Procedura apagoge atinskog krivičnog prava u slučajevima ubistva

Abstract

Cilj rada je da se istraži fleksibilnost atinskog sudskog postupka za krivično delo ubistva od druge polovine V veka pre n. e. do restauracije demokratije 403. godine pre n. e, s posebnim osvrtom na slučajeve ubistva u kojima je primenjena procedura apagoge. Tradicionalna procedura atinskog krivičnog prava u slučajevima ubistva, dike phonou, bila je komplikovana i sprovodila se kao ritualni lek kojim su Atinjani pokušavali da očiste polis inficiran prisustvom ubice (miasma). Oni koji su pokretali tradicionalnu dikai često su nailazili na prepreke. Iz tog razloga tužioci su u određenim slučajevima pokretali proceduru apagoge. Ova procedura podrazumevala je da se pred Sudom jedanaestorice ispitaju lica koja su prilikom izvršenja ubistva uhvaćena in flagrante delicto ili su ubistvo izvršili u sticaju sa razbojništvom (kakouryos). Kazna se sprovodila momentalno u slučaju kada uhvaćeni ubica prizna izvršeno delo, odnosno kada je bilo očigledno da je kriv (ep'autophoroi). Međutim, ukoliko potencijalni ubica poriče izvršenje dela, tužioci su na osnovu podnete optužnice morali da pokrenu sudski postupak. Slučajevi procesuiranja Euksiteusa i Agorata u kojima je primenjena procedura apagoge svedoče da optuženima nisu presudili gnevni rođaci žrtava na osnovu samopomoći, niti su pogubljeni od strane Jedanaestorice bez prethodno donete sudske presude, što je bio način rešavanja ovakvih slučajeva u ranijem vremenskom periodu. Ovo je možda i najvažnija proceduralna primena fraze 'očigledno kriv' na osnovu koje su tužioci uspevali da se uzdrže od rešavanja spora odmazdom koja se tradicionalno smatrala opravdanom.

The aim of this paper is to investigate the authenticity of flexibility within Athenian court proceedings for the criminal acts of homicide from the second part of the fifth century until the early years in the restored democracy of 403. B.C, with particular reference to cases of homicide in relation to the procedure of apagoge. The traditional homicide procedure, dike phonou, of Athenian homicide law was a cumbersome and ritualistic remedy with which the Athenians tried to clean up the polis infected by the presence of killers (miasma). Those who prosecuted by the traditional dikai found themselves at a serious disadvantage in some respects. In such circumstances, the plant if sometimes invoked the ancient procedure apagoge. Taken strictly, apagoge was the interrogation before the competent magistrate of one taken in flagrante delicto committing certain acts or that it acts was committed by a robber (kakouryos). The magistrate was usually one of the Eleven. If a man so caught confessed, the magistrate administered at once the appropriate penalty because it was obvious that he was guilty (ep'autophoroi). If he did not, his accuser had to present to the magistrate a written indictment, on the basis of which the magistrate introduced the issue for trial. The two cases, against Euxitheus and against Agoratus, testify to implement procedures apagoge. Those cases were not resolved by self-help or summary execution by the Eleven, as might have been done in an earlier era. This was perhaps the most important procedural implication of the phrase 'obviously guilty', that parties to the agreement refrain from settling grievances by acts of retribution that were traditionally justifiable.