Group+37


 * 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.

Kylie Wheeler

Bell 5

Nienaber

11/21/11

Defending Marcus Brutus

The honorable Marcus Brutus killed the ambitious Caesar for the better of Rome.

Caesar was an ambitious man who wanted nothing but power. Brutus was worries with this and tries to stop Caesar from taking over Rome. Caesar even elected himself to be the dictator of Rome for life. "You too, my Child?" this shows how Caesar thought of everyone as his children and how much more powerful then everyone else he thought he was. This shows how Caesar wanted all the power over Rome he could get, since he thinks of everyone as his children. Caesar was also a man who had many wives; this man had very little respect for any of wives. "One such man was Marcus Brutus, the son as one of Caesar's wives." this lets us confirm that Brutus was indeed the son of Caesar, soon after Brutus was born, his mother was killed because Caesar thought his wife had been with another man. And she was killed without any proof of this.

Caesar was also a very ambitious man when it came to getting the crown of Rome. "Marc Antony offers Caesar the crown of Rome. Caesar declined, but his show of modesty fooled almost no one." Caesar may have tried to show the people of Rome that he really did not want the crown, but the people of Rome were far from fooled when he declined the crown, they all knew that Caesar was desperate for the crown. Caesar was also the kind of man who did not listen to anyone but himself, "He jokingly called out,’ the Ides of March are come!', she answered,’ Aye, Caesar, but not gone'," If only Caesar was honest enough to actually listen to his wife, but he could not take the warning and he ended up not listening and he died that very day.

Brutus killed Caesar for the better of Rome; he saved Rome from going to a downfall, why? Because as stated in the book Julius Caesar, Dictator for life, "Julius Caesar named himself dictator for life." and Caesar naming himself dictator is showing how power hungry Caesar really is, if he is so desperate for power, god only knows what he will go through so things turn out his way. Millions of innocent could die all because Caesar is power hungry. Also stated in the same book,” the citizens were indeed worried" the people of Rome knew that Caesar would end up destroying Rome, and that him naming his self dictator was a bad thing for Rome. So with Caesar dead, Rome will turn out for the better.

Brutus also should know what kind of man Caesar is, why? Because Brutus is Caesar's son, this quote says that..."One such man was Marcus Brutus, who was the son of one of Caesar's long time mistresses." Caesar indeed had many wives, but one of those wives did in fact give birth to Marcus Brutus. So Brutus had to have known some things about his father and how he acted, this would let him know how good of a leader his father would be and if he was fit to rule over Rome. On the day of Caesar's death, Caesars last words were pointed to Brutus, and those words are,” You too, my child?" not only could Caesar have called him this to show his power over him, but he did this to call his son out and show everyone who Brutus really was, and he was Caesar's son.

Caesar was a power hungry, ambitious man who wanted to take control over Rome. Not only this, but Caesar would stop at nothing to get the power he desired, even if it involved the deaths of millions of innocent citizens of Rome. All of the citizens of Rome were worried when he took over, and they were smart to worry. If Caesar would have taken the crown, Rome surely would have fallen. Brutus killed Caesar for the better of Rome and without Brutus, Rome would be in ruins today as we speech. My client Brutus is innocent of all charges and he did what he did to save Rome.

Works Cited

Allison, Farley, Ancient Rome; Caesars Rule, New York, New York, 1745 Broadway, 2008


 * Prosecuting Marcus Brutus**

Guilty Brutus By: Tyler Schmidt

In 49 B.C., a civil war broke out in Rome between two sides. On one side, was Pompey, who was fighting for the senators and the senate. The other side, was Caesar, who was fighting for the people. After the civil war had ended, Caesar emerged victorious, and Pompey was dead. After coming back to Rome, Caesar was appointed dictator for six months by the senators. During this time, he made changes to help the people and Rome itself. At the end of his six month reign, he elected himself dictator for ten years. If the people didn't want this to happen, all they had to do was say no, or riot. They didn't, so Caesar became dictator. Under his control, Rome was doing good. Later on in his reign, Caesar declared himself dictator for life. Again, all the people had to do was show they didn't want this to happen, and riot. Again, they didn't so Caesar received his way. After declaring himself dictator for life, senators created a plot to assassinate Caesar. One person, Brutus, became leader of the conspiracy group. On March 15th, 44 B.C., the honorable Caesar was disrespectfully murdered by Brutus, who said his criminal actions were for the good of Rome.

Brutus is guilty for murdering Caesar because, he said Caesar was ambitious and and he was doing the honorable thing by killing him, but Caesar wasn't ambitious, and was actually honorable. In Shakespeare's, //The Tragedy of Julius Caesar//, Antony says,” I thrice presented him a kingly crown, which he did thrice refuse.” (III. ii. 96-97). Antony is saying he offered Caesar the crown to Rome, which Caesar refused three times. If Caesar was ambitious, he would've accepted the crown when it was offered to him. Since he didn't, it proves he was honorable, not ambitious. Antony also says in the play,” He hath brought many captives to Rome, whose ransoms did the general coffers fill.” (III. ii. 88-89.) Antony tells us Caesar sold prisoners of war back to their countries and put money into the general funds. An ambitious Caesar would've kept the money, but he didn't which proves Caesar's honor once again. So if these honorable, generous acts are true, then how was Caesar ambitious? All that Caesar was and ever will be is honorable. Brutus murdered a honorable man.

<span style="display: block; font-family: times new roman,serif; text-align: left;">My next point goes to how Brutus kills Caesar. Brutus says he killed Caesar with honor and for the good of Rome, but really, the death of Caesar was disrespectful and not honorable. We know this first of all by how Brutus acts. He says he is honorable, but actually, he was quite the opposite. In Badian's online article, //Marcus Junius Brutus,// it states,”Contrary to the principles he espoused as a Stoic, Brutus was personally arrogant, and he was grasping and cruel in his dealings with those he considered his inferiors, including provincials and the kings of client states.”(1) This shows that Brutus was arrogant and mean to others which shows he is not honorable. If this is how the real Brutus is, the how can we expect the murder of Caesar to be honorable and respectful? <span style="display: block; font-family: times new roman,serif; text-align: left;">Brutus also turns out to be hypocritical. In Shakespeare's play, //The Tragedy of Julius Caesar,// Brutus states,” Lets kill him boldly, but not wrathful; let's carve him as a dish fit for the gods, not hew him as a carcass fir for the hounds.”(II. i.172-174) Brutus is saying let's kill Caesar with honor and respect. So to do this, wouldn't you make it look like you weren't even there? Looking at Caesar's death, you could definitely see that it was,t honorable. In Charlotte Bernard's book, //Caesar And Rome,// it says,” Caesar is stabbed twenty three times at the foot of the statue of Pompey.” (89) Brutus said he wanted to kill Caesar with honor, but really, stabbing someone twenty three times is more like butchering. How could you consider something this bloody honorable and respectful? Brutus disrespectfully butchered Caesar which is not honorable or respectful.

<span style="display: block; font-family: times new roman,serif; text-align: left;">Another reason Brutus is guilty is because of the criminal activity he did in the murdering of Caesar. The first illegal action he did was holding a meeting at night to plot Caesar's murder. Brutus states in Shakespeare's play, //The Tragedy Of Julius Caesar,//” They are the faction. O conspiracy, sham'st thou to show the dang'rous brow by night.”(II. i. 77-78) He is saying how shameful it is for the faction to come at night. Brutus is saying this because what they are doing is illegal. In, //The Twelve Tables,// its states,” No person shall hold meetings by night in the city.” (Tables) Brutus knows it was illegal to have the meeting at night, but he did it anyway which is suspicious. The only reason to something by night is if it is secretive and bad. Brutus' next illegal action comes when he kills Caesar. Also in, //The Twelve Tables,// they say,” Putting to death of any man, whosoever he might be, unconvicted is forbidden.” (Tables) This means to kill, or put to death, anyone in Rome, you have to take them to trial and make them face a judge. Brutus didn't do this though, making his actions illegal even if he had reason for it. If he wanted to justify his actions, all he had to do was take Caesar to court and face a judge. So why didn't a honorable man like Brutus do this? That's because Brutus knew the court wouldn't put Caesar to death, so Brutus did this anyways. These actions prove Brutus is guilty of breaking the law numerous times and that he also killed Caesar.

<span style="display: block; font-family: times new roman,serif; text-align: left;">Now we have come to the point to Brutus when he says he killed Caesar for the good of Rome, but Caesar was doing things for the good of Rome. Caesar did many good things for the people of Rome and for Rome itself. He cared about Rome so much. In Denise Rinaldo's book, //Julius Caesar Dictator for Life,// they say,” After winning the civil war that had ravaged the Roman Republic, Caesar launched many projects to boost the economy.”(70) Caesar cared for the people and wanted them to do good. He also cared for the city of Rome. Does this sound like a man who deserves to die? I don't think so. Also in the book, //Julius Caesar Dictator for Life,// they say,” To bring order to the city of Rome, he increased penalties for theft and murder.” (108) Caesar kept Rome under control and quiet. He wanted to make this place a utopia where everyone would be happy and want to live in Rome. So why would Brutus want to kill a man who is doing good things for Rome? I don't exactly know why. I think we should punish Brutus based off the fact he killed an innocent man who was doing good deeds for the city.

<span style="display: block; font-family: times new roman,serif; text-align: left;">Brutus is guilty based off of all the information given here and should be punished by death. Sure Caesar was dictator, but the people allowed him to be, so there was nothing wrong with it. Caesar was a honorable man who did good deeds. Remember the Based off Roman law, Brutus should be punished the same way he killed Caesar. In //The Twelve Tables,// it states,”If a person has maimed another's limb, let there be retaliation in kind unless he makes agreement for composition with him.” (Tables) This asys if a person hurts another person, that person shall be hurt the same way unless the two people make an agreement. Since Brutus and Caesar never made an agreement, Brutus should be stabbed twenty three times. If we don't uphold the law, then we will be breaking it. Speaking of breaking the law, remember that Brutus never gave Caesar a trial like we are giving Brutus today, when Brutus murdered Caesar. Brutus also was never punished for the other laws he broke. The Honorable Caesar cannot be brought back, but we can avenge his death by punish the criminal, Brutus, for what he has done. This is why Brutus is guilty for the murder and deserves to be punished for it. Thank You Your Honor.