How did this law lead to the development of democratic principles?

6-9. When the litigants settle their case by compromise, let the magistrate announce it. If they do not compromise, let them state each his own side of the case, in the comitium of the forum before noon. Afterwards let them talk it out together, while both are present. After noon, in case either party has failed to appear, let the magistrate pronounce judgment in favor of the one who is present. If both are present the trial may last until sunset but no later

A. Citizens began to favor compromise over executive orders.

B. Punishment could be equally determined by judges or citizens.

C. Fast resolution of legal matters gave citizens more power.

D. Property rights of neighbors became written laws.

The envelope please. And the winner is... What is your answer? We'll be glad to check it.

I think it is B

The law mentioned in the question doesn't directly explain how it led to the development of democratic principles. However, by understanding the context and implications of the law, we can make an educated guess.

The law appears to be describing a legal procedure for settling disputes and reaching a judgment. Let's break down the different elements of the law:

1. Litigants are encouraged to settle their cases through compromise.
2. If they cannot reach a compromise, they must present their respective sides of the case in a public setting.
3. The litigants are then given an opportunity to discuss the matter further in each other's presence.
4. If one party fails to appear in the afternoon, the magistrate can give judgment in favor of the present party.
5. If both parties are present, the trial may continue until sunset.

Based on these elements, we can infer that this law aimed to promote a more inclusive and participatory approach to resolving disputes. It encouraged litigants to engage in dialogue and find common ground through compromise. It also allowed both parties to present their arguments openly in front of others, fostering transparency and public scrutiny.

With these considerations in mind, we can evaluate the answer options:

A. Citizens began to favor compromise over executive orders.
This option suggests that citizens started preferring compromise over executive orders because of the law. However, the law itself doesn't mention executive orders or imply any change in citizens' preferences for them. Thus, this option can be ruled out.

B. Punishment could be equally determined by judges or citizens.
The law does not mention anything about punishment or the involvement of citizens in determining it. Therefore, this option is not supported by the information provided.

C. Fast resolution of legal matters gave citizens more power.
This option seems plausible. By providing a structured and efficient legal process, the law ensured that legal matters were resolved promptly. This could have given citizens more power by allowing them to have a say in the outcome of their disputes and reducing the reliance on centralized authorities. Therefore, this option aligns with the implications of the law and could have contributed to the development of democratic principles.

D. Property rights of neighbors became written laws.
The law does not touch directly on property rights or the creation of written laws. Thus, this option cannot be supported by the given information.

In conclusion, based on the provided law and its implications, option C - "Fast resolution of legal matters gave citizens more power" - is the most appropriate answer.