Judicial Corruption In The Case Against Verres

against him in the Court of Law of Athens, Greece. The nature of the accusation that has

ABSTRACT. This paper seeks to reject Socrates ' arguments against Thrasymachus ' account of the just and unjust in Plato 's Republic, and, in doing so, show that Thrasymachus ' account is in fact a coherent and plausible account of justice. I begin by describing the context of Socrates and Thrasymachus ' argument and what it would take for Socrates to overcome the Thrasymachian account. I then describe the Thrasymachian account and argue for its coherence. I attack the Socratic method of deconstructing Thrasymachus ' argument and show that Thrasymachus true argument remains unaddressed throughout the course of the their exploration and Republic as a whole. I conclude that Thrasymachus – although himself unaware – succeeds in proposing a plausible and defensible account of justice and that Socrates misleads both Thrasymachus and the reader to advance his own conception of justice.

In Plato’s The Republic, we, the readers, are presented with two characters that have opposing views on a simple, yet elusive question: what is justice? In this paper, I will explain Thrasymachus’ definition of justice, as well as Socrates’s rebuttals and differences in opinion. In addition, I will comment on the different arguments made by both Socrates and Thrasymachus, and offer critical commentary and examples to illustrate my agreement or disagreement with the particular argument at hand.

In The Apology of Socrates, Socrates is defending himself in his own trial, supposedly trying to avoid the death penalty for multiple infractions on the city of Athens and its’ society. He argues that the jurors if they were to convict him, that they would be the ones that would be harmed in doing so; not Socrates. This explanation of harm is contrary to many people’s belief of what the judicial system is supposed to accomplish. The role of the judicial system is to punish people for the crimes that they have committed and provided enough of a deterrent, so that the crimes will stop being committed.

As a defender of civic virtue, the significance of obligation and authority of one’s representative government epitomizes the magnitude of respect that Socrates had for Athenian Jurisprudence, irrespective of the fact that he was prosecuted against. In the accounts of the Apology and Crito, there exists a plethora of evidence that demonstrate Socrates’s adherence of institutionalized authority. His loyalty of the Athenian State derives from his notion that the obligation to surrender to the law manifests a just society. One may ask, “how is it possible for a persecuted man to continue to profess allegiance to a polity that sought his trial and execution”? Though many would not have the capacity to sustain such integrity, Socrates had his reasons in

Socrates and Machiavelli hold vastly different views on violence and violent actions, the former advocates strongly that it is always better to be harmed rather than to harm while the latter argues that violence is essential, when used correctly, in order to gain and maintain power. These contrasting views on violence both hold merit, yet the question of which view is more corrupting depends strongly on what corruption is defined as, and thus, which view fits this definition. Socrates is determined to be guilty of corruption by the court of Athenians, as his methods of questioning and actions regarding violence are viewed as dangerous and threatening to the Athenian democracy. However, he also acts in ways that strengthen the democracy with his view, by defending the law even when other members of the court disagree with him and violence appears imminent. Machiavelli, on the other hand, states that violence is necessary and that wickedness and improper violence corrupt more so than violence itself. When used properly, he believes that violence is not corrupting, but rather essential in maintaining power and creating a successful rule. In the case of examining these differing views of violence and determining which is more corrupting, corruption is to be defined as actions that are purposefully undertaken that weaken the rule of government and put the lives and property of the citizens. Based upon this definition, when violence is handled how Machiavelli suggests, his views

In order to question and reassess Thrasymachus’ view of justice, in this essay, I will first bring up cases for Thrasymachus being accused of being contradictory and inconsistent in his view for justice. For the second part of the essay, I will provide a counterargument in order to prove Thrasymachus’ consistency followed by a discussion on Socrates’ own contradiction in regards to his account of the city.

The Judiciary Act of 1789 set up the "federal court system with limited power" (Oakes et al.,, 2015, p. 222). It set up the Supreme Court as the top, or head, of the three-teired Judicial branch. Further, it let the federal government set up laws based on the Constitution. The Constitution differed significantly from the British conventional laws and practices the colonies were so desperate to escape. The federal judiciary wasn't welcomed at first by some of the Founding Fathers. There was a fear that the federal government would become tyrannical, and would override the individual state powers, as well as individuals rights and freedoms. The colonies, after being treated the way they were under British law, wanted to make sure that nothing like that could happen under their new government.

Plato’s account of Socrates’ defense against charges of corrupting the youth and heresy, reveal the ancient teacher’s view of justice as fairness and support of rule of law. In the Apology, Socrates faces a moral dilemma: to either accept his punishment for crimes he did not commit or to accept the assistance of his friends and escape death by the hand of the state. His choice to accept death in order to maintain rule of law reveals his belief of justice. He beliefs his punishment to be just not because he committed the crimes but because his sentence came through a legal process to which he consented. By sparing his life, he would weaken the justice system of Athens which he values above his own existence. This difference between the two men’s beliefs regarding justice draws the sharpest contrast in their views of effective leadership and government.

It is obvious that police officers are using their jobs as law enforcers to obtain illegal items and are shamefully betraying their police departments. The policemen who were involved in this drug smuggle were veterans. When people think of veterans, whether it be a veteran of war or a veteran of a police department, we think of someone who has devoted many years, served and been loyal to the service. People have admiration for veterans and recognize them for being committed to the service as well as being faithful to every year they have been involved in it. Now the four veteran police officers from Chicago will be spending time in prison instead of adding more years to the service of policing. Those years that the veteran police officers were dedicated to the policing is now history, they could have helped lower crime rates in Chicago, but instead they are facing prison time.

The problem of judicial corruption in United States is immense. The Sixth Amendment in the United States Bill of Rights refers to the right to a speedy, fair and public trial. Unfortunately, our judicial system does not always maintain these rights. The United States judicial system is very corrupt and most of our country’s citizens do not know how corrupt it actually is. When thinking about the judicial system, words that come to mind are justice, morality, and fairness. Sadly, these words are not accurate descriptions of this system. Correct depictions of today’s judicial system are corruption, rigged courts, extortion, and phony trials. Our legal system does not bring truth or justice to our courtrooms. Overcoming this corruption is not

This paper argues that Socrates makes a plausible case for justice. Socrates raised two main questions in the first two books of Plato’s Republic, what is justice? And why should we act justly? Thrasymachus and Glaucon both have different and more negative views of justice than Socrates. Throughout books one and two, Socrates, Glaucon and Thrasymachus go back and forth discussing the definition and application of justice in society. He starts his discussions with Glaucon and Thrasymachus by stating simply, “What is justice?”

As one of the most significant works in philosophy, The Republic has been one of the most historically and intellectually influential basis of many political theories and philosophical approaches since its first appearance. It is also crucial to mention that the book contains both Plato’s and Socrates’ arguments of life and the view of the Athenian Democracy in the ancient Greek world. Therefore, it can be confusing and complicated to decide to which philosopher the arguments belong. The main focus of the book is to find the definition and the whereabouts of order, justice and to establish a just state, as well as to prove that a just man is happier than the unjust man by providing examples. The true importance of The Republic lies in the fact that everything has meaning in it, not only the arguments, but also the people who act as metaphors for the different kind of roles, which they fulfill in the Athenian society, furthermore the way they speak symbolizes those roles and every one of them embodies a part of the soul and the city-state. Even though it is not obvious, Plato / Socrates criticizes the Athenian society and tries to establish a new, ideal one with the different people he meets and talks to in the book.

The Republic is divided into many books. Book 1 is set typically in the form of an early dialogue. The central theme of our study begins in Book 2 wherein Socrates attempts to hash out an elaborate positive theory of justice which continues till the end of The Republic. In particular, in Book VIII, Socrates prepares to discuss four types of unjust constitutions, namely, timocracy, democracy, oligarchy and tyranny. These arguments are

In the Republic, Plato places Socrates as the main ‘character’ to express his philosophical views on the world. Plato lived in Athens and as such his criticism of democracy can mainly be applied to Athenian democracy and is fundamentally different from the democratic systems we have nowadays. In order to understand Plato’s position on democracy, the essay will use the Republic as main source to point the wrongs of democracy according to Plato. This essay will detail in four parts the elements that support Plato’s points against democracy. These points will be given in context to Plato’s time and will be both based on the historical context of his life. The first part will explore Plato’s sense of justice and what justice should be. Using his perspective on virtue and justice, this part will explain how Plato perceived a just world and as such this part will demonstrate how democracy is not compatible with his views on justice. The second part will explain how Plato defends the idea that philosophers should rule as an alternative, not only to democracy, but most ruling systems. This part aims to provide information on what Plato thought was wrong with democracy by