Based on the two readings, I do believe that the execution of King Charles I was justified. Not solely based on his opposition to the parliament but do to his fundamentally flawed character. He did indeed say that he had the best intentions of his people in mind and strove for peace within his idea of a monarchy, but his flawed idea of divine rule was questionable in my opinion. Also, although I do respect his commitment to his conscience and honor, I believe that his actions were derived from uncharted territory in convincing his citizens based off his commitment to God.
Furthermore, although I do believe that Charles I should have been executed, I do not believe that the court proceedings were carried out in good faith. It clearly states in yesterday’s article, “Barely half of the men nominated to the High Court of Justice to try the king actually attended its proceedings.” It also refers to man man as having commited suicide later out of guilt. Both points attribute to my conception that the trial was corrupt. However, as I previously stated, I do believe that Charles I should have been executed, but only by due process as opposed to previous falsehoods and purges committed to the men sitting in parliament that day.
I found it very interesting that the character of a person can be used to justify execution in particular circumstances. This is important in justifying killing a tyrant.
I disagree that Charles I deserved to be executed. Though undeniably unethical, he didn’t differ from other rulers who made irrational and costly decisions because of their claim to absolute power. Charles I did not create the concept of the divine right of kings, and I find it quite unsettling that he died at the hands of it.
I think that debating Charles I’s execution relates back to our debates over tyrannicide. First of all, his actions are viewed very subjectively. Those who killed him believed he had dragged England through another war for strictly personal gain; they saw killing him as in the best interest of the country. I think it’s interesting that people treated him as a martyr post-mortem because it brings into question whether his executors actually took an action that was best for their nation.
I don’t think that he should have been executed. Yes, he made some bad decisions but I believe that he made them with his people in mind and wanted to do what was best. I do agree that opposing parliament was probably not his smartest choice and put him in some hot water but again I just don’t believe he deserved to die for it.