When and why did killing become an offense against the state, or whatever authority was running things? Today even mutually agreed upon things like dueling or assisted suicide are considered crimes, but I gather that waaay back it was treated more like what we would now call a wrongful death suit: Englbert kills Hrothgar in a drunken brawl, and Englbert pays Hrothgar’s family weregeld. Even today we legally distinguish between manslaughter and murder. Of course I suppose that even at the tribal level the Chieftain might decide that so-and-so was too infamous a troublemaker and deal with him accordingly.
Actually, violent crime is not considered an act against the state in all legal systems at the present time.
As I understand it from some threads with poster clairobscur, in France today crimes are thought of as being against the individual, not the state, and the state actually has a limited role in prosecuting crimes. Or at least, far more limited than in the US/UK common law system.
In England the concept of “crime” which the state prosecutes was introduced by Henry II as part of his legal reforms. Before then it was up to the victim or the victim’s family to sue the accused, as you say.
Surely there have been crimes against the state before that, no? The first example that comes to my mind is when the government favors one particular religion and outlaws another (or all others). Like when Rome fed Christians to the lions, or any of many lands which outlawed Judaism. Weren’t these “crimes”?
Read my post again. I was specifically referring to *English *law.
There must have been a misunderstanding. Crimes like murder are crimes against the state in the sense that they’re prosecuted even if there’s no one complaining (the typical example being statutory rape). Maybe the confusion arose from the fact that the individuals (victims) are also represented by their lawyers during the trial?
Actually, that particular case is a crime against the state. In Rome, there was freedom of religion so long as you acknowledged the state gods as gods, which strict monotheists (Jews, Christians) would not do. (I suspect that this “acknowledgement” included tribute and / or political docility, but cannot seem to find a reputable supporting cite.)
Indeed some authorities[sup]cite?[/sup] claim that what the Romans were enforcing was essentially the secular authority of the state- that no one claim a higher allegience to a religious law. At the time Christianity was definitely considered a cult, and the average pagan Roman regarded Christians with as much suspicion and derision as Scientologists are today.
Ok, I was definitely a little confused. However, I was under the impression that an individual can bring charges of a crime personally? Not true?