The Assembly and the Law Courts as the Main State Institutions in Athens

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

The Assembly and the Law Courts as the Main State Institutions in Athens

The Assembly and the law courts were democratic institutions. These institutions were political and contributed to the empowerment and betterment of the Athenian state. This essay will discuss how the law courts were the most important democratic institution in Athens through its executive role. By exploring how the Assembly and the law courts operated as independent institutions and how the Assembly by the 4th century BC was incredibly governed by the law courts. In addition, the weaknesses of the Assembly and the rise in power of the law courts as the highest institution of the state. Conversely highlighting its shortcomings.

Athens was the definitive example of direct democracy the Assembly allowed for male citizens to participate directly in the running of the state. The decree of the Assembly began with the formula it was decided by the people (Hansen,1991:125). Therefore, it provided an important public space for people to come together. Meeting of the Assembly was held on the Pnyx, the Pnyx was almost a symbol for the Assembly, and even for the democracy itself (Hansen,1991:129). All male citizens were able to attend the Assembly but women, slaves, metics and people who forfeited their rights (atimoi) were excluded, foreigners could only be present as spectators (Hansen,1991:129). It is evident that the Assembly was pedantic on who could participate as a Council oversaw arresting any unauthorized persons at the Assembly (Hansen,1991:129). The Assembly was summoned by the Prytaneis (presidency) (Hansen,1991:133). They met frequently, 30- 40 times a year. The objective of the Assembly was to pass decrees and laws all binding on Athenian citizens. Decisions of the Assembly were in three types: decrees, judicial sentences, and elections (Hansen,1991:155). Most of the decrees consisted of honorary decrees granting citizenship, during the 5th century BC and mid-4th century BC the Assembly had power as a court of law to try cases and they elected magistrates and other officials (Hansen,1991:158). Briefly, the process is that a member of the Assembly proposed decrees, which were forwarded to the governing body of the Assembly and included in the agenda. The proposition was voted on and if majority was in favor of the rule, the decrees was passed and publicized through an inscription and the stone publicly displayed in the Agora, the Athenian civic center (Hansen). Specific decisions of the Assembly were required by law to be approved by a quorum of 6000, voting by ballot. Hence why 6000 people needed to be present at the Assembly to meet quorum requirements (Hansen,1991:130). Notably the desire to attend the Assembly diminished. Aristotle says there are 2 ways to stimulate participation in the Assembly, punish those who do not attend and reward those who do. They began paying people to attend the Assembly, this increased participation significantly. They were paid 3 obols and pay this was granted for the first 6000 people (Hansen,1991:150). Through participation, the Assembly shaped policy and the Athenian political body.

Athenian democracy was based on the principle of total participation. The law courts were used to make political decisions. They were the hallmark of the democracy (Hansen,1991:178). Distinctly, the courts in Athens and modern times differ. In Athens personal matters were dealt with by an arbitrator and only brought to the court if the party involved appealed against them, criminal matters were dealt with, without the court. The court mostly handled political trials and the political powers of the courts included a long series of administrative responsibilities (Hansen,1991:178). They can be considered the highest organ of the state. The court took a democratic approach by ensuring that no professional or expert ran the law court, this meant it would not turn into an oligarchy. The approach was applied to everyone; as judgement was not given by a professional judge, administration of the court was run by magistrates, there were no state prosecutor, every charge had to be carried out by an ordinary citizen and parties were expected to carry their suits through in person, no one else could appear as your advocate in the court (Hansen,1991:180). In Athens all lawsuits were judged by the courts of the kind called dikasteria (Sealey,2007:244). Each lawsuit had two stages, a hearing before a public officer and the second stage was a hearing among the 501 dikastai who would pass judgement by vote. If a citizen thought a decree passed contravened with the laws, they could prosecute the proposer in the dikasterion (Sealey,2007:249). The specific qualifications to become a juror were as follows: the male citizen had to be at least thirty years, they had to have been picked by lot at the beginning of the year, they had to swear the Heliastic Oath and had to be picked by lot on a given day to serve that day (Hansen,1991:181). Mainly the poor occupied the Peoples Court and the daily pay was 3 obols.

By the 4th century the capability of the Assembly was considerably limited as every matter that came to the Assembly was already discussed by the Council (Hasen,1991:152). The Council was an organ of the Athenian politics and was the governing body of the Assembly. After the defeat in the Peloponnesian War, they limited the powers of the Assembly of the People (Hansen,1991:151). The power of the Assembly was confined, and the peoples capability was reduced to passing decrees, electing magistrates, and passing concrete measures for particular situations (Hansen,1991:151). Decrees of the Assembly were treated in principle as decisions of the entire Athenian people (Hansen,1991:130), but in practice a small fraction of the population. The limitations of the Assembly were the following:

Power to pass laws was repealed and transferred elsewhere. The Assembly limited to electing magistrates, passing decrees and give judgements to certain political prosecutions.
Decrees had to be consistent with the laws.
The Assembly had less influence over finances.
All political prosecutions had to be judged by the Peoples Court. The Assembly lost traces of its jurisdiction.
Every matter had to be considered by the Council before it could be put to the Assembly.
Every decree from the Assembly could be appealed against by the Peoples Court.
Election of magistrate was subject to appeal of the Court (Hansen:1991,152).

The shift in power from the Assembly to the court illustrated that the Assembly may not have been as powerful as previously thought. The courts had great influence over the Assembly and the decisions they made, not only could the courts appeal against every decree but the Assembly lost traces of its jurisdiction.

A prime example of the strength of the court were the various accountability measures they had in place to ensure things ran efficiently and swiftly. The courts could call magistrates to account for their administration. Dokimasia was an examination, to test whether a man was formally qualified to hold a public office to which he had been appointed. Individuals had to pass the dokimasia before they could hold the office. It gave the courts the chance to offset the more unfortunate consequences of selection by lot and to control, and if necessary, overturn, an election made by the Assembly (Hansen,1991:218). At any given time, any citizen can impeach a magistrate to the Peoples Court (Hansen,1991:220), if a magistrate was bias, the court allowed citizens to exercise their democratic rights. The fate and fortunes of individuals rested in the hands of the citizen jurors (Sinclair,1988:132). Jurors had the power to block any proposal made by a member of the Assembly on the grounds that the proposal was unconstitutional. From the above statement it is evident that the law courts served as robust checks and balances in Athenian polis. The law courts essentially had the final authority, at the beginning of 403 BC the law courts were left to examine and approve new laws or change the existing ones (Sinclair,1988:132). Lysias speech On the Murder of Eratosthenes, illustrates how citizens appeared before the court and advocated for themselves. Euphiletos is accused of murdering Eratosthenes but according to Athenian law if your wife is caught with her lover in the act of adultery you could either kill him or demand compensation. He begins by stating All I seek to gain is the requital accorded by our laws (Lysias 1.4). Lysias speech depicts how the courts held the law in high regard. Euphiletos cross-references the law in his speech and reminds the juror that the law states whoever takes vengeance on an adulterer caught in the act with his spouse shall not be convicted of murder (Lysias 1.30), because every city makes its laws on any matter which perplexes us as we may resort to them and enquire what we have to do (Lysias 1.35). It is evident that jurors needed to support the laws of the state because if they failed to do so they encouraged criminal behavior and their judgement was of the utmost importance as it could either escalate or deescalate criminal activity.

The Assembly retained an important role in the initial phase of legislation and criminal proceedings (Hansen,1991:158). Despite its important role initially, the law courts had unlimited power to control the Assembly, the Council, the magistrates and the political leaders (Hansen,1991:178). In the courts the demos had the power. Because the court had incredible power it was competent to judge every lawsuit and condemn every sort of crime (Hanen,1991:203). The court also exercised its political role by giving judgement in political trials (Hansen,1991:203). There are 3 prosecutions that formed the basis of the political powers of the Peoples Court, the first is Graphe paranomon – against the orators, the second – Eisangelia eis ton demon – for treason or bribery – against the generals, and the last Euthynai – questioning of magistrate- against all magistrate (Hansen,1991:205). The Athenian Constitution details how the law courts were structured and how jurors judged cases. It also outlines their authority in Athens and its importance as a democratic institution. The law courts consisted of 500 members and for important cases members could reach 1000 and for extremely important cases 1500 members (Aristotle, Athenian Constitution: part 68). The law courts oversaw all other political organs within the state. In the constitution it stated if they detect any magistrate in embezzlement, the jury condemn him for theft, and he is obliged to repay tenfold the sum he is declared to have misappropriated (Aristotle, Athenian Constitution: part 54). Additionally, If they charge a magistrate with accepting bribes and the jury convict him for corruption, and this sum too is repaid tenfold (Aristotle, Athenian Constitution: part 54). The law courts were especially particular about who became a juror, they needed to meet the requirements and if any unqualified person serves as a juror and information is laid against him and he is brought before the court and if he is convicted; the jurors assess the punishment all fine which they consider him to deserve (Aristotle, Athenian Constitution: part 63). These observed practices were not only evident within the law courts but was extended into the democratic sphere and other institutions.

Be that as it may, no institution is perfect, and the law courts did have its deficiencies. Athenians did not have the modern concept of the law, they did not recognize an underlying body of the law and so the Athenian dkastias swore to vote in accordance with the most just opinion (Sealey,2007: 249). This meant that judgement was irregular. Lysias also claimed that it was common for juries to convict but then to impose no penalty (Sinclair,1988:133). Personal interest of jurors could affect their judgement hence why it could be understood as capricious. Aristophanes, a Greek playwright commented on how jury work only attracted a certain type of individual who may not be attracted to the job description but to the pay (Roth, 2020). Jurors were also said to abuse their power as they were amateurs who in some instances could muddle political systems and procedures, further the system was opened to abuse (Roth,2020) and those who could took advantage of that.

Conclusively, Athenians did not entrust power to a single organ. Authority was divided between the Assembly and the law courts; however, the law courts wielded more power. They served as robust checks and balances over other political institutions. The Assembly, magistrates and other officials were accountable to the law courts. The court ensured these organs operated alongside the laws of the state, they had power to overturn any unconstitutional decisions and behaviors. The court was a necessary and paramount democratic institution, it enforced democratic ideals and limited despotism and coercion.

References

Aristotle, Athenian Constitution. Translated by Sir Frederic G. Kenyon. Available online: http://classics.mit.edu//Aristotle/athenian_const.html
Hansen, M.H. 1991. The Athenian Democracy in the Age of Demosthenes. Oxford. 125-224.
Perseus.tufts.edu. 1930. Lysias, On The Murder Of Eratosthenes,Section 1.Translated by W.R.M Lamb, M.A. Cambridge. MA. Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. [online].
Roman, R. 2020. SLL2055S. Athenian History: Lecture Notes/Slides. Unpublished.
Sealey, R. 2007. Democratic Theory and Practice, The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Pericles, 238-257.
Sinclair, R,K. 1988. Democracy and Participation in Athens. Cambridge. 106-135.

Click Here To Order Now!