1a. In this trial I would argue that Eratosthenes is fact non guilty. Section 11 of the Laws of Athens provide for the lawful killing of a seducer? Though it can be argued that Eratosthenes broke the law as he was seen in bed with Euphiletos’ wife there some things that are important to consider. The law states that “A kakourgos (lit. “Wrong-doer”), i. e. a burglar, adulterer, footpad, or assassin, who is caught in the act may be punished immediately without a dagger by whoever wishes. Now look at this law clearly. First I would like to point out that Eratosthenes was not a burglar, as he did not steal anything, he was not a ootpad he did not rob pedestrians nor was he an assassin as he did not kill anyone. Though arguable, he was not an adulterer for the fact the word adultery is a person who had illicit intercourse with a married or a betrothed woman, in which intercourse requires there to be penetration. Which there was none of. Eratosthenes was found lying next to Euphiletos’ wife.
While the law of section 11 clearly states that the person must be caught in the act. Yes, you can say if he was lying naked what else could it imply. But we must stick to the law that is already set in place and know that Eratosthenes was not caught in the ct. According to section 11 the law states that the person may be punished. Nowhere does it say that you may kill the person, nor does it say what the weight of the punishment should be. Euphiletos had stepped way to far and went past the law.
He wanted to get back at him he could have taken him to trial of kakourgia. Like the law states. Even if Eratosthenes is guilty then according section 11c but “if a man is found guilty in trial of kakourgia, he is turned back over to the victim who, before the court, may punish however he wishes without a dagger. ” After they would have gone to trial could have death with the ituation. Killing him at the scene is unacceptable and goes against the law and Euphiletos should be punished for his wrongdoings.
1b. In 1b it sates “If so, were the actions of Euphiletos of Oea, resulting in the death of Eratosthenes of Oea, justified by Section 11 of the Laws of Athens? ” The act of Euphiletos was not justified because he should have not killed Eratosthenes. Euphiletos says he did this in the heat of the moment and that he felt that Eratosthenes had corrupted his wife and brought shame to his family and insulted him but in fact this did not happen in the heat of the moment. This is a ase of premeditation. Euphiletos has hated Eratosthenes from the beginning.
The old women who had spoken to Euphiletos had said, “The person who is disgracing you and your wife happens to be our mutual enemy. ” Notice that the women had said “mutual enemy” meaning that Euphiletos had already had former hatred with him and that this would be a good excuse to get rid of Eratosthenes. Euphiletos had found out of the incident from the slave girl and decided to plan his murder. He purposefully told the slave girl not to mention his meeting to anyone so he could set up hid murder.
Euphiletos purposefully aited four, five days before making his move giving him plenty of time to set up premeditation. If he really wanted to obey by section 11 he easily could have taken him to trial and dealt with it according to the law. However, he didn’t do that instead he waited and set up a plan to kill him. The night they entered and saw Eratosthenes lying next to his wife, it is important to note that the people that came in later saw him naked. Euphiletos never said saw him naked and it cannot be said under section 11 that Eratosthenes was caught “in the act.
For none of the members actually saw him having intercourse with Euphiletos’ ife. Eratosthenes did not argue with Euphiletos he actually begged not be killed and Euphiletos having no mercy killed him when since he new days before what was happening should have taken him to court and dealt with it just fully. For even if Eratosthenes was in the wrong, after going to court according to the law. Killing him before taking to court is unjust and goes against section 11 and Euphiletos should have waited until trial and after dealt with the situation.
There is no way this could have been a crime of passion when Euphiletos knew about this days in advance and had plenty of time to come up with a urder plan. By killing him instead of taking him to court Euphiletos made sure that only his and his friend’s side of the story would be told and so Eratosthenes would never be able to tell his side. This shows that Euphiletos had other motives otherwise there could easily have been a trial. It is also important to note that nowhere in section 11 does it say that Euphiletos had the right to kill Eratosthenes, as that word is never mentioned.
It is important to see the loopholes that have been created and that Euphiletos’ actions of killing of Eratosthenes is not justified by section 11 of the Law of Athens. 2a. According to Law of Drako Euphiletos should have received penalty for the death of Eratosthenes. According to the laws of Drako number three states, “… shall serve as the ultimate arbitrator in cases of homicide… ” which is exactly what Euphiletos did he killed another human being. According to section four it states that even if a person didn’t have nay intentions of killing that they should be exiled.
Even if Euphiletos didn’t want to kill Eratosthenes the fact is he still did even if it was without intension, the law states he should be punished. In section 5 it specifically states if a man kills without intention for ntercourse with his wife he must not go into exile. As we can see this statement specifically states “intercourse” which none of the witness saw. According to section 6 it states that only in self-defense shall there be no penalty for death. However, Eratosthenes was not a threat. He admitted to his wrong doings and offered a settlement.
Euphiletos can defy this has a self- defense since Eratosthenes did not attack him physically in anyway nor was Euphiletos property seized in any way. Even if Euphiletos is correct in what he says, he still deserves some sort of punishment because he did kill Eratosthenes and that goes gainst the law. The law of Drako clearly sates that under section 4 that “… even if anyone kills without intention, he shall be exiled. ” This implies that there should be punishment for Euphiletos because he did in fact kill Eratosthenes.
Even if Euphiletos says that it was intentional killing then section 3 says, “The Council of the Areopagus shall serve as the ultimate arbitrator in cases of homicide, of intentional wounding… ” so even if it was intentional or not Euphiletos still deserves some sort of punishment. Though section 8 of Laws of Drako “If anyone whose property is seized by force and unlawfully, kills in efense, he will not have to pay any compensation it can be arguable that Euphiletos shouldn’t receive punishment because Euphiletos’ property was seized and he killed in self defense.
In Eratosthenes defense he never seized any property he was in no form a burglar. The only property is seized was his wife but it was not by force. This is not a case of rape as Euphiletos; wife had let him into his house and it is still unclear if they did have intercourse or not therefore it cannot be stated if it was unlawful or not. Therefore, Euphiletos should receive some sort of punishment for the killing of Eratosthenes.
