Plato--Death Penalty???

Question

What would/did Plato have to say about the death penalty and why? How do they relate?

Answer 1

In 399 BC he was brought to trial with the capital crimes of religious impiety and corruption of youth, convicted, and sentenced to death. Hid friends offered to pay a fine instead of the death penalty. As Plato tells us in the Seventh Letter after Socrates' death, he became disenchanted with all existing political regimes, and felt that the only salvation of politics would require that "either true and genuine philosophers attain political power or the rulers of states by some dispensation of providence become genuine philosophers."

Answer 2

Read the 'Apology'- its Plato's account of Socrates' speech during his trial.

There are no points in the work where Plato disagrees with Socrates philosophically, and Plato's opinion did not change drastically through his middle and later dialogues.

It's pretty short, as well:
http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/apology.html

Answer 3

You used the be conscious 'Parliament' and this, alongside with the English which you used on your private e-mails to me, leads me to think of which you're British. if so, you may that understand that on account that 1999, the united kingdom has been an entire signatory to Protocol Six of the ecu convention of Human Rights. The re-creation of capital punishment in the united kingdom is subsequently, to all intents and purposes, impossible. To the suited of my expertise (i could be incorrect), the final 'actual' debate in the domicile, replaced into in 1994. As on your suggestion that the popular public could be allowed to vote, my reaction is: have been given from now on asinine recommendations for us? the popular public is created from uneducated, vengeful idiots who won't be in a position to be depended on with a container of suits, no longer to show the potential of existence and demise. which you (and persons such as you) have the potential to vote, fairly frankly scares the residing be-jesus out of me. As for paedophiles, do no longer you think of that those anybody is unwell? I mean come on .. somebody who desires to have intercourse with, I dunno, a six-year-previous infant? Is that accepted? do no longer you think of that such human beings choose scientific care, fairly than demise? the place does it end? Execute lunatics? Idiots? The undesirable? The handicapped? wanting to kill paedophiles is emotion; that's a visceral reaction in keeping with (fairly justifiable) worry and emotion. that's *no longer* clever or rational, neither is it a valid foundation on which to construct a criminal justice equipment. And to cap all of it, it could be (in the united kingdom) unlawful, and is (in the U. S.) unconstitutional.