It is a little understandable that the Roman courts couldn't get conclusions that were beyond a shadow of a doubt. They never had cameras and could take DNA evidence, so you would have to take unreliable testimonies. Actually, it's often shocking that we ourselves don't condemn criminal purely based on evidence, because we potentially could in 90% of the serious cases. In some cases; real evidence and further investigations are even voided due to circumstance or because the defendant is rich. So in my opinion, we aren't MUCH better than the Romans in this regard.. just a little..
It is a little understandable that the Roman courts couldn't get conclusions that were beyond a shadow of a doubt. They never had cameras and could take DNA evidence, so you would have to take unreliable testimonies.
Actually, it's often shocking that we ourselves don't condemn criminal purely based on evidence, because we potentially could in 90% of the serious cases. In some cases; real evidence and further investigations are even voided due to circumstance or because the defendant is rich. So in my opinion, we aren't MUCH better than the Romans in this regard.. just a little..
the goat