Odysseus Vs Ithaka Essay

The jury's verdict in Odysseus vs the state of Ithaka seems aloof because the defense had stronger points, although the defense did not have adequate time to fully extend and impact each point because of how small the timeframe was for their attorney's closing statement. Even so, there points of Zenia and other customs went relatively untouched compared the prosecution's more modern laws.

The first points that the prosecution made in their opening statements were to prove, without Odysseus killed cruelly, unnecessarily, and on his own accord, basically fulfilling the conditions for it to be considered first degree murder and the defense attorney stated they would prove that Odysseus was not guilty basically by saying the opposite of the prosecution statement. Of course, the first problem of many with the prosecution's case was how they would prove Odysseus acted on his own accord when it was very apparent that he was fulfilling a prophecy. When pressed on this issue when questioning Odysseus's they stated: “how did he know the prophet was right?”. The defense countered this by stating …show more content…
Overall the problem with the prosecution's statements is that they did not satisfy all the requirements for the jury to convict, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Odysseus was guilty. The problem was with Zenia, which never got refuted was Odysseus was acting on his own accord. All throughout the trial, the main problem is that Tiresias told Odysseus to kill the suitors and in greek customs, if a servant was ungrateful you could kill them. The prosecution never refuted those points which are why the defense should have won. The evidence in all the witness testimonies pointed clearly to Odysseus action being orchestrated by powers beyond his control. He was not autonomous and therefore he could not be guilty of first-degree murder as defined by US

Show More

Related Documents: Odysseus Vs Ithaka Essay

Free Will In Homer's The Odyssey