Homicide in Ancient Athens - C1 lecture

Homicide is central to societal function, playing limits on homicidal sprees and forming the foundation of civic order, as seen in Homer's Iliad, where disputes and acts of vengeance often arise from killings.
Early law codes, except in Athens, surprisingly underrepresent it.

Athens distinguishes itself with detailed laws and procedures for homicide, evident in Aeschylus' Eumenides, a judicial tragedy exploring the consequences of murder and justice, and Plato's Laws, which delves into the philosophical underpinnings of legal systems.
Athenian exceptionalism may stem from survival bias due to a lack of evidence from other city-states, customary traditions where homicide was managed without legislation, or Athens's large size requiring legal measures for cohesiveness.
Size of Athens meant that not everyone knew each other, creating the potential for social fragmentation and impunity for killers.
Athenians were aware of the unique status of homicide in their legal record, as noted by Antiphon, who emphasized the profound differences in laws, oaths, and trial proceedings for murder, highlighting how seriously Athenian society took matters of life and death.

Procedurally, three preliminary inquiries were held in the three months following the incident to ensure both sides were fully informed and prepared for the legal proceedings. These inquiries allowed for a thorough investigation of the facts and arguments before the actual trial.
Diversity in procedures is evident in the roles of the Archon Basileus, who brought murder cases and made proclamations of exclusion from customary rights for those accused, and the Areopagus, which tried cases of deliberate murder, wounding, causing death by poison, and arson.
Palladium handled involuntary homicide, plotting to murder, murder of a slave, resident alien, or foreigner, while the Delphinium dealt with justified homicide and accidental killings.
Phreatus managed cases involving exiles charged with homicidal wounding, requiring them to defend themselves from a boat near the shore, symbolizing their liminal status.
Trials, except at Areopagus, were assigned by lot and held in open air within sacred precincts.
Accused was barred from sacred places and the marketplace but could enter the precinct for defense.
Proceedings against unknown killers could involve inanimate objects or animals.

Cases fell under Dike Phonou, with courts divided based on the type of homicide.
Areopagus addressed intentional homicide, the Palladium involuntary homicide, the Delphinium justified homicide, and the Phreatus homicides committed by exiles.
Trials of unknown killers occurred at the Prytaneum, with Apagogue suits involving summary arrest.

Concerns about pollution were evident in open-air courts and the removal of the crown, reflecting the belief that bloodshed defiled sacred spaces.

Harris argued that homicide is serious because it challenges the state’s monopoly on legitimate force.
Demosthenes noted that only laws and officers can punish; prosecutors can only see the penalty awarded by law.
Key questions include how much unnatural death matters to the state, the importance of intent, the significance of the victim's identity, and the extent to which legal action addressed religious concerns.

Early Greek law emphasized oaths.
Carawan's thesis suggests Draco's homicide law disregarded intention, though Wallace and Gagarin disagree.
Intention did matter in some contexts, such as provocation.
Trial of inanimate objects suggests an emphasis on marking unnatural death regardless of intention.
Even in suicide cases, there was a need to assign blame.

Prosecution was essential to meet needs of the victim, family, or gods.
All homicide types were brought before the Archon Basileus, indicating a baseline of humanness.
Killing certain individuals was treated as the murder of an Athenian citizen.
Masters could prosecute those who murdered their slaves, but it was not required, though purification was still practiced.
The law emphasized