Although Gaius Julius Caesar was a brilliant man who did many things to benefit the people of Rome, the conspirators were completely justified in the decision to assassinate him. Towards the end of his life and political career, Caesar became a tyrannical and dictatorial man who violated widely accepted values of being a just ruler. He seemed to desire copious amounts of power which could not be granted by following the rules. An example of this would be the fact that he appointed himself dictator for life. He even violated Plato’s values of being a fair ruler (wisdom, courage, moderation, and justice), which were widely accepted views even in the Late Republic. Additionally, Roman criminal law was very vague and not widely implemented. Therefore,
…show more content…
According to Andrew Lintott, there was “never an organized Corpus of Roman criminal law”. All they had were “a series of penal actions [that were]… inadequate to deal with the complexity of possible offenses, especially political ones” . By this reasoning, how could the conspirator’s assassination of Caesar possibly be considered unjust? Most Roman citizens were in a constant state of confusion about criminal law , and there were so many laws and differing opinions on them that people had trouble knowing what to follow. For example, trials for treason were supposed to be “held in an assembly” and prosecuted by “tribunes, aediles, and quaestors” . Many Romans were unsure of whether this law was required or if it was simply used occasionally. This rule further justified Caesar’s assassination, because some of the conspirators held those high ranks. Moreover, cases relating to treason would go on for a very long time and they were so laborious that usually only one case could be taken on at a time. They further took so long that only a few were completed per year . As a result, many serious cases slipped through and did not get the full trial. Caesar’s assassination could be considered one of these cases. Furthermore, the conspirators truly could not wait their turn for a trial. If Caesar had become king as he so obviously desired, then there would be a good chance that the Roman legal system would become obsolete and all legal matters would go through the king’s new (presumably less fair, even more confusing) legal
According to Andrew Lintott, there was “never an organized Corpus of Roman criminal law”. All they had were “a series of penal actions [that were]… inadequate to deal with the complexity of possible offenses, especially political ones” . By this reasoning, how could the conspirator’s assassination of Caesar possibly be considered unjust? Most Roman citizens were in a constant state of confusion about criminal law , and there were so many laws and differing opinions on them that people had trouble knowing what to follow. For example, trials for treason were supposed to be “held in an assembly” and prosecuted by “tribunes, aediles, and quaestors” . Many Romans were unsure of whether this law was required or if it was simply used occasionally. This rule further justified Caesar’s assassination, because some of the conspirators held those high ranks. Moreover, cases relating to treason would go on for a very long time and they were so laborious that usually only one case could be taken on at a time. They further took so long that only a few were completed per year . As a result, many serious cases slipped through and did not get the full trial. Caesar’s assassination could be considered one of these cases. Furthermore, the conspirators truly could not wait their turn for a trial. If Caesar had become king as he so obviously desired, then there would be a good chance that the Roman legal system would become obsolete and all legal matters would go through the king’s new (presumably less fair, even more confusing) legal