"Ignorance vs. Guilt".

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?

I think no matter what the scenario may be if a person murders another they are guilty of that crime. To follow that up, I do not believe we should have the right to kill a murderer. It not only is a bad example, in my opinion, but it also shows that we can do the same thing they do. Yes, that person is a murderer and is guilty of it, but if we kill that person we are guilty too. Whether they are aware they have killed or not does not matter. To be guilty is to have committed a crime. Meaning that whether you know it or not you have committed it. So, when Oedipus killed Laius in that rash act of anger he was guilty. "Die, die- whoever he was that day in the wilds who cut my ankles free of the ruthless pins, he pulled me clear of death, he saved my life for this, this kindness- Curse him, kill him! If I'd died then, I'd never have dragged myself, my loved ones through such hell" (242). Oedipus came to realize what he did. He was saying that if only the shepherd had not saved him none of this would have happened. He would not have killed his father and married his mother. Even though in this it shows that he regretted killing him because of the prophecy it also seems to show that the king had the right to kill, like it only mattered that Laius was murdered when they realized who was murdered and who did it. This, however did bring his being a murderer to the surface. I believe that the way that was shown in the book was wrong, (king having the right to kill or any one having that right for that matter)but it is in history. That one act of murder made him guilty. For example, how many lies does it take to make a person a liar? Only one. So how many times does one have to kill to make them a murderer? Only one. With that idea on your mind you can see that no matter the ignorance of the situation Oedipus was in my view guilty.
On the other hand if I were on the jury at Oedipus' trial I am not sure which way I would vote because it says in the Ten Commandments: Thou shall not murder. In my belief I think that killing a murderer makes you a murderer too. With that said, I do not think I could vote Oedipus to be guilty because of my beliefs. I could not because with the way a trial would go for a murderer he would most likely be killed. That would put murder on my shoulders. If there was insurance that Oedipus would not be killed then I would vote guilty, but since there most likely is not I would vote innocent. My vote for this would be the same if it were in modern times.
My beliefs would be a huge part of my vote in this trial and any other. My religious beliefs would have the biggest part in my decision. Evidence would be next on my list. Also, in Oedipus' case he knew he killed, but was only ignorant to who, and therefore, the extremity of the situation. (Due to time it occurred). My views are what they are because of my beliefs and the way this happened with Oedipus. He should be charged for killing not the other things like marrying his mother and killing his father. Keep in mind that if the trial was different like against a person who was ignorant to what happened due to mental deficiencies my view would change completely, but due to the way it is in the story makes my beliefs and thoughts on it the way they are.