Question: If a person does not know, is that person still guilty of grievous crime?
Consider the plight of Oedipus and a modern day example.What would you do if you were on the jury at the Oedipus trial? What would you do if you were on the jury in a modern day trial?What would cause you to vote one way or another? Values? Beliefs? Evidence? Society Norms? Other information?
Answer:
I don't think a person can truly be guilty of a crime if they are not aware that their actions are unlawful. How are you to avoid doing what's wrong if you are uninformed of its severity? However, if you are able to be knowledgeable and aware of the law and choose not to be, that's a completely different thing.
If I were on jury at Oedipus’ trial, I would first consider the fact that Oedipus was not ignorant of the law, but ignorant of his actions pertaining to the law. So, he knew the law existed, but did not know that he broke the law because he thought he had successfully avoided that route when he first ran away from “home.” Then I would wonder if there was any kind of way he could have known that his actions were unlawful. His real parents thought he was dead, therefore would never even think to expect his return. His adopted parents did not tell him they were not his real parents. So, really, if he had known that he was adopted, he most likely could have avoided his prophecy and avoided law breaking. However, since he was never informed of this, (which was not his fault) he ran away right after hearing his prophecy to avoid breaking the law. But through his ignorance of his true origin, he only ends up making the prophecy come true. I don’t think that he is truly a guilty man, because it was he who was not informed about his being adopted. How then, was he supposed to know that what he was doing was exactly what he shouldn’t be doing?
Regarding modern day situations, I would probably go through the same thought process as with Oedipus. I would rule that a person who could know the law, but chose not to and committed a crime would still be guilty. They were ignorant about the law, but there wasn’t anything keeping them from knowing it. So that would be the person’s own fault, and ignorance would not be an excuse in that case. However, just like in Oedipus’ case, if a person knows the law, but doesn’t know his actions are wrong due to some miscommunication or missing information, (like with Oedipus not knowing he was adopted) then I would say that person is not guilty.
So, basically, if a person knowingly commits a crime, they are guilty. If a person chooses to not know the law, although they easily could, and commits a crime, they are still guilty because they made the choice to not know the law. Ignorance would not be a valid excuse in this case. If a person knows the law, but breaks it unknowingly due to other key factors, they are not guilty. A person can be aware of the law, but not be aware of key information that could keep them out of trouble, and that is what lands them in a bad place, just as with Oedipus.
These are examples that I believe are valid in deciding if a person is guilty or not guilty. I wouldn’t necessarily base my decisions off of my own values or follow society’s example. I would base my decisions mostly on the key evidence of a case; what makes a person guilty of crime and what doesn’t. Of course, there is other information and evidence that play into a person’s case, but in Oedipus’ case, I believe that he is not truly guilty of his crime because although he did do it, he really was ignorant that his actions were in any way wrong.
If I were on jury at Oedipus’ trial, I would first consider the fact that Oedipus was not ignorant of the law, but ignorant of his actions pertaining to the law. So, he knew the law existed, but did not know that he broke the law because he thought he had successfully avoided that route when he first ran away from “home.” Then I would wonder if there was any kind of way he could have known that his actions were unlawful. His real parents thought he was dead, therefore would never even think to expect his return. His adopted parents did not tell him they were not his real parents. So, really, if he had known that he was adopted, he most likely could have avoided his prophecy and avoided law breaking. However, since he was never informed of this, (which was not his fault) he ran away right after hearing his prophecy to avoid breaking the law. But through his ignorance of his true origin, he only ends up making the prophecy come true. I don’t think that he is truly a guilty man, because it was he who was not informed about his being adopted. How then, was he supposed to know that what he was doing was exactly what he shouldn’t be doing?
Regarding modern day situations, I would probably go through the same thought process as with Oedipus. I would rule that a person who could know the law, but chose not to and committed a crime would still be guilty. They were ignorant about the law, but there wasn’t anything keeping them from knowing it. So that would be the person’s own fault, and ignorance would not be an excuse in that case. However, just like in Oedipus’ case, if a person knows the law, but doesn’t know his actions are wrong due to some miscommunication or missing information, (like with Oedipus not knowing he was adopted) then I would say that person is not guilty.
So, basically, if a person knowingly commits a crime, they are guilty. If a person chooses to not know the law, although they easily could, and commits a crime, they are still guilty because they made the choice to not know the law. Ignorance would not be a valid excuse in this case. If a person knows the law, but breaks it unknowingly due to other key factors, they are not guilty. A person can be aware of the law, but not be aware of key information that could keep them out of trouble, and that is what lands them in a bad place, just as with Oedipus.
These are examples that I believe are valid in deciding if a person is guilty or not guilty. I wouldn’t necessarily base my decisions off of my own values or follow society’s example. I would base my decisions mostly on the key evidence of a case; what makes a person guilty of crime and what doesn’t. Of course, there is other information and evidence that play into a person’s case, but in Oedipus’ case, I believe that he is not truly guilty of his crime because although he did do it, he really was ignorant that his actions were in any way wrong.
"Had I any way to dam that channel too, I would not rest till I had prisoned up this body of shame in total blankness. For the mind to dwell beyond the reach of pain, were peace indeed."
-Oedipus (pg.64, Oedipus the King)
"Apollo, friends, Apollo has laid this agony upon me; not by his hand; I did it." -Oedipus (pg. 62, Oedipus the King)
From the Theban Legend: "But by chance he came to hear, again from the mouth of Apollo's ministers, the terrible prediction concerning him. Again, as his parents had done, he sought to give the lie to the oracle. He fled from Corinth, resolved never again to set eyes on his supposed father and mother as long as they lived...." -Theban Legend (pg. 24)
"There passed some fifteen years of seeming prosperity. But beneath the deceptive surface a hideous depth of shame and infamy lay concealed...." Theban Legend (pg. 24)
No comments:
Post a Comment