Although they were not a primary concern of the Senate in the early years of the Republic, assassinations occurred in Rome and were sometimes the cause of trials. As the Republic progressed, so did murder trials, and as the Republic entered its final years they became more prevalent in the courts. As the Republic progressed, Roman magistrates and oratories first began to routinely prosecute murder cases on behalf of the state. For this discussion, homicide can be defined as either manslaughter or homicide. In terms of the conception of the State, the definition that will be most useful is for the State to be defined as “the civil government of the country”[1]. During the early central years of the Republic, concern for the state can be demonstrated by the magistrates who presided over these criminal trials. This is still true of most trials in the late Republic, although magistrates also appear to be concerned with their own political advancement. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay In the early Roman republic, there were almost no laws regulating murder, especially among the plebeians. In fact, Lintott states that "the members of the plebs themselves would have suffered violent criminal behavior".[2] This is most likely due to the fact that the senators would rather look after their own interests than deal with such a nominal topic as the death of an unnamed plebeian. It is also interesting to note that the Twelve Tables listed in 450 BC that killing thieves was permissible if they were still on one's property. However, the Twelve Tables specifically stated that poisoning was never permitted, even if the poison was administered to a thief.[3] So in terms of laws, there were few that actually regulated against any type of murder in this early period of the Republic. Also important to note in the early Republic was the meaning of the mos maiorum. The “ambiguous nature of the mos”[4] which operated in matters of precedent and essentially operated in such a way that every time new legal actions were issued by a magistrate, they were considered law, even if they did not go through the official routes in which become a law. This is important to note for magistrates' proceedings on murder cases, as there is no basis for the prosecution of murder in the Twelve Schedules. The first state intervention in a murder case where magistrates' concern for the state is demonstrated can be seen as early as 331 BC. This first murder case gave rise to an investigation which subsequently led to many women being accused of poisoning. Their victims were varied, so the patricians were not the main cause of the denunciation; however, officers “arrested a large number of other matrons implicated in the crime”[5] at the end of the trial, which appears to be one of the first times that public officials have decided to initiate a trial and possible punishment for a homocide. The fact that the perpetrators of such terrible crimes were women was particularly disturbing, because traditionally a Roman woman was supposed to defend honor and remain faithful to her "men", otherwise she would have to be "killed", as in the Roman myth of deceptive Tarpeia. who betrayed his Roman family to the enemy.[6] The thought process probably followed by magistrates when they learned that most of the perpetrators were women was that if the morality of Roman matrons began to be questioned, then also the morality ofRome as a nation and the morality of its government would begin to be questioned. . Indeed, although women were prevented from participating in politics, they raised men who later in their lives would become citizens and possibly civil servants of the Roman state. Therefore, these Republic officials initiated the first murder trial and did so out of concern for the moral state of their country, which could likely affect the government itself if left unchecked. In 135 BC, magistrates demonstrated their concern for the state even when they investigated a particularly bloody case of murder. Known as the “Sila Forest” murder for the location where it was committed, the event may not have enacted actual legislation, but the murder at least prompted consuls to be “sent to conduct a investigation into a dire and important matter.” ] The victims were, as Felton notes, "noti homines," or patricians, so this was a concern of the magistrates in part because they were members of Rome's upper class. However, since patricians often served in state government, this concern for patricians may also be linked to a concern for state function. Furthermore, Roman magistrates were motivated to respond to this act of violence because the murders occurred around a “pitch factory” that was “rented by the censors,” so the reputation of the state structures themselves was also in question in this case . process.[8] It can therefore be observed that at this point in the Republic the magistrates involved in this trial were concerned for the State precisely because the reputation of the State and the lives of other patricians (who served as public servants) were at stake if other murders like this was allowed to continue. As the years progress towards the final year of the Roman Republic, magistrates continue to demonstrate concern for the state, although concern for their own political advancement is also highlighted. This is specifically noted in Cicero's first court case, in defense of Sextus Roscius of Ameria. For example, Bauman notes that Cicero was quite focused on success in his first court case; in his argument in defense of Roscius he skillfully discussed several laws already in force, which was "an important factor in persuading the jury to acquit Cicero's client".[9] However, he himself also appears concerned about the state's processes and committed to demonstrating the loopholes and problems that the figures in this court case appear to have exploited and caused. He demonstrates these problems by implicating Chrysogonus, a freedman linked to Sulla, as well as some of Roscius' relatives in the murder of the elder Roscius, whose murder Sextus Roscius was accused of[10]. For example, he asks if there was “any doubt that they [Roscius' relatives] put this loot on the path of Chrysogonus, that they received a part of the loot from him?”[11]. By asking this rhetorical question, Cicero subtly suggested that both Chrysogonus' and Roscius' relatives have something to gain from the murder of the elder Roscius. Then, he told the judges more clearly that Chrysogonus had given the property as "booty to the Roscii" and Cicero also defined the entire trial as a "conspiracy".[12] Therefore, Cicero showed his concerns for the State by questioning the actions of Chrysogonus, who undermined the systems in place regarding inheritance but also the governmental systems that were put in place to put an end to the “proscription lists” .[13]Cicero's Pro Cluentio also provides a good example where Cicero demonstrates his political ambitions, but the reason the trial was held still seems to be rooted in.