Why Is Augustus Guilty Of Murder?
As magistrate for the trial of Augustus, I heard many interesting and compelling arguments that challenged my final decision. The case was brought to determine whether Augustus was guilty of murder in the first degree or of high treason against the Roman republic. I assessed the different arguments by looking through my detailed notes. In addition, I reflected upon and analyzed the points that were made by the witnesses and questions asked by the lawyers during the trial. In the end, the testimonies of Julia and of Augustus and the opening and closing statements of the lawyers were instrumental in the decision I made regarding the outcome of the trial. Therefore after much deliberation and careful thought, I have decided that the defendant, Augustus, is guilty of high treason against the Roman Republic but is not guilty of murder in the first degree. To be guilty of this offense, Augustus acted against the interest of the Republic. He installed himself as the sole
…show more content…
leader and exiled Roman citizens because of laws on adultery while he was committing the same offenses himself. Julia was the most powerful witness for the prosecution.
She did an incredible job at the witness stand by bringing an important perspective as the sole child of Augustus. Julia also made many specific, factual points that the defense wasn’t able to effectively refute during their cross-examination. For example, the fact that Augustus was having extramarital affairs during and after the time he created the anti-adultery law, while at the same time exiling Julia for breaking the same law. This point was instrumental in my decision since the Roman people must trust that their leader will follow his own laws. A leader who makes laws that he himself won’t follow has no integrity. Also, Julia explained her father didn’t respect her as a girl and arranged an engagement when she was two, long before she could even voice her opinion of who she wanted to marry. However, Julia remarked that her first two arranged marriages were fine and it was only when she was married to Tiberius when the cheating
started.
Augustus didn’t defend himself on the witness stand or effectively argue against the prosecution’s arguments before his time was up. I can attribute this partly to the questions he was asked by the defense lawyers, some of which were completely unrelated and irrelevant to the trial (and may have hurt him more than help him), and others that didn’t probe deep enough before the time for questioning ran out. Nonetheless, Augustus effectively argued that he isn’t responsible for the deaths of Mark Antony, Cleopatra and Cicero, or he otherwise would have been found guilty of that charge as well.
However, Augustus did prove himself to be an able leader that improved Rome in many ways, such as combining the police and fire departments, building sewers and beginning the Pax Romana time period. Throughout the trial Augustus never refuted the charge that he wasn’t the “king” or “emperor” of Rome. The very reason for this trial. Since he was brought up by Julius Caesar, this thought is not completely original. This is all that he’s known since he was just a boy. Both the prosecution and defense had powerful teams of lawyers that handled every situation deftly and with great ability. Each opening and closing statement applied directly to the trial and it was clear that all of the points made were supported by the witnesses. The opening statements of the prosecution and the closing statements of the defense fell flat and it seemed as if they had each prepared more for the other aspect of the statements. I can give special allowance to the defense. On the day of their trial, Mr. Greenspan had to take the role of the sole lawyer while his partner Ms. Ferrer was away on other matters. The trial of Augustus will always be remembered as an important time in history that brought up incredibly important questions on what makes a good leader. Unfortunately as dictated by law, I must sentence Augustus to the remainder of his life in exile where I hope he will reflect upon how he broke the first and most fundamental law of the Republic, that there will be no kings. The story of Augustus is important and the outcome will be remembered as a precedent for important prosecutions in the future.
leader and exiled Roman citizens because of laws on adultery while he was committing the same offenses himself. Julia was the most powerful witness for the prosecution.
She did an incredible job at the witness stand by bringing an important perspective as the sole child of Augustus. Julia also made many specific, factual points that the defense wasn’t able to effectively refute during their cross-examination. For example, the fact that Augustus was having extramarital affairs during and after the time he created the anti-adultery law, while at the same time exiling Julia for breaking the same law. This point was instrumental in my decision since the Roman people must trust that their leader will follow his own laws. A leader who makes laws that he himself won’t follow has no integrity. Also, Julia explained her father didn’t respect her as a girl and arranged an engagement when she was two, long before she could even voice her opinion of who she wanted to marry. However, Julia remarked that her first two arranged marriages were fine and it was only when she was married to Tiberius when the cheating
started.
Augustus didn’t defend himself on the witness stand or effectively argue against the prosecution’s arguments before his time was up. I can attribute this partly to the questions he was asked by the defense lawyers, some of which were completely unrelated and irrelevant to the trial (and may have hurt him more than help him), and others that didn’t probe deep enough before the time for questioning ran out. Nonetheless, Augustus effectively argued that he isn’t responsible for the deaths of Mark Antony, Cleopatra and Cicero, or he otherwise would have been found guilty of that charge as well.
However, Augustus did prove himself to be an able leader that improved Rome in many ways, such as combining the police and fire departments, building sewers and beginning the Pax Romana time period. Throughout the trial Augustus never refuted the charge that he wasn’t the “king” or “emperor” of Rome. The very reason for this trial. Since he was brought up by Julius Caesar, this thought is not completely original. This is all that he’s known since he was just a boy. Both the prosecution and defense had powerful teams of lawyers that handled every situation deftly and with great ability. Each opening and closing statement applied directly to the trial and it was clear that all of the points made were supported by the witnesses. The opening statements of the prosecution and the closing statements of the defense fell flat and it seemed as if they had each prepared more for the other aspect of the statements. I can give special allowance to the defense. On the day of their trial, Mr. Greenspan had to take the role of the sole lawyer while his partner Ms. Ferrer was away on other matters. The trial of Augustus will always be remembered as an important time in history that brought up incredibly important questions on what makes a good leader. Unfortunately as dictated by law, I must sentence Augustus to the remainder of his life in exile where I hope he will reflect upon how he broke the first and most fundamental law of the Republic, that there will be no kings. The story of Augustus is important and the outcome will be remembered as a precedent for important prosecutions in the future.