Questions from Dialogues of Plato.

“But for actions in accord with the virtues to be done temperately or justly it does not suffice that they themselves have the right qualities. Rather, the agent must also be in the right state when he does them. First, he must know ; secondly, he must decide on them, and decide on them for themselves; and, thirdly, he must also do them from a firm and unchanging state.” Nicomachean Ethics, Irwin translation p 25. Bekker 1105a28-34

At least one study has found that juvenile court judges consider _____________ valuable information when considering competency evaluations.

“The person who is angry at the right things and towards the right people, and also in the right way, at the right time, and for the right length of time, is praised.” Nicomachean Ethics, Irwin translation p 72. Bekker 1125b32-34

“Actions in accord with virtue are fine, and aim at the fine. Hence the generous person will also / aim at the fine in his giving, and will give correctly; for he [ / she] will give to the right people, the right amounts, at the right time, and all the other things that are implied by correct giving. Moreover, he [ / she] will do this with pleasure …” Nicomachean Ethics, Irwin translation p 59. Bekker 1120a24-27

The image of a trial as a test of credibility is drawn into question when judges and jurors render judgments based on _________________ as opposed to the presented evidence.

The Ring of Gyges is a hypothetical magic ring mentioned in Book 2 of Plato’s Republic (Griffith translation pp 39-40; Stephanus numbers 359d–360c). Discuss the significance of the Ring of Gyges in the discussion between Glaucon and Socrates. Please include a quotation (with citation) that supports at least part of your answer. (NOTE: the quotation does NOT need to support or relate to your entire answer.)

Plea bargains or settlement negotiations are the most frequent means for resolving cases.

Competency focuses on a defendant’s present abilities rather than his or her mental state at the time of the offense.

Most courts follow the decision of Frendak v. United States (1979), which allows a defendant to reject pleading insanity if he or she understands the alternative pleas available and the consequences of those pleas.