It's pretty neat to look at the concepts of crime and punishment when it comes to ancient civilizations, and to think how far we've come from certain points of view, and how similar we are to them in others. For all the philosophers trying to coin notions such as “universal evil” - I suggest they start from here.
The Romans, with their obsession with laws and formalities, are rather easy to understand for the modern mind. They took crime and punishment pretty seriously, and were particularly creative – as far as the punishment part is concerned. The part that we find odd today is that which stipulates different forms of punishment for the same crime, when committed by people of different social statuses. Then again, do we have the same standards for Hollywood actors, sport stars and rich politicians as we do for the ordinary man?

Crucifixion was a punishment reserved for slaves, pirates and enemies of the state; Roman citizens could be condemned to crucifixion only for high treason (this pretty much implied the loss of the social status as well). The best known case is St.Paul, who was beheaded, being a Roman citizen, while St.Peter, convicted of a similar crime, was crucified.
There are two famous accounts of this method being used on a large scale: once, by Crassus, after crushing Spartacus' revolt. 6,000 captured slaves were crucified, creating a forest of dead bodies from Capua all the way to Rome – a gruesome reminder that Rome was not willing to tolerate such actions or to pardon anybody involved in them or supporting them.
The second case is in 70 AD, during the siege of Jerusalem, when, according to Josephus, the Roman army crucified captives along the walls of the besieged city.
Nero allegedly added a new twist, by setting the crucified bodies on fire and using them to light up the streets (somehow I find it weird that he was still playing with fire after his capital city just got burned down to ground).

I'm not sure whether this form of punishment existed in Republican Rome or was a novelty introduced by the Julio-Claudians, but it caught on. Romans tried using all sorts of animals (they were a bit disappointed by the giraffes, though); sometimes victims were covered in skins from other animals. I told you they were creative, didn't I?




So, how creative were the Romans with this one? The killer was to be whipped till bleeding, then sewn in a sack with a dog, a rooster, a viper, and and an ape, and thrown into the sea. I guess dogs and roosters were readily available, but do you suppose they kept stocks of vipers and apes just in case? (Actually, scholars believe that the ape was added later for the dramatic effect.)
Emperor Hadrian, the ultimate role model for bureaucrats everywhere, decided further clarifications were needed, so passed an amendment saying that the killer could be just thrown to the beasts, if the sea was too far away to properly execute the punishment.