How did Roman law distinguish free people from enslaved people?

In Roman law, the fundamental distinction in the law of persons was that all individuals were classified as either free or slaves. This division defined the legal capacity and status of an individual within society.1

• Legal Status: A slave was considered a human chattel, essentially a piece of property that could be owned and traded. Unlike a free person, a slave was generally rightless and lacked a legal mind or will to perform civil acts, such as entering into independent contracts.12
• Modified Reality: Despite being legally classified as a thing, Roman law acknowledged the slave’s humanity. Slaves could manage a peculium—a de facto patrimony—and could enter into contracts on their owner's behalf. Furthermore, Roman law evolved to recognize that killing a slave could constitute a crime, a significant departure from treating them solely as property.12
• Transition to Freedom: Manumission was relatively common in Rome. A manumitted slave typically became both free and a citizen, though they often remained tied to their former owner through a patron-client relationship for a period of transition.31

It is a fundamental ethical principle that all human beings possess inherent dignity, and any legal system that reduces a person to the status of property is a profound violation of human rights.