Why Do Euphiletos Invade Law?

Free societies are governed by a rule of law, which functions to guard the rights of the smallest minority to ever exist: the individual. Laws are able to serve this function by setting out standards, which guide the behavior of individuals towards others within society. However, when the law is vague, individuals assume that they can evade justice. The plaintiffs will now lay out why Euphiletos is one of such individuals.
In discussing 1a), section 11 does not provide for the lawful killing of the seducer. Let us assume that Eratosthenes had committed adultery with the defendant’s wife. The wording of the law states that if Eratosthenes was caught in the act he, “may be punished immediately without a dagger by whoever wishes.” The law states,
Let us assume, as the defense claims, Eratosthenes admitted to the crime. The defendant currently on trial, Euphiletos of Oea, seems to be the only individual able to testify to this, in his statement that Erastothenes, “…confessed that he was in the wrong.” It cannot stand that a man on trial for homicide can testify that his very own victim admitted to the crime and that he himself was thus permitted to murder his victim in cold blood. As such, his testimony should be disregarded and in lieu of acquitting the defendant, he should be charged with homicide for the unlawful killing of Erastonthenes, who, according to subsection A, had the right to a fair trial, a right that the defendant stripped of him. However, in all this discussion of the law, the defense has forgotten one quintessential detail. The victim was never actually caught engaging in sexual intercourse, but rather, in referring to the witnesses, “the first to enter saw him still lying next to my wife; the ones coming in later saw him standing naked on the bed.” Erastothenes is said to have been an adulterer, which would be subject to punishment under section 11 of the law, but consider what constitutes adultery. The legal definition of adultery is voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a person who is not his
As plaintiffs, representing the people of Athens, we must reinforce that it is both the legal and moral imperative of the Areopagus court not to condone, and ergo not to promote, the vigilantism displayed in this case, which undermines the courts principle and authority. The laws of Drako discuss the governing of homicide rulings. Section 5 of the law states that, “If a man kill another unintentionally…in intercourse with his wife…he shall not go into exile as a manslayer on that account.” This case does not meet three requirements of this section. As previously established, Eratosthenes was never officially caught in intercourse with Euphiletos’ wife. However the defense’s case is flawed in a different vital aspect. The law says that he will not go into exile for manslaughter, yet it does not say that he may not be punished for this homicide charging by any other means. Finally, the law states that Eratosthenes would have to have been killed unintentionally, however Euphiletos’ testimony strongly conveys that he premeditated the murder of Eratosthenes of Oea. All of the laws of Drako, particularly Section 5 of the law, which permits for the lawful killing of a seducer, discuss when killers shall be excused from punishment. These are composed of cases that took place in the heat of the moment, times of uncontrollable rage. However, this was not