Although not a major concern of the Senate in the early years of the Republic, homicides did occur in Rome and sometimes resulted in trials. As the Republic progressed, homicide trials increased, and as the Republic entered its final years, these trials became more common in the courts. As the Republic progressed, Roman magistrates and orators first began to prosecute homicide cases on behalf of the state. For this discussion, homicide can be defined as manslaughter or murder. In terms of the conception of the State, the definition that will be most useful is that defined as “the civil government of the country”[1]. During the early years of the Republic, concern for the state can be demonstrated by the magistrates who presided over these criminal trials. This is still true of most late Republic trials, although magistrates also seem preoccupied with their own political advancement. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay In the early Roman republic, there were virtually no laws governing homicide, especially among the plebs. In fact, Lintott claims that "the plebs themselves would have suffered from violent criminal behavior".[2] This is probably due to the fact that senators would have preferred to look after their own interests rather than deal with a subject. as symbolic as the death of an anonymous plebeian. It is also interesting to note that the Twelve Tables indicated in 450 BCE that killing thieves was permissible if they were still on one's own property. However, the Twelve Tables specifically stated that poisoning was never permitted, even if poison was administered to a thief.[3] So, in terms of laws, there were few laws that actually governed any form of murder in these early days of the Republic. It was also important to note about the beginning of the Republic the importance of the mos maiorum. The "ambiguous nature of the mos"[4] which operated on a matter of precedent and essentially functioned such that whenever new legal actions were adopted by a magistrate, they were considered law, even if they did not pass not through official channels to become law. This was important to note for magistrates' proceedings in homicide cases, as there is no basis for prosecutions for homicide in the Twelve Tables. The first state intervention in a homicide case where the magistrates' concern for the state is demonstrated can be observed as early as 331 BC. This first murder case led to an investigation during which many women were accused of poisoning. Their victims were varied, so the patricians were not the main cause of the report; however, officials "arrested a large number of other matrons who were also involved in the crime"[5] at the end of the trial, which appears to be one of the first times officials decided to initiate a legal procedure. a trial process and possible punishment for homicide. The fact that the perpetrators of such terrible crimes were women was particularly worrying, as a Roman woman was expected to defend her honor and remain loyal to her "men", otherwise she would have to be "killed", as in the Roman myth of the deceiver Tarpeia. who surrendered his Roman family to the enemy.[6] The thought process probably followed by the magistrates when they learned that most of theauthors were women was that if the morality of Roman matrons began to be questioned, then the morality of Rome as a nation and the morality of its government would also begin to be questioned. . For although women were not allowed to participate in politics, they were raising men who would later in life become citizens and perhaps civil servants of the Roman state. Thus, these Republic officials initiated the first homicide trial and did so out of concern for the moral state of their country, which likely could have affected the government itself if nothing was done. In 135 BCE, magistrates also demonstrated their concern for the state when they investigated a particularly serious case. bloody murder case. Known as the "Sila Forest" murder because of where it was committed, the event may not have resulted in actual legislation, but the murder at least prompted consuls to be “sent to conduct an investigation into “an odious and important affair”. ] The victims were, as Felton notes, "noti homines", or patricians, which was therefore a concern of the magistrates in part because they belonged to Rome's upper class. However, as patricians frequently served in state government, this concern for patricians may also be linked to a concern for state office. Furthermore, Roman magistrates were motivated to respond to this act of violence because the murders took place around a "pine pitch factory" which was "rented to the censors", so the reputation of the facilities of the The state was also in question at this time. trial.[8] Thus, it can be observed that at this time of the Republic, the magistrates involved in this trial were concerned about the state specifically because the reputation of the state was at stake as well as the lives of other patricians (who were civil servants ) if other homicides like this could have continued. As the years progress toward the end of the Roman Republic, magistrates continue to be concerned with the state, although their own political advancement is also emphasized. This is observed specifically in Cicero's first trial, in defense of Sextus Roscius of America. For example, Bauman notes that Cicero was very focused on succeeding in his first trial; he expertly examined several laws already in force in his argument defending Roscius, which were "an important factor in persuading the jury to acquit Cicero's client." »[9] However, he himself seems equally concerned about state processes and determined to demonstrate the flaws and problems that the numbers in this court case appear to have exploited and provoked. He demonstrates such problems by implicating Chrysogonus, a freedman linked to Sulla, as well as some of Roscius's relatives in the murder of the elder Roscius, whose murder Sextus Roscius was accused of.[10] For example, he asks whether there was "any doubt that they [Roscius's parents] put this plunder in the path of Chrysogonus, who received from him a share of the plunder?" »[11]. By asking this rhetorical question, Cicero subtly suggested that the relationship of Chrysogonus and Roscius had something to gain from the murder of the elder Roscius. Then he told the judges more clearly that Chrysogonus had given the property as "booty to the Roscii" and Cicero also called the whole process a "conspiracy".[12] Thus, Cicero displayed his concerns for the State by questioning the actions of Chrysogonus, which undermined the systems in place regarding inheritance but also the governmental systems put in place to put an end to the "lists of..