Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
How did the Senators justify Julius Caesar's assassination
Explain the various classifications of homicides essay
Homicide and the types
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
September 9th, 2007: Inmate Jerry Martin, a 37 year old white male steals a truck from a Huntsville parking lot. He drives it into a female correctional officer’s horse, ultimately ending in her falling to her death. An innocent woman, killed because of a man’s poor decision. Homicide is a felony widely regarded as one of, if not the, worst offences a human can commit. The act of ending a man or woman’s life, whether intentional, or unintentional, is one that can very rarely be justifiable. That being said, however, I do believe there are some instances where homicide can be socially accepted.
Julius Caesar was a great leader, strategist, and thinker. On the 15th of March, 44 B.C., he was stabbed by members of the roman senate and bled to death. This gruesome homicide has been reviewed by many historians, but the most famous account is “Julius Caesar” by Shakespeare. Throughout reading this play, the audience must make the hard decision between whether or not they believe Brutus’ motives were justifiable, or if Caesar was the victim of a cruel, heinous crime. This opens up the question, is murder ever justifiable?
Linda Fudge, a resident of Irvington, New Jersey, was cornered and raped in a dark alley in the summer of 2002. The assailant was brought to justice, but Linda got the shocking news she was pregnant. Only 23 years old, single and afraid of having a child, Linda made the hard decision of having an abortion.
“It was the hardest decision I’ve ever had to make. I was so terrified at the time I felt I had no other options. I still feel ashamed about my actions and for a while I couldn’t even look at myself in the mirror,” she told me.
Linda isn’t alone; every year in the United States, 237,868 women ...
... middle of paper ...
... different possible answers, and it is all up to speculation. I personally believe that homicides can be justified in very few scenarios, but can be, nonetheless. Pertaining to Caesar, I believe Brutus had justifiable motive to kill Caesar, and the homicide, similar to the murder of Osama Bin Laden was committed to stop a tyrant from gaining more power. Had Brutus let Caesar live, he would’ve become a sovereign and all hell would’ve broke loose. Caesar would’ve tromped all who stood before him, and ancient Europe would’ve become an ant under Caesar’s boot. If Brutus really did kill Caesar for the good will of Rome, I do not believe he was in any way a bad man, and even proved how strong of a man he was. In most cases, homicides are ugly, heinous crimes. But in a select few instances, they can be not only justifiable, but the overall best outcome of a situation.
Julius Caesar (100-44 BC) was one of the most outstanding leaders in history. He was the first ruler of the Romano-Hellenic civilization and achieved his goals with great success throughout his life of 56 years. He was assassinated by the conspirators, who accused him for practicing tyranny. This essay will discuss whether it was right for the conspirators to murder Caesar and what its consequences were.
Summary Opinion: Brutus is guilty with the collaboration of assassinating Julius Caesar. When Caesar is crowned the new Emperor of Rome, Brutus was very envious of the power he possessed. Due to this jealousy and ambition for power, Brutus betrayed his closest friend. Although Caesar intended to better the conditions of Rome both economically and politically, Brutus believed them to be lies. He is guilty of killing Caesar since there was no reason to, and it also directly violates the law.
Julius Caesar was a very influential figure in Roman history. Many features of the Roman Empire came from his reign as dictator. But what, specifically, were some of those great achievements? In this research paper, I will explain Julius Caesar’s youth, the Roman Republic before Caesar came to power, the Roman government before Caesar became dictator-for-life, the effects of Julius Caesar, the reasons for his assassination, and what affects there were when the public learned about his assassination.
In “The Tragedy of Julius Caesar” by William Shakespeare, Caesar’s death is a butchery because it was meant to benefit conspirators, such as Brutus, Cassius, and so on, rather than benefiting Rome. Brutus creates lots of conflict throughout the play to push the idea that Caesar’s death was in fact a “sacrifice”. Brutus tries to convince himself and others that Caesar’s death will be meaningful, honorable, and will be beneficial to Rome. Brutus wishes that he could eliminate Caesar’s tyranny without actually killing him by saying “...could come by Caesar’s spirit/ And not dismember Caesar” (Act 2.1; lines 182-183).
In the famed author William Shakespeare’s playwright Julius Caesar, we are introduced to an extraordinary plot of a powerful ruler, Julius Caesar, who gained power through astonishing victories and remarkable strategies but fell victim to betrayal. The betrayal that led to his demise was led by some of the very people that surrounded him the most, even some people that he considered as friends. The theme of betrayal and the notion of friendship and its validity are both topics that are worth examining but perhaps the most prevalent topic that drives this plot is the image of Caesar. Caesar ascended into power after a long period in Rome where the rise of tyranny had been fought systematically and physically. He had to not only be a powerful leader but also a wise politician when it came to his decisions. His image tarnishes more and more as his power increases and he too chases after it. He becomes so ambitious over power that he begins to feel immortal and free from danger. His conspirators do not just want him out of power for the simple sake of it but because some of them, either persuaded or not, earnestly believed that Julius Caesar’s death would save Rome not hurt it. What makes this playwright’s so extraordinary is not the dynamic drama alone, but also the depiction of Julius Caesar and how even in the monstrosity of his murder, his image was still arguable causing division amongst men. Although William Shakespeare has, for a very long time now, been known for his great writings it is clear that he himself depicted a ruler that would win favor in the eyes of the great Italian political philosopher and writer Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli but not the profound Italian writer Baldassare Castiglione. Both writers wrote ab...
“Remember March, March 15th. Didn’t great Caesar bleed for the sake of justice?” afterwards Brutus reminds Cassias of the reason he killed Caesar it was to save Rome, Great Caesar bled so Rome could live. Brutus loved Caesar as a friend, but he did not think he would be right to lead. “The only way is to kill Caesar. I have no personal reason to strike at him—only the best interest of the people”Nevertheless Brutus did not strike down Caesar for personal gain, he striked Caesar so that Rome could live. Our course will seem too bloody, Caius Cassius, To cut the head off and then hack the limbs, Like wrath in death and envy afterwards; For Antony is but a limb of Caesar: Let us be sacrificers, but not butchers, Caius” However Brutus was against killing Marc Antony, he was not willing to kill a man out of coldblood, and he would not be marked as a killer in the eyes of the people, he would rather be seen as a defender of the country, he also was against spilling unnecessary blood. Brutus did not want to be a butcher he had only one intention and that was to save Rome. Not start a blood bath. Brutus was against spilling unwanted blood, why kill a man who did nothing to deserve his
Driving her to suicide was a very selfish act on Brutus’ part. He should have been there for his wife. Brutus did not think about his actions before they were done. He didn't think about what would happen to the Roman empire if Caesar were killed. By assassinating Caesar, he started a civil war.
It was done in the best interests of the Republic. Now that he was dead, Caesar could never be a tyrant, and the Romans could live in freedom. His murder, therefore, was necessary. Brutus and Cassius took it upon themselves to be the operative forces to kill Caesar. These were expedient men who cared only for Rome.
Like Brutus said, he killed Caesar because it was “not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved Rome more” (Julius Caesar Act 3 Scene 2 Shakespeare). I think that is very noble of him, because if it weren’t for the act of murder, he would most definitely be a hero. If it were not for him not giving Caesar a chance first, he would most definitely be a hero. If it weren’t for his morals being manipulated by another person, he would most definitely be a hero. There is a lot of controversy about the topic and what makes Brutus a hero or villain.
Rome was the most powerful empire that ruled the world, from Europe to Africa, and Syria to Spain. During the first century AD, the Roman Empire ruled with superiority and ruthlessness. The powerful Roman empire became a mirror of civilization of authority, strength to fear, dictatorship, and voraciousness. These powerful aristocrats were emperors, sat on the top of Rome’s social order, but many of these emperors abused their status and ability. Roman emperors’ history was all mixed ingredients of love, assassination, vengeance, terror, voracity, jealousy, and haughtiness.
...mmer) In this story Brutus’s reason for killing Caesar was that it was for the good of Rome and he believes Caesar is a Serpent’s egg, meaning once hatched could be deadly. This doesn’t justify the killing because even though Caesar was a threat for being a tyrant, He wasn’t currently doing anything unlawful in order to deserve his death. Brutus realized this and his guilt started to eat him alive. This caused Brutus to commit suicide in order to give Caesar closure and to fix his wrongdoing.
unable to gain a political position in the Forum, he went to Rhodes to study
Shakespeare’s complex play The Tragedy of Julius Caesar contains several tragic heroes; a tragic hero holds high political or social esteem yet possesses an obvious character flaw. This discernible hubris undoubtedly causes the character’s demise or a severe forfeiture, which forces the character to undergo an unfeigned moment of enlightenment and shear reconciliation. Brutus, one of these tragic heroes, is a devout friend of the great Julius Caesar, that is, until he makes many execrable decisions he will soon regret; he becomes involved in a plot to kill the omniscient ruler of Rome during 44 B.C. After committing the crime, Mark Antony, an avid, passionate follower of Caesar, is left alive under Brutus’s orders to take his revenge on the villains who killed his beloved Caesar. After Antony turns a rioting Rome on him and wages war against him and the conspirators, Brutus falls by his own hand, turning the very sword he slaughtered Caesar with against himself. Brutus is unquestionably the tragic hero in this play because he has an innumerable amount of character flaws, he falls because of these flaws, and then comes to grips with them as he bleeds on the planes of Philippi.
William Shakespeare's play, The Tragedy of Julius Caesar, was mainly based on the assassination of Julius Caesar. The character who was the mastermind behind the assassination was, ironically, Marcus Brutus, a senator and close friend to Julius Caesar. But what would cause a person to kill a close friend? After I examined Brutus' relationship towards Caesar, his involvement in the conspiracy and his importance to the plot it all became clear. Brutus had one particular reason for killing Caesar and that was for the good of the people and the republic. Brutus had no personal reason for killing Caesar. Some of his most admirable traits were his morality and leadership skills.
Murder is considered a serious crime in our country. The loosely defined term of murder implies that a person who kills another human being with intent is known as being the worst kind of violent crime we see in our society. Any unlawful killing requires that a living person be killed and it does not mean that the guilty person feels any hatred or spite in order to plan and execute the act of murder. Moreover, the destructive acts that end peoples lives are classified as homicides which include manslaughter and first and second degree murder. More important, the justice system has put different labels on such crimes, but it also allows room for criminals to get away with murder.