Trials Are A Time For Debate

997 WordsOct 2, 20144 Pages
Trials are a time for debate. Without arguments and evidence to back them up, how is anyone supposed to make an informed decision about the fate of the person on trial? The trial of Socrates was highly lacking sufficient evidence. Towards the end of the trial, the Democrats started offering much more evidence as to why Socrates was guilty of the charges, but the Socratics and Oligarchs were still failing to present sufficient evidence to back up their plea of innocence. In the beginning, I was almost positive that I was going to vote that Socrates was innocent, but after the session, as I thought about it more and more, I realized that each side needed to provide evidence to support their claim. All of the parties were not doing a very good job of that. It especially changed my view when a Socratic told the jury members that his party and all those defending Socrates did not need proof of his innocence. That seemed like a very off putting statement to me. I of all people know that not everything is as it seems, but how was I to vote one way or another, if no one could tell me how it actually was. Socrates was charged with corruption of the youth, blaspheming the gods and teaching his students to oppose democracy. All three of the charges are very serious and needed to be addressed individually. So that is what I will do now as I explain why I voted the way I did. First, we have corruption of youth. While I am a strong believer in controlling what our children listen
Open Document