Legal Issues In Ancient Greece

In his study of ancient Greece, David Cohen highlights various differences in the way legal matters were handled in Athens as appose to how we handle legal matters today. One of the more obvious differences is the limit of individuals allowed to participate in the institution of law. During ancient Athens, “women, slaves, foreigners, and certain social outcasts were excluded” (Cohen, 195, p.64). Furthermore, there was no strict body of rules and procedures for Athenians to follow. There was no focus on policies, instead disputes between individuals were brought up in public courts like the Heliaia. This court did not have a set judge and jury to make a thorough decision, rather they had citizens, with not training, to make quick decision, with no time for deliberation (Cohen, 1995). Unlike today, there was no oath to keep witnesses from lying, nor was there cross-examination to test the accuracy of statements being made (Cohen, 1995).
Alongside that, there was no strict law enforcement, each citizen was had the legal duty to enforce the law. According to Cohen, in this agonistic society, “prosecution is only by private initiative”, the responsibility of each individual citizen, whereas today, we depend on our developed legal system and the crown when dealing with prosecution (1995, p.105). Instead of it being person, if a crime is committed today, it is against the state (which represents its citizens). During ancient Athens, “everyone knows that individuals seek revenge and purse feuding relations through the courts” (Cohen, 1995, p. 105). In other words, there is an expectation to people going to trial just to get revenge and further their feud. Unlike Athens, an individual is solely judged by the facts of their case, not their reputation or character. Over the years, there have been various changes to the features of the institution of law that we take for granted