[ULPIANUS libro septimo de officio proconsulis. ] §48.19.5.prAbsentem in criminibus damnari non debere diuus Traianus Iulio Frontoni rescripsit.
[ULPIAN, from the seventh book on the Office of Proconsul] The deified Trajan wrote in a rescript to Iulius Fronto that a person who is absent ought not to be condemned on criminal charges.
sed nec de suspicionibus debere aliquem damnari diuus Traianus Adsidio Seuero rescripsit: satius enim esse inpunitum relinqui facinus nocentis quam innocentem damnari.
But the deified Trajan also wrote in a rescript to Adsidius Severus that no one ought to be condemned on suspicions; for it is better that the crime of a guilty person go unpunished than that an innocent person be condemned.
aduersus contumaces uero, qui neque denuntiationibus neque edictis praesidum obtemperassent, etiam absentes pronuntiari oportet secundum morem priuatorum iudiciorum.
But against contumacious persons, who have complied neither with the notifications nor with the edicts of the governors, a decision ought to be pronounced even in their absence, according to the custom of private trials.
potest quis defendere haec non esse contraria.
Someone might maintain that these provisions are not contradictory.
quid igitur est? melius statuetur in absentes pecuniarias quidem poenas uel eas, quae existimationem contingunt, si saepius admoniti per contumaciam desint, statui posse et usque ad relegationem procedi: uerum si quid grauius irrogandum fuisset, puta in metallum uel capitis poenam, non esse absentibus irrogandam.
What, then, is the case? It will be better decided that, against absent persons, if after being repeatedly summoned they remain absent through contumacy, pecuniary penalties, or those affecting their reputation, can be imposed, and one may proceed even as far as relegation; but if any heavier punishment was to be inflicted, for instance, labor in the mines or the death penalty, it ought not to be inflicted on absent persons.
§48.19.5.1In accusatorem autem absentem nonnumquam grauius statuendum, quam Turpilliani senatus consulti poena irrogatur, dicendum est.
Moreover, it must be said that against an absent accuser, a decision should sometimes be made that is more severe than the penalty inflicted by the Turpilian Senatusconsultum.
§48.19.5.2Refert et in maioribus delictis, consulto aliquid admittatur, an casu.
It is also important, even in more serious offenses, whether something is committed intentionally or by chance.
et sane in omnibus criminibus distinctio haec poenam aut iustam elicere debet aut temperamentum admittere.
And indeed, in all crimes, this distinction ought either to draw forth a just punishment or to admit of mitigation.