Athenian Jury Analysis

the Republic, Socrates argues that justice ought to be valued both for its own sake and for the sake of its consequences (358a1–3). His interlocutors Glaucon and Adeimantus have reported a number of arguments to the effect that the value of justice lies purely in the rewards and reputation that are the usual consequence of being seen to be just, and have asked Socrates to say what justice is and to show that justice is always intrinsically better than is acting contrary to justice when doing so would win you more non-moral goods. Glaucon presents these arguments as renewing Thrasymachus’ Book 1 position that justice is “another’s good” (358b–c, cf. 343c), which Thrasymachus had associated with the claim that the rulers in any constitution frame

He also refuted Meletus’ claims that he didn’t believe in any god by questioning Meletus and leading him into a self-contradiction. It is clear to us that Meletus’ accusations are false. I believe that the sole reason Socrates was found guilty during the trial was because people hated him (Socrates even mentions this in the beginning of his speech), not because he did anything wrong. Socrates actually wanted to help the people of Athens by encouraging a new way

The jury system originated in England hundreds of years ago. The colonists brought the jury system from England to the United States. In 1733, John Zenger, a printer, printed a newspaper critical for the British Government. His attorney convinced the jury to be in favor for Zenger because his criticisms were true. After this trial, it gave ordinary citizens the freedom of speech and the power to go against the king.

Molly Plenge Professor Mann WHO 1012 02 October 2017 Hypocrisy in Athens According to Plato, the four virtues that make up the perfect state are courage, wisdom, justice, and moderation. All are classic examples of how hippocratic the Athenian democracy was; but the most deceiving virtue would be justice. The Athenians took pride in their established democracy, where all men were created equal. This of course, doesn’t apply to the thousands of slaves, foreign born residents, and women.

However, from Aristotle’s Politics, Ostwald deduces that the relationship between equality and liberty in Athenian democracy is reversed (Ostwald 163). Ostwald concludes that “Freedom is the precondition for equality, not equality for freedom,” a sentiment that reflects the importance of being “free” in Athenian society (163). As the definition of citizen in ancient Athens was quite limited, Aristotle’s treatment of those who deserved equality made sense. Only men who were already free and had reached adulthood were worthy of those deserving equality. For Aristotle, equality was also derived from the ability to serve in government, which only free men could do, and no citizen, as long as he met the requirements of the state, should be discriminated against.

Forgione University and has a Bachelor of arts in classics and Ph.D. in classics from Duke university. Therefore, as he has comprehensive knowledge on the topic it can be inferred that the source is significantly reliable. This source is written academically and passively so it doesn 't demonstrate any bias, hence enhancing the reliability as there are only facts stated and there are not any opinions persuading the reader. The source cites a variety of primary sources this means that the information provided is substantiated improving the reliability. This source provided information to my essay that was influential in proving my thesis it explicitly stated the facts on the Athenian tribes and on the procedures carried out in the ancient Greeks form of the democratic system.

Therefore, since Athens has a part to play in corrupting Socrates’s life as well as his mistaken visual of the truth, Socrates must understand that by obeying the state, he has done injustice to his soul for it will not be in true harmony. Furthermore he will be doing an injustice to the state because Plato would have established that, objectively, Athens laws are unjust and even if Socrates thinks that they are just, it is only because Socrates has been corrupted by

Through becoming a teacher of the young men who followed him in Athens, Socrates effectively began to enter the public life. He was able to influence others through sharing his conclusions of justice, self-examination, and piety, and by asking relentless questions. Socrates effectively showed that an individual can live a private and a public life, even if Socrates was not directly involved in the policy-making in Athens. An individual can combine these two aspects of life in a productive way allowing her/him to live a full existence. These individuals can become teachers, politicians, and activists who use their focus on justice and piety in their private lives to advocate and create laws that promote true justice for the rest of the

Political activists and philosophers alike have a challenging task of determining the conditions under which citizens are morally entitled to go against the law. Socrates and Martin Luther King, Jr. had different opinions on the obligation of the citizens in a society to obey the law. Although they were willing to accept the legal punishment, King believed that there are clear and definable circumstances where it would be appropriate, and sometimes mandatory, to purposely disobey unjust laws. Socrates did not. Socrates obeyed what he considered to be an unjust verdict because he believed that it was his obligation, as a citizen of Athens, to persuade or obey its Laws, no matter how dire the consequences.

New accusers say that Socrates corrupts the youth and does not believe in the gods of the State, and has new divinities of his own. To defend himself against these charges, Socrates asks Meletus some questions. As a result, Meletus is shown to be contradicting himself and making accusations that are absolutely absurd. To the question “Who are the improvers of the youth?” Meletus replies that they are all citizens, but not Socrates, arguing that he is only one who is corrupting them.

Unlike the Romans, Athenians had a strict but fair schedule that allowed them to enjoy citizenship equally. Equally, hard workers have brought Athens power just as much as hereditary leaders. According to Document B all citizens should be allowed to speak their opinion and have a share in election because of the hard work they do to make the city powerful. Athenians allowed poor and common men to win a position in government which was a transition from the wealthy having power to everyone having power.

This, Pericles claims, is the might of democracy; the strength and excellence of many people rather than just that of a

Socrates believes that justice benefits the just, but also benefits the city (other people) too. He is faced with a seemingly simple choice, escape Athens or remain in prison and be sentenced to death. Socrates’ central argument against escaping his circumstances is twofold. First, Socrates argues that “one must never do wrong.” (49b)

Making enemies and becoming the topic of conversation, the Athenians began to view Socrates as a threat to their beliefs and way of life and sought to end it. In order to end this, Socrates was accused of blasphemy (Mod1SlideC7). Socrates’s accusers took him to court and after Socrates did not play their game by asking to be sent into exile, and in the end, he was sentenced to death. After reading the textbook and Plato’s writing influenced by Socrates, I realized that in the period of his life Socrates was indeed truly a threat to the Athens society, because he looked for answers that no one else bothered to find which challenged their culture.

This essay will briefly discuss the role of the jury and how it works, from the principle behind it, to the method with which members are selected, and to the powers available to jurors. Moreover, it will outline advantages and disadvantages of trial by jury, and it will point out a couple of ways which could ameliorate this type of trial. Trial by jury has been a part of the criminal justice system since the 12th century (Davies, 2015), it is considered an ancient right and a symbol of liberty (Hostettler, 2004). It creates no precedent and it can decide challenging cases equitably without making bad law, it also brings members of the public into the administration of justice and into an understanding of legal and human rights (Hostettler,