Social: This verse provides some of the best information available on the functioning of the greater Nephite judicial system. While the context is specifically Ammonihah, Mormon does not indicate that this system is unusual nor unique to Ammonihah. It is probable that this is the general system that prevailed wherever the political system fell under the Zarahemla reign of the judges.
This verse is the first time that we find clear evidence of any form of police force among the Nephites. It is not surprising to find it, as the cities are of sufficient size that some organized means of enforcement would have been necessary. The process of judgment was that the wronged person would come before the judge and lay his claim. The judge then decided if the offender should appear, and if he/she should, then the officers were sent.
The "evidences" were brought against the man, and a verdict rendered. What is missing in this recitation is the role that the lawyers played in this process. It is clear that they were involved, for it is this judicial process that generates income for them - billable time, in the modern vernacular. If we return to the speculation about the nature of the lawyers being closer to the Jerusalem model than the modern model, then the function of the lawyers was not to argue the case, but probably to consult the records. As scribes, they would have the access to the written tradition, against which the judgements would be rendered.
The punishments rendered are also interesting. For non-payment of a debt there are three levels of punishment listed: forced payment ("the man was compelled to pay that which he owed"), humiliation ("be stripped"), or banishment ("be cast out from among the people as a thief and a robber.")
One may suspect that the preferred settlement was to pay what was owed. This would provide the best result for the person bringing suit. However, if the person were unable to pay, then one of the next two punishments were meted out. It is possible that of the presentation of the possibilities is another place where the lawyers would serve in the judicial system, by consulting the records to find the appropriate punishment.
The last two punishments are interesting because they are so different. One is personal humiliation. The second was, in some communities, virtually a death sentence. The banishment of a person from the city meant that the person was cut off from not only his means of support, but also from his support group. He was banished from his local kin. Thus the person no longer had the means to provide for himself, nor anyone socially required to assist him. It is possible that such a person might have kin in a different city willing to help, but it is also possible that the entire kin group would hold firm in the banishment because it had been levied against the kin in one city. This was an extremely serious punishment.
The seriousness of this punishment contrasts with the relative simplicity of the "stripping." Why would there be two very different penalties for the same crime? It may be assumed that paying what was owed was no punishment, but rather the enforcement of justice. The stripping was a penalty, but clearly not of the significance of banishment. Why should personal humiliation be a punishment?
It is probable that the punishments were different because they were meted out to different social classes. The lower class would receive banishment, and the upper class would be humiliated (a rather severe blow to their pride and standing in the community). This dual system of justice is reflected in punishments delivered by the Aztec judges in a later time period. In the case of the Aztec justice system, the harsher penalty appears to have applied to the nobility rather than to the commoner (Soustelle, Jacque. The Daily Life of the Aztecs. Stanford University Press. 1961, p. 143).