Crime and punishment in the ancient world

Crime and punishment in the ancient world

Courts in Athens were fundamental aspects of democratic governance. These courts were mainly jury courts, but the juries were huge ones with sometimes 1500 members. Thus, they made the court process very complicated for the defense. However, defendants with the right characteristics triumphed at the end of their trials. According to Lysias 1(On the Murder of Eratosthenes) and Plato’s Apology of Socrates, features of successful defense in the classical Athenian courts included citing relevant laws, portraying the accusers to be villains, and sympathetically characterizing the argument.

Citation of Laws

Reference to legal documents that could allegedly be applicable to the case assisted litigants to enliven their argumentation. Euphiletus defended himself by confessing to killing Eratosthenes, arguing that the act was justified by the law given that Eratosthenes was committing adultery with the wife of Euphiletus (Gagarin, 13). He used the regulation to turn the act of killing an adulterer as one that was a crime duly punished and not a homicide. According to Athenian law, a man could kill another man for engaging in seducing the women under his protection. The law states: “if a man kills another unintentionally in an athletic contest, or overcoming him in a fight on the highway, or unwittingly in battle, or intercourse with his wife [literally, ‘on top of his wife’ — MG], or mother, or sister, or daughter, or concubine kept for procreation of legitimate children, he shall not go into exile as a manslayer on that account( Gagarin, 14) ” However, Eratosthenes’ family alleged that their kin was tricked into falling in a trap organized by Euphiletus.To prove that Eratosthenes had seduced the defendant’s wife, Euphiletus supplied external form of evidence from his friends who testified that he caught Eratosthenes in the act and highlighted  Eratosthenes propensity for similar actions in the past( Gagarin, 24). With such,  Euphiletus refers to the law as the object of punishment legally needed for the seducer, and so,  he succeeded in turning his defense testimony into a prosecution speech.

Presentation of Opponents as Villains

Socrates held on a set of beliefs and values that would put him at odds with the law for impiety and corrupting the youth. In the courtroom, he was accused of imperious acts such as not believing in the gods of the city, including the sun and moon, and introducing a new deity (Strycker & Slings, 87). Instead of accepting the accusation, Socrates challenged the Jury’s thinking by publicly questioning the viability of the gods that his accusers worshiped at the time. Socrates responded by denying the charge against Atheism but by attacking his accusers for their inconsistency in their accusations against him. The reason is that the charge against Socrates cited him for not believing in no gods, but Socrates believed in God, who takes care of his believers (Strycker & Slings, 365). He reportedly told the Jury that he would rather obey his God rather than obey gods that could not prove their practicability. He also asserted that he would never stop teaching and practicing philosophy as long as he was alive and had the strength because obedience to his God requires a life of philosophy (Strycker & Slings, 197). Ever since Socrates serves as the model of justice and nobility of philosophy.

Sympathetic Characterization

Socrates warned the Jury that it would regret its actions, for if the court at Athens sentenced him to death, they would pass judgment upon the greatest philosophers of history. Socrates proactively tells the Jury he is a moral hero by reminding them of his exemplary service (Strycker & Slings, 322). He described a commendable job in teaching the youth on the significance of being moral in their actions by contending he has battled for decades to save Athenians by guiding them in an ethical life of his gods. Socrates says “How can no man be wiser than I?” prove the oracle at Delphi false (Strycker & Slings, 365).  Socrates explains that one must challenge not only the wisdom of others but also one’s self to find the real ground for justice and morality. When he was given a chance to suggest his penalty, he made fun out of it by saying that he should be rewarded. Socrates also indicated that a fine would be too small. The Jury was offering to choose to be banished instead of being executed. Still, he refused by saying he should be publicly honored because the Athenians were the greatest benefactors of his sympathetic actions and that he is incapable of wronging anyone. However, the Jury was not pleased by his reaction, and so the greater majority of the Jury passed the death sentence. Socrates accepted the verdict saying, “I owed it to the city under whose laws I have been raised to honor to the letter (Strycker & Slings, 337).” After accepting the penalty, he waited out his time and refused any offers to escape. Eventually, he drunk the hemlock poison and died.

Works Cited

Gagarin, Michael. The Oratory of Classical Greece University of Texas Press, Austin, 2000.

Strycker, E. De, and S. R. Slings. Platos Apology of Socrates: a Literary and Philosophical Study with a Running Commentary. Brill, 1994.