Group+14


 * 1) **Minimum Project Requirements: **
 * 5 **//__IN__//** __DEPTH __ discussions with opposing counsel via class network. These discussions must present not only relevant and specific facts from the play, but also from your historical research.
 * Preliminary Draft of Closing Statement entered in your class network. Draft must contain **//__at least 5 detailed paragraphs__//**: 1) Introductory paragraph outlining the overall theme of your case - thesis statement; 2) //at least// 3 paragraphs which include **//__detailed__//** supporting evidence for your case - 1 piece of evidence with explanation per paragraph; and 3) a closing paragraph which ties all the evidence together and solidifies your case.
 * Peer editing of opposing counsel's statement following guidelines to be provided; plus an additional peer revision of your choice.
 * Works Cited page containing **//__at__//** **//__least three __//****//__(3) sources __//**: 2 book sources for each electronic source.
 * Final Draft of Closing Statement, typed, double-spaced at a 12-point font with 1-inch margins. Please no decorative fonts – use something easy to read.
 * Oral recitation of your Closing Statement before the court. Be sure to use your voice as a persuasive tool to effectively deliver your statement. Suggestions for oral interpretation to be provided.


 * Remember that the above represent the minimum requirements for this project, the completion of which will earn you a minimum average grade of 70%. You can improve this grade by going above and beyond these minimum expectations. **

One way to increase your points will be to complete more than five discussion posts with your opposing counsel. To post a discussion, click the DISCUSSION tab above; click NEW POST, label the subject with a specific name, and then type and post your comment. To reply to a comment, simply click on the post heading, scroll to the bottom of the page, and then type and post your reply. Ideally, discussion topics will reflect either specific research sources or ideas learned from your research. You must cite all sources within your discussions so that your opposing counsel can verify your information.

Natasha Cook Mr.Nienaber <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">English 10 CP <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">November 16, 2011 <span style="display: block; font-family: 'times new roman','serif'; font-size: 16px; text-align: center;">Prosecution
 * Post Prosecution Closing Statement Here:**
 * 1) <span style="font-family: 'times new roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Naïve criminal Brutus murdered the honorable Caesar, he speculates how Caesar will act but Caesar uses his power for good and to help his citizens. Caesar declared himself dictator for life only so he could help make Rome better, but Brutus thinks Caesar is destroying it. Caesar took risks and respected his people. Brutus says Julius’s ambition is the main reason why they had to kill him. Not all ambition is bad Caesar used his to make Rome stronger and to help it get better faster. Since Brutus was Caesars friend he should stick by his side and not listen to what other people who hated him out of jealousy.
 * 2) <span style="font-family: 'times new roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;"> Brutus believes everything anyone says. Brutus is naïve he believes Cassius really wanted to kill Caesar for the good of Rome but really Cassius was jealous of Julius Caesar. In II.i. 60-69 “Tis good. Go to the gate, somebody knocks. Since Cassius first did whet me against Caesar I have not slept. Between the acting of a dreadful thing and the first motion all the interim is like a phantasma or a hideous dream; the genius and the mortal instruments are then in council, and the state of man, like to a little kingdom suffers then the nature of an insurrection.” Since Cassius first persuaded Brutus to go against Caesar he has not slept between talking about murdering him and actually doing it, he is confused. If Brutus was a true friend he would not be uneasy and unsure of killing his friend true friends do not kill their friends. If Brutus did not believe everything he heard than he would not have gotten in so much trouble. All the conspirators except Brutus killed Caesar out of jealousy. Brutus did not know Cassius’s real motives toward killing Caesar, he thought he wanted to help Rome, Brutus assumes things before he has proof. However Brutus and the conspirators are criminals so they could be lying about their reasoning.
 * 3) <span style="font-family: 'times new roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;"> Brutus and the conspirators are criminals. They broke the law by betraying Caesar and meeting at night. In II.i. 80-82 “They are the faction. O conspiracy, shamest tho to show thy dangerous brow by night, when evils are most free? O, then, by day.” Cassius and the other conspirators went to see Brutus so persuade him to join the conspiracy. When the conspirators met with Brutus at night it was breaking the law. Nobody is allowed to hold meetings at night. Also Brutus went against Caesar his ruler by killing him. The law states putting to death of any man, whosoever he might be convicted is forbidden. Caesar wasn’t convicted of anything because he did not do anything wrong he is honorable.
 * 4) <span style="font-family: 'times new roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;"> Caesar is an honorable man he did not deserve to die. When the people tried to crown Caesar to be king he refused it three times. Before Caesar fell down and thought the crowd was happy he refused the crown he opened his shirt and offered to cut his throat if he offended any of them. Caesar would rather be dead than have his citizens mad or offended. In Adrian Goldsworthy’s book Life of Colossus Caesar “In general the crowd delighted in Caesar’s triumphs, celebrations, and games, although Dio claims that some people were shocked by the scale of bloodshed during gladiatorial fights.” (Goldsworthy 471) The citizens respected Caesar and enjoyed the stuff he has done for them even though battles were bloody he still helped Rome. Caesar had many triumphs that helped Rome he did so much for Rome and killing him made it go into chaos. It also lead to the bloody battle at Philippi. Caesar has done nothing but help Rome by using his power he’s not a power hungry dictator.
 * 5) <span style="font-family: 'times new roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;"> Caesar uses his power for good and to help his people. It is obvious that Caesar had immense power, but there has been little agreement among scholars about his overall aims some would like to see him as a visionary who recognized the problems facing the republic they realized that its system of government could no longer cope with the changes so a monarchy or dictatorship was the only answer. The citizens knew the government would not do anything for them in the problems they had, so Caesar had to step up and try to fix everything. Caesar knew his people needed a better government so he decided to declare himself dictator for life that way he could help make things better. Much of Caesar’s success can be attributed to the fact that he was focused and decisive and knew how to get things done quickly which helped Rome become better fast. Caesar wanted things done fast if they weren’t than he would do them himself. He has ambition which he used to help transform Rome. In Miriam Griffens book The Oxford History of the Roman World “One of Caesars early claims to political notoriety was his willingness as president of the murder court to accept charges against those who killed for Sulla.” (Griffens 100) As president of the court case Caesar took the charges of those people who killed for Sulla this shows Caesar is honorable he didn’t have to do that but he did anyway because he is a nice guy. Brutus did nothing to help Rome.
 * 6) <span style="font-family: 'times new roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;"> Brutus had no right to kill Caesar. All Brutus did was assume things. He listened to Cassius when he said he wanted to help save Rome which was a lie. Brutus is unsure how Caesar will act if he was crowned, Brutus thinks Caesar will destroy Rome but he has no proof of that. Brutus’s assumptions lead to Caesar’s death. If Brutus was not so good natured and gullible than Caesar may still be alive and Rome would be stable. Rome might have been better off left as a dictatorship than destroyed without a leader. After you assassinate a dictator for any reasons you may have you often do not think about what happens to that country or nation afterwards like what happens here the people did not know what to do. The result of this was the battle between Brutus and Cassius vs. Octavius and Antony. Any dictator that puts their own people in firing squads, slave labor, and orders their people to do what is morally wrong should be assassinated, so that a democracy can be achieved. Caesar never did any of those so he should not have been killed if he has done those than it would have been justifiable.


 * Post Defense Closing Statement Here:**
 * Cameron Mullis**
 * 11/16/11**
 * English 10 CP**
 * Bell 3**
 * __Defending Marcus Brutus__**


 * Julius Caesar was born in 99 BC. Julius Caesar was looked upon as a great military leader in Ancient Rome. But no one saw his true intentions right away. Julius Caesar was ambitious and power hungry. He did everything he could to gain power and would try anything to do it. But a honorable senator (my client) Marcus Brutus, saw Juluis Caesar's true intentions. Marcus Brutus would do anthing to protect the good of his beloved city of Rome. He did not let emotions or anything stand in the way of him and making the right choice to protect the city of Rome. Julius Caesar became so ambitious and power hungry that the honorable Marcus Brutus had to kill him to protect the general good of Rome. Julius Caesar died on March 15, 44 BC.**
 * Julius Caesar was ambitious and power hungry that he would do anything to get power. An example of his ambition was that back in Ancient Rome it was common for someone to be appointed dictator in the time of an emergency. But this term only lasted for a period of six months. The reason that Rome needed a dictator was because Rome was in a civil war. So when Julius Caesar was appointed dictator he served his six month term of power. But he then named himself dictator for life. Back in Ancient Rome it was frowned upon to have a king. So he made himself dictator for life. And this also shows a point of him being power hungry because a dictatorship is more powerful than a monarchy. This led citizens of Ancient Rome to become worried and angry with Julius Caesar, which led to the death of Julius Caesar.**
 * Debois,Muriel. Ancient Rome: Early Civilization. Mankato: Capstone Press, 2004. Print. (Page 19)**
 * Julius Caesar also thought he was the best human being to ever live. Early in his career he happened upon a bust of Alexander the Great and compared himself to him. He compared their ages and the amount of power they had. And this is one of Julius Caesars motives to try to get more power cause that was one of the traits that he was lacking that Alexander the Great had and he did not. Julius Caesar could not stand the fact or the thought of someone being better than he was. So he tried to gain power so that he could eventually become a better leader than Alexander the Great ever was.**
 * Forbes, Steve. Power Ambition Glory. New York: Crown Business, 2009. Print. (Page 212).**
 * On the other hand my client Marcus Brutus was honorable and did the right thing for the general good of Rome. He had nothing against Julius Caesar. No emotions or anything had a factor with his actions of killing him. And Marcus Brutus and Julius Caesar were even friends. in this quote from the play it even states that they were friends. This quote is said by Marcus Brutus himself. "Grant that, and then is death a benefit. So are we Caesar's friends." This shows that Marcus Brutus is saying that atleast Julius Caesar died in the hands of his own friends and not someone that did not respect him. And Marcus Brutus and the senators did not kill him brutaly, it was a sacrifice to the gods. Which is another thing they even said in a quote from Marcus Brutus once again. " Don't make this a kill as hacking the limbs and tossing the carcus to to hounds, but as a dish carved for the gods." This shows that it was a sacrifice for the gods and not just a unjust and brutal murder.**
 * Act 3, Scene 2, Lines 108-109. Act 2, Scene 3, Lines 126-128.**
 * Marcus Brutus admits to being friends with Julius Caesar once he says, " So are we Caesar's friends, that have abridgedhis time of fearing death." This shows that Marcus Brutus actually did Julius Caerar a favor. He let him stop fearing the thought of death in the future.**
 * Act 3, Scene 1, Lines 103-105.**
 * My client Marcus Brutus would do anything, and did do everything he could do to be honorable and protect the city of Rome. He had no ties to emotions with the actions he took with killing Julius Caesar, he even says so, " I know no personal cause to spurn at him, but for the general. He would be crowned." He had no emotions or reason to be mad at Julius Caesar he had to kill him to protect the general good of Ancient Rome. He had no other choice but to kill him.**
 * Act 2, Scene 1, Lines 10-12**
 * Marcus Brutus is even a brave peron. He says, " I love the city of Rome more than I fear death." This shows how honorable and brave Marcus Brutus is. He is saying that he is not afraid to die for the general good of Rome. This shows how devoted he is for the city of Rome**
 * Act 2, Scene 1, Line 103.**
 * And that is my arguement for my client Marcus Brutus for being innoccent for the actions of murdering Juliusd Caesar.**