In 399 BC, an absurd accusation and trial befell the famous philosopher Socrates. A court of 50 1 person finally found Socrates guilty and sentenced him to death for blasphemy, corruption and misleading young people. After learning this news, his students and friends were very anxious and took turns to visit the prison to persuade Socrates to escape. But Socrates refused to escape from prison, accepted the arrival of death calmly, and explained his understanding of the law with his own life.
From the perspective of modern people, this trial is undoubtedly absurd and tramples on individual freedom and rights. However, for the Athenians at that time, this case was far from a difficult knot, and it was not a problem at all. Because the whole case was tried in full accordance with the laws of the Athenian city-state, the trial procedure was complex and democratic.
Different from modern times, the courts in Athens have no judges, only the presiding judge, who is responsible for organizing trials and maintaining court order, and the adjudication power lies with the jury. Members of the jury were chosen by lot from among citizens. For example, at the beginning of each year, citizens voluntarily sign up to compete for jury members of that year, and then draw lots to select 6,000 volunteers as jury members of that year. If a court session is held, the city-state officials will determine the size of the jury needed to hear each case in advance according to the size of the case, ranging from five to two thousand, and then draw lots from six thousand jury members to select the total number of jurors needed for that day. Before the trial, these jurors will be assigned to different courts to hear different cases by drawing lots.
The trial in court is also different from modern times. First, the plaintiff and the defendant defend themselves and provide evidence, and then the jury votes for the first time to decide whether the defendant is guilty or not. If the defendant gets the majority of the votes, he gets the name of innocence. But the case did not end there, depending on how many votes the plaintiff got. If he gets less than one fifth of the total votes, he will be punished. This measure is to prevent malicious false accusations. If the number of guilty and innocent votes is equal, the defendant is acquitted. If the defendant is found guilty, the plaintiff and the defendant will put forward specific penalties respectively, and then the jury will vote for one of them as the final penalty. This kind of trial seems absurd, but it is reasonable. Because the plaintiff and the defendant will put forward as reasonable a punishment as possible in order to get their punishment accepted, and will not do whatever they want.
The jury that tried Socrates consisted of 500 people. In the first round of voting, the jury found Socrates guilty by 280 votes to 220 votes, and then punished himself unreasonably. Instead, he forced some jurors who had sympathized with him to choose the punishment proposed by the plaintiff, and was finally sentenced to death by 360 votes to 140.
From the perspective of modern people, the charges against Socrates are neither criminal nor directly harmful, so it is absurd to sentence Socrates to death only by jury voting. But in Socrates' view, his trial, both substantive and procedural, fully complied with the legal provisions of that era. Although the laws of that era were unfair, unfairness did not mean that the judgment was not legal. Since it is a legal judgment, it is binding on citizens, and any citizen has the obligation to obey, otherwise there will be no public order and good customs.
Laws are not a word game for making, but for producing practical social effects, that is, they are binding on all members of society, and "laws cannot be made by themselves". What is the significance of making laws?
Looking back at history, we sigh for the loss of such a great philosopher, and also for Socrates' spirit of consciously abiding by the law and calmly dying. Socrates explained his understanding of the law at the cost of his own life-obeying the law is justice.
I don't know if it is. I can't find anything with more than 1000 words. Add some rhetoric and modifiers to your own hundreds of words, and maybe you can get together.