BOOK 4 Chapter 16 On the Adjudicative Offices

Chapter 16

I. Introduction: The Adjudicative Part of the Regime

1. Overview:
   • The adjudicative aspect of the regime is the final of the three components discussed by Aristotle.
   • Like the legislative and executive branches, judicial bodies are classified based on certain criteria:
     • From whom they are selected (from all citizens or a subset).
     • On what matters they decide (the types of cases or disputes they handle).
     • In what manner they are selected (by lot or by election).
2. Importance of Judicial Systems:
   • Properly structured courts are essential for regime stability.
   • Mismanagement or inequity in courts can lead to factional conflicts and political revolutions.

II. Types of Courts

1. Eight Types of Courts:
   • Aristotle identifies eight distinct types of courts based on their functions:
     1. Audit Court: Responsible for reviewing public officials' conduct, especially in financial matters.
     2. Court for Public Crimes: Handles crimes against the community or state, such as corruption or treason.
     3. Court Concerning the Regime: Deals with matters directly affecting the stability or structure of the political system.
     4. Court for Disputes Between Officials and Private Individuals: Focuses on fines or financial disputes involving officials or citizens.
     5. Court for Private Transactions: Adjudicates private commercial disputes involving substantial sums of money.
     6. Homicide Courts: Address cases of murder or wrongful death.
     7. Court for Aliens (Foreigners): Oversees legal matters involving foreign residents or disputes between foreigners and citizens.
     8. Court for Small Transactions: Handles minor financial disputes involving small sums (e.g., a drachma or five drachmas).
2. Specialized Homicide Courts:
   • Aristotle further subdivides homicide courts into four categories:
     1. Premeditated Homicide: Intentional murder cases.
     2. Involuntary Homicide: Unintentional deaths (e.g., accidents).
     3. Agreed Facts, Disputed Justice: Cases where the fact of homicide is undisputed, but the justness of the act is contested.
     4. Return of Exiles: Cases involving individuals previously exiled for homicide and their return (e.g., the court of Phreatto in Athens).
3. Court for Aliens:
   • This court is further divided into:
     1. Aliens against Aliens: Disputes between foreign residents.
     2. Aliens against Citizens: Disputes between foreign residents and citizens.
4. Court for Minor Transactions:
   • Deals with small financial disputes that do not require a large jury or extensive deliberation.

III. Focus on Political Courts

1. Political Courts and Factional Conflict:
   • Aristotle shifts focus to the courts that directly affect political stability.
   • Poorly structured political courts can lead to factionalism and regime changes.
2. Four Possible Judicial Systems (Modes):
   • Aristotle identifies four possible structures for courts based on how they are composed:
     1. All Citizens Decide on All Matters: Courts are composed of all citizens, chosen by lot or election, deciding on every type of case.
     2. All Citizens Decide on Some Matters: Courts consist of all citizens but are selected either by lot or election to decide on specific types of cases.
     3. Some Citizens Decide on All Matters: A selected group of citizens (not all) decide on all matters, chosen either by lot or election.
     4. Some Citizens Decide on Some Matters: A selected group of citizens decide only on specific matters, again chosen by lot or election.
3. Additional Variations in Court Composition:
   • Aristotle introduces four more possibilities where courts are composed of part of the citizens rather than all:
     1. Some Selected from All Decide on All Matters: A subset of citizens, selected from the whole citizen body, decide on all matters.
     2. Some Selected from All Decide on Some Matters: A subset of citizens decide only on specific matters.
     3. Some Selected from Some Decide on All Matters: A group chosen from a specific class or group of citizens decide on all matters.
     4. Some Selected from Some Decide on Some Matters: A specialized group of citizens decide only on particular matters.
4. Combination of Modes:
   • Courts can be a mixture of different selection methods, where some courts are selected from all citizens and others from a subset, with selections made by lot, election, or both.
   • This allows for flexibility and adaptation depending on the needs and size of the city or regime.

IV. Categorization of Judicial Systems Based on Regimes

1. Popular Courts:
   • Courts where all citizens participate in decision-making on all matters are characteristic of democratic regimes.
2. Oligarchic Courts:
   • Courts where only a subset of citizens decides on all matters are typical of oligarchic regimes.
3. Aristocratic and Mixed Regimes:
   • Courts where some citizens are selected from all and others from a subset reflect aristocratic or mixed regimes.
   • These regimes blend elements of democracy and oligarchy, allowing both general and specialized participation in the judiciary.

Conclusion: Judicial Systems and Regime Stability

Aristotle’s analysis in Chapter 16 highlights the critical role that courts play in the stability of political regimes. By carefully structuring the selection and function of courts, a regime can maintain order and prevent factionalism. The different modes of court composition—whether all citizens or some participate, and whether selection is by lot or election—reflect the underlying nature of the regime. Popular regimes rely on broader participation in judicial matters, while oligarchic and aristocratic regimes limit judicial power to select groups.

---

Video Explanation