In the murder of Herodes, Antiphon is tasked with defending Euxitheus in a circumstantial case without any valid physical evidence and most importantly without the deceased person’s corpse. Taking this into consideration, I have chosen to highlight sections 9-11, which focuses on the illegal arrest and trial by the prosecution. Considering the lack of physical evidence, a direct and immediate attack to discredit the prosecution seems like a clever strategy. Euxitheus claims that although he is being tried for murder he “was denounced as a common criminal…something no one in this land has ever experienced before” (9). Euxitheus uses an emotional appeal by asking the jury to uphold the laws of the court and not allow the prosecution to treat him in an unprecedented and illegal way. I also think …show more content…
I believe that this makes the case entirely circumstantial and places the jury in a difficult position in which they have to make a decision and risk killing an innocent man without any evidence. This gives Euxitheus a better chance of being found not guilty. Euxitheus then claims that the prosecutor is not seeking the death penalty and has made the case assessable, which they did “not for my benefit, but for their own profit, thereby giving the dead man less than the law provides” (10). I thought that was a powerful line filled with interesting rhetoric but also incredibly fallacious. He uses ethos when he portrays himself as caring for the deceased man and making sure that the killer, whoever it is, should be punished to the full extent of the law to seek vengeance for the dead man. He then cleverly contrasts this with the prosecutor who Euxitheus implies does not care about holding the killer responsible and is only worried about his own
When asking how important the state is, the law asks; “Is your…country to be honored more than…all your ancestors…that it counts for more among the gods and sensible men, that you must worship it…?” Rather than a statement, Socrates makes his point that the law must be upheld, even in his case of a death sentence. It is important to note that Socrates accepted his fate, even though he felt the accusations against him were false. Yet, as if speaking on behalf of the law, recognized that escaping would only turn those untruthful indictments into the truth, and as a destroyer of laws; “You will strengthen the conviction of the jury that they passed the right sentence on you.” By the definition of the word martyr, as one who dies for a cause, in this instance the laws of the state, Socrates is justifiably fitting of that label. The narrative of the Roman woman Perpetua is a tale of martyrdom, but the cause is from a higher power beyond the Roman
This late perspective of life shows how Cephalus represents a very religiously concerned character. From this, he derives his definition of justice so that it suits himself and satisfies the gods. At this point he is very focused on what the gods think of him because he mentions the fear of, "being in debt to some god," (7).
“Anabasis” is the Xenophon’s account of the expedition for Cyrus against Persian and the marching home of Greeks. The Greek title of Xenophon’s work, “Anabasis”, referred to a march up country, away from the coast. The title applies only to the first of its seven books. It all ends with the death of Cyrus at the Battle of Cuxana. The Greek mercenary soldiers were left stranded in the “barbarian” world. The rest of the books involves with tales of the Greeks’ discipline, leadership and courage during their journey home. Xenophon’s narrative offers an insight of the character and their political life of a Greek army. Although Xenophon seems to write about the account between the Greek and the barbarian, he presents himself as an important role in the Greek army throughout the rest of the books. He uses a third-person form when describing his own actions as a character. It might suggest that Xenophon is writing an apologia to defend himself and to show his vital role in the expedition.
Throughout time there has been a universal question that does not yet yield a universal answer. All people have a different view on whether or not it is right to avenge the killing of another, through the death of the killers. In America during this day and age, it is the obligation of the court system to decide whether or not a murderer should be put to death. Most of the time, the criminal is sentenced to a prison term, but when a judge decides to issue the death penalty there is usually an uproar among the people. Does the court now become a murderer along with the convicted felon or is the court an innocent body. Is it a hero who is looked upon as the hand of justice or just another bad guy? In the trilogy of “The Oresteia,'; we come across a similar situation. When his jealous wife Clytaemnestra and his cousin Aegisthus kill Agamemnon, the king of Argos, it is up to his long lost son Orestes, to avenge his death. To the people of Argos and the house of Atreus, Orestes was an innocent hero in yet another chess game played by the gods.
The first area of the Neo-Aristotelian criticism we are going to look at is the ethos. As defined earlier, ethos gives credibility. This deals with the ethics of right and wrong as society sees fit. A strong point of ethos appeals is its powerful effect on the reader. The down side to this is it's hard to get yet easy to lose. As we analysis this artifact, we find an example in the second paragraph. King gives a brief description of his backg...
Hello, Odysseus, Judge Dulaney, attorneys, and ladies and gentlemen of the jury. I hope that you’re doing well today. Today we have to discuss some grisly business that might be offputting to some of you, but it must be settled in order for justice to be served. You might hear about blood spilling from necks, heads separated from bodies, torn apart chests, and the ordered slaughter of many. All psychotic acts done by one man and one man only. The master of many crafts, the great tactician, the lord of tricks and war, and the murderer of dozens of humans. Odysseus. Let’s go to through the day when a her turned killer.
In “Oedipus the King” by Sophocles, Oedipus, the king of Thebes finds out that he kills his father and that his wife is his mother. Oedipus is very concerned for his kingdom and his people. He wants to “drive the corruption from the land” (Sophocles 109) by finding Laius’s murderer and killing him. Through his curiosity, Oedipus finds out that the man he kills long ago is Laius, who is his father, and that his wife is his mother—all in accordance with Oedipus’ prophecy. After coming on this realization as well, Jocasta, Oedipus’ wife, commits suicide, and Oedipus gouges out his eyes as a result of this. In his search for the murderer, Oedipus strives to be a fair king. Ironically, he often is not fair to the people he sees or things that are essential to him. This play demonstrates the theme of justice through Oedipus’ denial of justice in three situations—Oedipus’ meeting with Tiresias, Oedipus’ gouging out of his eyes, and Creon’s asking of Oedipus to adjudicate fairly
In the dialogue, Crito, Socrates justified his decision to accept his death penalty. His decision was praised as principled and just. However, such a view was one of the greatest myths in the history of philosophy. Contrary to the accepted ideas, I wish to show that Socrates’ argument was erroneous, the crucial error being his failure to distinguish between substantial and procedural justice. In fact, the whole of the Crito refers to some deeper problems of the philosophy of law and morality.
The trial of Socrates in Athens is both similar and different from the trial of Jesus of Nazareth. The trials could be compared in three main areas: the evidence and reasons provided for their executions, their last messages to their accusers, and the two leaders’ thoughts about their impending deaths. For both figures, there is no evidence to support their convictions and they are convicted for similar reasons, though Jesus is given less time to defend himself. Both Jesus and Socrates warn their accusers that they will suffer for their actions. However, Jesus views his accusers as ignorant and Socrates views his as vengeful. Both men conclude that it is G-d’s will for them to die. However, Socrates is more secure about death than Jesus. Despite the differences that exist between the two trials, Socrates and Jesus face similar predicaments and deal with death in comparable ways.
In 399 BC, Socrates, the great philosopher in ancient Greece, was put to death under the hands of his Athenian fellow-citizens to whom he had a strong attachment, after a final vote with over two-thirds of jurymen against him. We cannot experience the situation where Socrates gave his final argument in the court of law. From Plato’s Apology, we admire Socrates’ brilliant rhetoric and rigorous logic, while at the same time feel pity for him and indignant with those ruthless jurymen. However, the question of what exactly caused his death and why was Socrates, such a remarkable thinker sentenced to death in the very society that valued democracy the most is not easy and straightforward to answer. There are multiple elements involved that finally caused this tragedy in which “a person of high moral principle is confronted step by step with a situation from which there is no escape” (38). First of all, the moral principle and belief in divinity held by Socrates are inconsistent with those of the Athenian society, implying the very crimes charged upon Socrates were not completely groundless. Secondly, the imperfect juridical system of Athens played a role in causing this tragedy. What’s more, Socrates himself, could have offered better defense in the court, also had a hand in his own death by his stubbornness regarding to his own interpretation of wisdom and piety. His rebuttal, though brilliant and insightful, was not persuasive enough to move the fellow-citizens for his wrong approach and sophistry in his cross-examination on Meletus.
Socrates, in his conviction from the Athenian jury, was both innocent and guilty as charged. In Plato’s Five Dialogues, accounts of events ranging from just prior to Socrates’ entry into the courthouse up until his mouthful of hemlock, both points are represented. Socrates’ in dealing with moral law was not guilty of the crimes he was accused of by Meletus. Socrates was only guilty as charged because his peers had concluded him as such. The laws didn’t find Socrates guilty; Socrates was guilty because his jurors enforced the laws. The law couldn’t enforce itself. Socrates was accused of corrupting Athens’ youth, not believing in the gods of the city and creating his own gods. In the Euthyphro, Socrates defends himself against the blasphemous charges outside the courthouse to a priest Euthyphro. Socrates looks to the priest to tell him what exactly is pious so that he may educate himself as to why he would be perceived as impious. Found in the Apology, another of Plato’s Five Dialogues, Socrates aims to defend his principles to the five hundred and one person jury. Finally, the Crito, an account of Socrates’ final discussion with his good friend Crito, Socrates is offered an opportunity to escape the prison and his death sentence. As is known, Socrates rejected the suggestion. It is in the Euthyphro and the Apology that it can be deduced that Socrates is not guilty as charged, he had done nothing wrong and he properly defended himself. However, in the Crito, it is shown that Socrates is guilty only in the interpretation and enforcement of Athens’ laws through the court system and its jurors. Socrates’ accusations of being blasphemous are also seen as being treasonous.
The drive for excellence, in all areas of life, such as honesty was prevalent in both Brutus and Creon. Based upon the fact that each was open with the citizens in their cities and the way they dictated their decisions. When Brutus comes to the people with the body of Caesar he never claims innocence, but asks the plebeians if he has offended anyone. The law that Creon provides for his people is straightforward; do not disturb the body of Polyneices. The citizens of each play were torn between accepting the truth of what each man offers to the country and justice for murder.
middle of paper ... ... As was explained before, Antigone states that her death “is of no importance” and that the important factor is the denial of a proper burial for Polyneices (“Antigone” 1035 Line 70). The rhetorical devices she uses in her argument improve its overall persuasive strength. In conclusion, Antigone uses developed persuasive skills to support her argument when facing Creon and the people of Thebes.
This causes her strongest statement to lose logos and ethos. Rust-Tierney and Schneck also bring heavy doses of pathos and logos as they question the same question William Baude poses: “Yet what if someone goes through every possible procedure and after all is said and done still claims to be innocent? What if another court were to actually find him innocent?” (Baude, 20). Employing pathos and logos Baude gives an explanation for why the death penalty is flawed as he tells the tale of a man on death row. Baude claims
Socrates reaches a conclusion that defies a common-sense understanding of justice. Nothing about his death sentence “seems” just, but after further consideration, we find that his escape would be as fruitless as his death, and that in some sense, Socrates owes his obedience to whatever orders Athens gives him since he has benefited from his citizenship.