Thomas Aquinas,
Summa Theologiae — Question 67 - OF THE INJUSTICE OF A JUDGE, IN JUDGING…
“ It would seem that a judge may pass sentence on a man who is not accused. For human justice is derived from Divine justice. Now God judges the sinner even though there be no accuser. Therefore it seems that a man may pass sentence of condemnation on a man even though there be no accuser. ”
Thomas Aquinas,
Summa Theologiae — Question 67 - OF THE INJUSTICE OF A JUDGE, IN JUDGING…
“ One is that he has to judge between accuser and defendant, while the other is that he pronounces the judicial sentence, in virtue of his power, not as a private individual but as a public person. Accordingly on two counts a judge is hindered from loosing a guilty person from his punishment. First on the part of the accuser, whose right it sometimes is that the guilty party should be punished---for instance on account of some injury committed against the accuser---because it is not in the power of a judge to remit such punishment, since every judge is bound to give each man his right. ”
Thomas Aquinas,
Summa Theologiae — Question 67 - OF THE INJUSTICE OF A JUDGE, IN JUDGING…
“ In a case of denunciation, as stated above (Q [33] , A [7] ) , the amendment, not the punishment, of the sinner is intended: wherefore when a man is denounced for a sin, nothing is done against him, but for him, so that no accuser is required. The punishment that is inflicted is on account of his rebellion against the Church, and since this rebellion is manifest, it stands instead of an accuser. The fact that the judge himself was an eye-witness, does not authorize him to proceed to pass sentence, except according to the order of judicial procedure. ”
