Trial And Death Of Socrates Analysis

Marcus Schimmelfennig – Euthyphro Essay – Philosophy 150 The argument Euthyphro and Socrates go about talking about is a murder case Euthyphro is about to be a part of. Euthyphro is prosecuting a man who is being prosecuted for murdering a murderer. It begins as such, the man murdered was caught in a murder and the second murderer tied him up and threw him in a ditch, but forgot about him so the first murderer died of hunger and the cold weather. The second murderer was Euthyphro’s very own father so, with this in mind, he is having trouble determining if he should prosecute his father to be guilty or not guilty for the action he committed was indefinitely an illegal act, but, I this time period of the case, the murderer would have been facing a death sentence in the end anyways if he would have been caught by an authority. Socrates hears of this and immediately goes to tries to explain to Euthyphro that he himself would be committing an impious action.

This case study details the trial of Barney Bezerk, who was to come before the court for the axe murder of his family. Planning to use the insanity defense, his attorney hired an expert, Cruddy O’Pinion to conduct a psychological evaluation. The evaluation revealed that Bezerk had a major thought disorder, poor impulse control, uncontrollable anger, and frequently expressed paranoid ideation. An effective approach to explain this case study would be a psychological approach. In analyzing the case, it is important to dissect how to effectively determine whether a person meets the legal definition of insanity, and whether that person has the correct psychiatric assessments to prove his sanity.

"Oedipus went so far as to accuse him of keeping silence because he himself taken part in the murder"(Hamilton271).Thats when Oedipus tells Jocasta that, on his way to Thebes, he killed a man who struck at him in the road. So it's clear what his tragic flaw is, and his impulsive,violent temper can even be seen as an

The Crito is Plato’s account of the conversation that took place between Socrates and his wealthy friend Crito in a prison cell while he awaited execution. Crito is amazed by how serene and peaceful his friend Socrates is sleeping (Plato, Tredennick, & Tarrant, 2003, p79). At the same time, Crito is sleepless and depressed, and it would be not hard to think that Socrates should be the person in that state. Crito is desperately attempting to convince Socrates that his execution would mean not only losing an irreplaceable friend, but that he would be forever blamed for not saving him due to the fact that nobody would believe him that it would be Socrates would refuse such an offer. Crito’s worries that negative public opinion would not only tarnish him, but all of Socrates followers as well.

Socrates was put to trial, accused of spoiling the youth of Athens, tried and sentenced to death. His personal defense is described in works two of his students: Xenophon and Plato. Both of them wrote papers called Apology, which is the Greek word for “defense”. In this essay I used Apology by Plato as the main resource, since it contents a more full account of the trial of Socrates and his words. Despite the fact that the philosopher attempted to defend himself and explain the reasons for saying and doing the things he did, it did not do any good for his justification.

This Oligarchy exiled and murdered thousands of people and took their property. The leaders of this regime were coined "The Thirty Tyrants". It was rumored that Socrates supported these "Thirty Tyrants" and when they ordered Socrates to arrest Leon of Salamis he refused, but didn 't care to warn Leon of impending danger. After democracy was restored in Athens, Socrates was considered a pest and called "gadfly" because of his inquiry, using the Socratic method he was exposing issues with Athenian politicians. He claimed that he was "a sort of gadfly, given to the state by God; and the state is a great and noble steed who is tardy in his motions owing to his very size, and requires to be stirred into life."

Fallacies in 12 Angry Men 12 Angry Men- a 1957 film, rather a courtroom drama, is full of emotions represented in arguments and intellectual brainstorming. Directed by Sidney Lumet, the film is an example of intellectual art. The film is based the story of a 18-year old slum boy who was on trial for killing his father by stabbing him. The judges, after seeing all the evidences and witnesses, actually leave the decision to the jury, to decide whether the boy was guilty or not. Also, if the jury decides that the boy is guilty, he would have to face the electric chair.

The purpose of this essay is to examine groupthink and to represent Dr. Irving Janis’ symptoms of groupthink in the film. After viewing the film 12 Angry Men, this movie shows a jury of men trying to decide the verdict in the case of a teenager accused of murdering his father. A simple task for the jury deciding on if the teenager is guilty or not guilty turns into irrational decision-making. The 1957 film is an immense example of how groupthink can

Socrates pretty much has all of Athens against him and yet he continues on and sends a strong message to his followers. Socrates considers that to carry on with a just life is superior to simply live. Socrates is not saying that living is not essential and that he ought to simply discard his life, he

During the build-up to the scene where Matt shoots Richard, there are sequences where Matt is contemplating his life, along with the life that Frank could have had if not for the jealousy of Richard. While leading Richard around his home, Matt is having second thoughts as to why everything has escalated to such a manner that he would be putting a bullet in the back of his son’s murderer’s head. With all of the actions and plans that Matt went through to kill Richard Strout, it seems to me that his murder is worse than Richard’s, but others still believe that Strout’s indeed was the