Ignorance vs. Guilt- GRADE THIS PLEASE

If a person does not know, is that person still guilty of grievous crime?
Consider the plight of Oedipus and a modern day example.
What would you do if you were on the jury at the Oedipus trial?
What would you do if you were on the jury in a modern day trial?
What would cause you to vote one way or another? Values? Beliefs? Evidence? Society Norms? Other information? harm or damage/pain/suffering it doesnt make the crime less it just maks it more tragic

I think that even if the person doesn't know, they are still guilty of grievous crime. If their actions cause pain and suffering in someone's life the person responsible has caused that pain and suffering.

I feel sorry for Oedipus because he left his foster parents to try to stop the prophecy but unfortunately he ends up killing both his father and he ends up being responsible for his mother's death. "So, without my parents' knowledge, I went to Pytho; but came back disappointed of any answer to the question I asked, having heard instead a tale of horror and misery: how I must marry my mother and become the parent of a misbegotten brood, an offence to all mankind-and kill my father. At this I fled away, putting the stars between me and Corinth, never to see home again, that no such horror should come to pass"(King Oedipus, 47).
A modern day example would be the Parkersburg incident. The trials have started and his lawyers are saying that he was mentally ill and he he didn't know what he was doing. Just because he didn't know what was going on doesn't make the crime less, it just makes the situation more tragic. Ed Thomas is dead. It wouldn't make the crime less if he had been killed by a random kid off the street. What makes it so bad or tragic is that the kid that killed him was one of his previous players. Another example would be a drunk driver. Someone gets drunk in a bar and leaves in their car. They don't know what they are doing but they hit someone and cause pain and suffering to that person and their family. They can't just say they are not responsible because they made the choice to drink in the first place. It's tragic when two cars hit each other but it's even more tragic when the person in one vehicle is drunk. It puts more meaning behind the crash.

If I was on the jury of the Oedipus trial I would have carried out the same procedure as Oedipus did to himself. When he realized that he had really killed his father and married his mother he is shocked and devastated, even though in the end he admits to the crime. If I were on the jury I would punish him with banishment. This is what he has told the townspeople will happen to the guilty one. It doesn't matter if he is the king or one of the townspeople he has committed a crime and will have to pay for it. In the end he pays for it and more. He destroys his sight. "He pierced his eyeballs time and time again, till bloody tears ran down his beard-not drops but in full spate a whole cascade descending in drenching cataracts of scarlet rain. Thus to have sinned; and on two heads, not one-on man and wife-falls mingled punishment"(King Oedipus, 61). He could have just said he was the king so rules didn't apply to him but he doesn't because that is the right thing to do. That's what would have happened in court because in court it doesn't matter who you are. My decision would be based on my beliefs, evidence, and what caused pain and suffering. My belief is that if you commit a crime you should be punished in a fair way no matter who you are. There is definitely evidence in the court that Oedipus committed the crimes. Oedipus caused lots of pain and suffering. It doesn't matter if he meant to or not he is still responsible for his actions.

If I were in a modern day trial and I was on the jury of the Parkersburg trial I would pretty much treat this trial as I did the Oedipus trial. The murderer killed a man. I don't care how he did it or what he was on when he did it. He is still the responsible one and needs to take responsibility for his actions. It was a tragic crime and nothing is going to bring Ed back, but something can be done to prevent the murderer from doing it again. With drunk driving it's the same story all over again. If you committed the crime you are obligated to serve the consequences. You chose to put the alcohol up to your mouth. You were the one who got behind the wheel of the car. It doesn't matter if you didn't know what you were doing because you still caused pain and suffering. I would base part of my vote on the society norms. It used to not be a crime to drink and drive and in some places it's still legal. Now that the law has changed the courts have to uphold the law. My decision would be based on what society thinks is right and wrong. If I voted for the drunk driver I would be going against what society said. I would also base my vote on pain and suffering of the people involved. If someone died in the drunk driving incident I would be considering large pain and suffering for the victim. If there was evidence that the driver was drunk I would base my vote on the true facts presented to me.