The defense today uses the oldest trick in the book. Attack the victim. That is because that is all they can do. It is undeniable that Clytemnestra killed Agamemnon. The only question is whether you are going to allow her to get away with it.

If their defense rests on the idea that Agamemnon is a bad actor and Clytemnestra was therefore justified in killing Agamemnon, that defense should fail, and fail miserably. First of all, they claim that Agamemnon was responsible for Iphiginia's death. They reason that he could have simply refused to submit to such a demand and let the ships sit idle. This argument falls apart when you look at it from Agamemnon's perspective. As the statement read into evidence by Dr. Wilson indicates, Agamemnon feared that if he had done that, the consequences would have been severe. Each of the other men who had taken the same oath as Agamemnon would have demanded that he acquiesce to her demand. Had he refused their demands, he feared they would kill Iphiginia anyway along with he and the rest of his family. So he reasonably concluded that it was better to sacrifice one than see his entire family massacred, a difficult decision, no doubt, but under the circumstances as he saw them, probably a wise one.

The defense further reasons that even if this is true, it was Agamemnon's own boasting that drew the wrath of the gods in the first place, therefore he is responsible. When you think about it, however, that is absurd. Even if Agamemnon did know that such a boast would raise the ire of the gods, he certainly couldn't be expected to know that it would raise it to such a degree that he would be required to sacrifice a daughter. Maybe a deer or other animal, but surely not a daughter. In other words, the severe punishment inflicted was not a foreseeable consequence of the act committed, his boasting thus cannot be called the proximate cause of his daughter's death, and he should not be held responsible.

With this in mind, one half of the defendant's argument is shot down. What is left then? The defense also argues that Clytemnestra's act can be seen as one of heroism in a society where justice for the deaths of her former husband and child would not come in any other form?

I want to read back to you a portion of Dr. Wilson's testimony from the record concerning the punishment of homicide in Greek society?

Homicide, however, the gods were thought to punish by casting a state of pollution (miasma, as it was called) upon murderers and upon all those around them as well. Unless the members of the affected group took steps to purify themselves by punishing the murderer, they could all expect to suffer divine punishment such as bad harvests or disease.

In other words, contrary to what the defense would have you believe, it was certainly known to people of Greek society that homicide would not be tolerated. Members of that society had every incentive to punish such acts, for if they failed to do so, they would go hungry or develop a sudden case of smallpox. If the gods would force a man to sacrifice his daughter for boasting, certainly the punishment for allowing a killer to walk free would be severe. In other words, Clytemnestra had no reason to take the law into her own hands, since there were mechanisms in place to deal with the acts alleged. She is as much a vigilante today as she was back then. If it appeared to her that justice had not been served under the system as it existed then, she had no right to kill Agamemnon just as a mother today has no right to slay the killer of her child who escapes punishment on a technicality. While this may seem unfair to the victim, think of the alternative. The success of a system of justice depends to a large degree on exclusivity in its domain. Where vigilantes run free, that exclusivity does not exist.

Finally, they argue that Clytemnestra's act can be seen as an act of rage at the sight of her husband's lover. This seems rather odd when you consider that she had her own lover waiting inside. Furthermore, irregardless of that fact, a crime of passion is still a crime. If infidelity justified murder, our population would be a lot smaller than it is today. Thankfully, that is not the case.

Clytemnestra planned to murder Agamemenon in cold blood, plain and simple. If she did so to avenge Iphigenia, she is guilty of acting irrationally. If she did so to avenge her former spouse and child, she is guilty as a vigilante. If she did so in a fit of rage, she is guilty as a hypocrite. No matter what spin you put on things, if you do your job properly, the verdict will sound the same.

GO BACK TO LAST PAGE