Thanks for including the link to The Twelve Tables. Each version is different from the others and there are perhaps a half dozen readily available. For example, in Table III which discusses collection of debt, it is mentioned at the end that the debtor unable to cure the default could be sold abroad or put to death. Other translations, which I presume are less abbreviated or less modernized, mention the remedy somewhat differently: the hapless debtor can be sold trans tiberium (across the Tiber), or, if more than one creditor exists, each may "cut [their] pieces" (ie; cut the debtor's body into pieces?)"with impunity..." or "without blame". See e.g. E.H. Warmington Remains of Old Latin III, Loeb Classical Library(1938) This latter interpretation has been debated. Some modern scholars doubt this can be taken literally. Some have tried to argue that "cut pieces" means dividing shares of the debt, or some other lame interpretation. My view is that execution was permitted but probably seldomly used in practice. My conclusion is that the potential was there as a kind of ultimate deterrent (in terrorem) but when it came down to it, even a few sesterces as the price for a slave made more economic sense than killing the creditors' only source of payment; but this was the creditors' option. I base this at least in part on comments of Aulius Gellius,Noctes Atticae,XX.1(trans John Rolfe, Vol.3 at 39-50 Loeb Classical Library 1928). Gellius was a jurist who lived 4 centuries after the Twelve Tables, but his perspective was better than modern scholars. Gellius says he never personally heard of the ultimate remedy being used, but goes on to say that such methods were necessary to "keep faith sacred". Anyone who would like to read more about this issue is referred to the article I have written posted at my domus The Insolvency Law of Ancient Rome. Vale.