Ignorance vs. Guilt

Question: 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?

Answer: In my oppinion, ignorance is under no circumstances an excuse. A lack of knowing the rules will never exclude you from the consequences. For example, say there is a child who has no idea the dangers of water. If that child falls in to water, he will still drown. The fact that he didn't know has no significance in his judgement. The same rule applies to all of us, in every aspect of life. If you commit a crime, and are unaware of it you have still comitted a crime. You do not have to be cognizant to be guilty of something. Being guilty simply means that you have in fact done something wrong. If you are unaware that your action was in fact wrong are you still guilty? Yes, I believe you are. One modern day example that I can think of is when my friend, Zoe Johans, was dissqualified from running in the state cross country meet. Zoe was preparing for the meet and was practicing extra hard each day. One day her dad took her down to the course where the meet was going to be held and let her run there so that she could get a feel for it and would know waht to expect when she actually had to run there. Unfortunatly, it is against the rules to run on a state course prior to the meet. Zoe didn't know this rule, she didn't know that she was cheating, yet she was still punished and was dissqalified from running in the meet. The same thing is evident in the story. Oedipus didn't realize that the man he killed on the side of the road was his father. He didn't realize that he had married his mother. If anyhting he spent his entire life trying to do good and trying to prevent the prophecy from coming true. However when the truth came out and he learned that it was in fact him who had comitted the crime, he was punished all the same, because he was still guilty. If I was on the trial of Oedipus, I would have him go through all the necessary punishment. Even if he didn't realize it, he was still guilty of the crime and thus worthy of punishment. However in his case the punishment was self inflicted, so I dont think that additional punishment is necessary. He was jsut in his origional ruling that whoever the murder was would be punished. He did not change this law, (even though he could have being the king) just because he found out that he would be the person to be punished. "Is not this instruction already plain? the parricide, The unclean one was to die; and here he stands" (65) I don't think my ruling would change if it was a modern day trial or a trial early in history. Guilt=punishment, whenever and wherever you live. my personal oppinions and beliefs are what would cause me to vote in such a way. In conclusion, pleading ignorance is not an adequate excuse for doing wrong.