones para la decisión judicial. No hay motivos para cuestionar esta evidencia, ya que los contendientes a menudo oficiaban también de jueces o podrían preguntarles al jurado por qué habían votado como lo hicieron. Antes de estudiar la evidencia, sin embargo, deben tenerse en cuenta algunas características del sistema jurídico. Cuando un demandante iniciaba una causa ante un magistrado, debía elegir un procedimiento basado en una ley y establecer de qué modo el acusado había violado la norma sustantiva que se hallaba en la ley acerca de este proceso. Cuando se votaba al final del juicio, los jueces sólo contaban con dos opciones: o aceptaban los cargos sustanciales de la acusación o los rechazaban. Cuando los litigantes mencionan otros casos, declaran que los defendidos eran condenados porque el tribunal encontró que habían violado la norma sustantiva contenida en la ley relevante. A su vez, los litigantes sostienen que los acusados eran absueltos porque el acusador no probó los cargos de la imputación. Cuando los litigantes sostienen que una sentencia era injusta, la razón más habitual es que una de las partes presentó pruebas falsas. Como alternativa, los veredictos injustos son vistos como el resultado de violaciones procesales. Por otra parte, ningún litigante ha sostenido que los jueces ignoraban la ley, que favorecían a uno de los actores porque tomaron partido en un enfrentamiento, o que uno ganó por haber realizado la mejor presentación. Los jueces pueden haber tenido en cuenta las circunstancias atenuantes, pero esto no debe ser interpretado como un rechazo de la autoridad de la ley. application/pdf 2451-5795 (impreso) 0326-7431 (en linea) Juicios Atenas clasica Justicia Proceso juridico Denuncia Historia del derecho Proceso judicial Doctrina Derecho griego antiguo Trials Classical Athens Justice Legal procedure Plain spa Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Derecho. Departamento de Publicaciones info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ar/ Revista Jurídica de Buenos Aires, a. 42, no. 94 La visión ateniense de un juicio ateniense info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:ar-repo/semantics/artículo info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion http://repositoriouba.sisbi.uba.ar/gsdl/cgi-bin/library.cgi?a=d&c=juridica&cl=CL1&d=HWA_3916 http://repositoriouba.sisbi.uba.ar/gsdl/collect/juridica/index/assoc/HWA_3916.dir/3916.PDF

La visión ateniense de un juicio ateniense

Ejemplares similares