Essay about Athenian Law- a Murder's Defense

In front of the jurymen, Euphiletus stands in trial for the murder of his wife’s lover. He has to defend himself of being charged with homicide and provide proof as to why his murder act was

Euthyphro’s argument is hurt extensively by the information he neglects to mention. Euthyphro does not say whether he witnessed the crime in person, or if he heard about it at a later date. He does not outline how he knows the information he puts forth, and fails to mention his own role in the scenario, which is crucial to the credibility of his accusatory words. If, by Euthyphro’s logic, his father is a murderer due to intentional neglect of the slave who died, then Euthyphro himself can be considered an accomplice, or a murderer as well for being present for or aware of the killing as it occurred and doing nothing to prevent it. His sloppy thinking results in self-incrimination through his own potential unjust behaviors, thus ruining the cogency of his view. There is no mention of Euthyphro’s relationship with his father, either. It is entirely possible that the father and son have a history of intense strife, and if Euthyphro has a grudge with his father over a prior conflict, his entire argument is flawed at its foundation. His motive for prosecuting his father could be revenge rather than the pursuit of justice and truth in the events that may or may not have happened in the way Euthyphro describes them. Any detail given by Euthyphro could be fabricated for the sake of retribution, aside from the death itself. The perishing of the slave is the only part of Euthyphro’s narrative which has physical evidence (that being the corpse of the slave). Everything else has to be believed as truth in order for Euthyphro’s claims to achieve the goal of cogency, but the speculative nature of his thinking makes trusting his words a difficult task. Before even stepping into the courtroom, it is obvious that Euthyphro’s defense is faulty due to what it lacks.

“I love Lavinia more than all the world,” coos Chiron in his braving with Demetrius over the right to pursue her (1.1.571). Yet it is an affection born of the subject/object desire to own, as Demetrius proves in his assertion that “She is a woman, therefore may be wooed;/ She is a woman, therefore may be won” (1.1.583-82). This perspective of Lavinia, a married woman, as a trophy to be awarded either to one or the other brother is what allows the dehumanization of her rape to occur. Their desire is sexual in nature, and if it cannot be vented through courtship, it can find release in the dominant exertion of rape. Aaron initiates this deviation by suggesting that “what you cannot as you would achieve,/You must perforce accomplish as you may” (1.1.606-07). The intended result of this new plan is the shaming and injuring of Titus and the Andronici family. They cannot physically attack him because of his stature within the Roman republic, therefore as critic Tina Mohler proffers, “the metaphoric rape of [man] might be discursively dependent on the literal rape of [woman]”

Firstly, No one can judge with out see the truth behind. Euphiletus says in his defense “See to it that nobody gets to know of this: otherwise the promise I made you will not hold good. And furthermore, I expect you to show me this actually happening. I have no use for words. I want the fact to be exhibited, if it really is so”(Ludai. Pag.72). He refers to the fact that in Athens it was seen as a sacrilege of the family honor that the married woman was catching more than one human being. It was not tolerated primarily because the women in Athens were like

“The Oresteia” written by the ancient Greek playwright Aeschylus, who showed three events of the play Agamemnon, The Libation Bearers, and The Eumenides. The three plays were performed at the annual Dionysia festival in Athens in 458 BCE. The play highlighted different types of themes but the most important one is the theme of justice and injustice. Both themes were seen in different parts of the play where even the gods played a role in determining the justice and injustice in the play. Justice is also divided into two types in the play as human and divine justice. This essay will talk about both justice, and injustice in the play, and the different parts of justice.

Justice is essential, for with a lack of justice, chaos would be brought about in society. In The Eumenides, the Furies value justice without truly being just. Throughout the play, the Furies, protectors of the law, pursue Orestes because of the crime he has committed. They yearn to "trace him by his

Within The Oresteia, Aeschylus explores the consistent battle for justice. He aims to show that justice is not something that is left behind. Instead, it is the forefront of their political system. It is what gives the individuals the right to do what he or she wants. Aeschylus aims to show justice as; someone is deprived of something (such as Agamemnon being deprived of his life by his wife) that another can seek fairness and rightness for what has been done. However, he shows that it is not that easy to succumb to justice (Orestes is subject to a trial in order to discover if killing his mother can be seen as justice, for killing his father). Instead, it is a process that must be followed prestigiously. He shows that there are numerous obstacles an individual has to go through in

The three plays that compose Aeschylus’s Oresteia contains what seems like and ancestry of violence. The violence starts with Atreus, Agamemnon’s father, which puts a curse on the family. Then Agamemnon, Clytemnestra, and Orestes all commit murder which in their mind, is justified. Ironically, this play addresses their “justified” acts of murder when Athena states, “You wish to be righteous rather than act right…”; here, Athena is addressing the Fury, but this statement applies to all of the characters that committed murder throughout this trilogy (Aeschylus line 430). This statement questions real justice versus the idea of justice. Throughout these plays, the reader is forced to decided whether or not murder can be justifiable. For example,

In the play Oedipus the King by Sophocles, the search for justice is a significant theme. Oedipus’ views on justice and the way he tries to carry them out shape the plot. His response to injustice leads to his own tragic fall from grace.

Men and women of the jury, I thank you for enduring through this trial for the sake of justice. We are here today to determine the guilt of Oedipus on the charges of patricide and incest. I have already proven that he is guilty of all charges without a shadow of a doubt, and in my last words, I make one last appeal to your senses of reason and justice. Admittedly, this case is not the most straightforward. However, through all the discussion of intention and fate, at the end of the day, Oedipus must be convicted of his crimes.

Justice is not rigid and unchanging like so many want to believe. For the Ancient Greeks in the 8th century, blood justice is the only way to settle disputes. By the mid-400s BCE, there are glimpses of what will later become a trial by jury in a democratic judicial system. Aeschylus’ plays show a distinct shift from blood justice to a more democratic system. Even Homer, when writing his epic works, seems to hint at a better way to resolve conflict than the “eye for an eye” mentality. The Iliad acts as book ends to the transformation of blood justice to a trial by jury as presented by The Oresteia; and that transformation positively influences how Western culture deals with justice.

Oedipus is a man that has a very strong sense of justice. He cares very deeply for his people because he is the king and worries about their wellbeing. He is very impulsive and strong-headed, but he is also a very noble and just person. Oedipus thinks that justice is very important and needed. He carries it out without caring who did the wrong. This shows us that he cares about justice and punishes the wrongdoer even if it is someone very dear to him.

When all the tribunals were present, two ballot boxes were placed in the first courtroom, as well as some copper dice in the same color as the court, and the other dice with the name of the presiding officer. Two by the lottery to the judicial council, respectively, to vote two groups of the child. One will be colored into the ballot box, and the other into the name of another executive box. That one officer in the first sign, the other will announce that this person will use the first court assigned to him, the next one assigned to the second court, more than analogy. The purpose of such an approach is to avoid his court being known, and each person can only preside over the court designated by lot.

The Oresteia trilogy, including the tragedies Agamemnon, The Libation Bearers, and The Furies, explores the theme of revenge on most of the characters. These plays contain a strong sense of brutality against civilians because there were lots of slaughtering within the house of Atreus. The decision of Agamemnon sacrificing his youngest daughter, Iphigenia as a stepping stone to travel and conquer Troy provoked the death of several others throughout the play. Agamemnon clearly faces a dilemma between war accomplishments and his daughter, but in the end he chose to have what was best for his people. Because of this decision, justice was viewed as an act of retaliation because the characters in Oresteia takes the role of providing punishments to another individual for their past wrongs. Aeschylus presents the first play, Agamemnon as Clytemnestra sets a plan to kill Agamemnon, the second play, The Libation Bearers as Orestes avenging against Clytemnestra for murdering his father, and the third play, The Furies as Orestes getting tormented by matricide. This must be understood that acts of vengeance fails to achieve true justice because it only creates disharmony in society. Although the characters of Aegisthus, Clytemnestra, Orestes, and the Furies were driven by revenge on someone else, Aeschylus reveals a final verdict in court is the best way to achieve justice for societies.

The story was complicated and he needed the person who was there during the murder at the cross road to verify if it was Laius who he had killed, the fact that he did not give up on the process of finding out the whole truth so that the village could be saved from plague showed that he was a real hero (Koper, P. (2006). Myth and Investigation in Oedipus Rex. Contagion: Journal of Violence, Mimesis, and Culture, 12-13, pp.87-98.). Oedipus was the king and he had the right to make decisions without being questioned, after hearing the story of the likelihood that he may have been the one who killed Laius who killed be his father, he had the right to say that no one should ever find out about it and threaten anyone who would talk about it, but he came out and decided to follow up to find the truth and justice be served according to the society’s culture.