If you had been Catiline, what would you have said to undermine Cicero’s case
Within the story of Catiline and Cicero, there are many important things happening. Within the text, we see Cicero prosecuting Catiline. Cicero was a strong powerful lawyer and politician. He was known for his ability to use rhetoric to win cases. He was famous for it. In the story of these two, we see that Cicero claims that Catiline was trying to overthrow the the republic of Rome. He claims that he was a threat to the power and the Government.
Cicero used his ability to take Catiline to court over Catiline being a threat to the Republic. He made claims and accusations that convinced the Congress of Rome. Although he tried his very best to keep up with Cicero, Catiline was just not fast enough. He was not ready to argue for his place in the city. All he really had was his ability to sit there and listen. Cicero himself had no evidence for what he was saying. In fact, he relied heavily upon insulting him. Cicero played the victim card. He explained to the judges and jury’s the threat that he posed on himself and others. Still, he had no evidence for these claims. At not one point did Catiline interrupt him, or tell him that he was false. In the end, he was forced to leave Rome.
In the modern court of law, prosecution cannot get anywhere without proper evidence. This could be in the form of people, or it could be in the form of documents. However, everything needs evidence and a backing. This could have been Catiline’s escape,. If he had simply said to the court, this man has no evidence for these claims, then it would have been over. If Catiline just didn’t sit their and take it, he would have not had to leave Rome. Without proper evidence, he had no case. Relying on fear and intimidation would not work now, so why should it have worked back then. Of course, I am not defending Catiline in any way, shape, or form. If he had simply brought up the fact he has no evidence, their would not be a problem. His insults are not a good excuse for evidence, if this would be brought up, Cicero would have no case at all.
Within the story, we see that Cicero is a master of Rhetoric. We see that he can convince large groups of people with almost no facts or information. He made claims and accusations against Catiline that would never hold up in today’s justice system. However, back in Rome the justice system used to work like this. If I was Catiline I would have simply stated that he has no evidence of this. He didn’t have any, but If I had just said he has no evidence, the court would have been over.
JBSchool 