Trials Are A Time For Debate

Living in a democracy, everyone is exposed through television and other various forms of media everyday to numerous trials by jury. Usually they are rarely given a second thought, but every once in a while along comes a specific trial which captures the attention of the entire country. This goes the same for trials throughout centuries in our past. Although they did not have the same forms of media as in this, modern era, there were still specific trials in which everyone knew about. One trial that stands out is the one against the great philosopher Socrates. Accused of corrupting the youth, being an atheist, and believing in other gods, Socrates faced trial by jury. The early forms of democracy

Perhaps it is the divided sentiments of the vote that impact Socrates, or perhaps just his realization that from the onset, he would have been condemned not matter what his arguments, but Socrates appears to transform himself after the votes are cast. Socrates is given the opportunity to propose an alternative sentence to the death penalty proposed by Meletus, and many men would have begged for mercy, asked for forgiveness, claimed to repent for their actions, and request leniency. Socrates, though, demonstrates not only his strength in his

Socrates, in his conviction from the Athenian jury, was both innocent and guilty as charged. In Plato’s Five Dialogues, accounts of events ranging from just prior to Socrates’ entry into the courthouse up until his mouthful of hemlock, both points are represented. Socrates’ in dealing with moral law was not guilty of the crimes he was accused of by Meletus. Socrates was only guilty as charged because his peers had concluded him as such. The laws didn’t find Socrates guilty; Socrates was guilty because his jurors enforced the laws. The law couldn’t enforce itself. Socrates was accused of corrupting Athens’ youth, not believing in the gods of the city and creating his own gods. In the Euthyphro, Socrates defends himself against the

The charges against Socrates were brought upon him by a man names Meletus. Meletus was a young man that Socrates did not know very well. These charges brought on by Meletus caused the indictment of Socrates. One of the charges in the affidavit written by Meletus against Socrates is that he is "corrupting the youth." Another charge that is brought upon Socrates is that of he is making up new Gods and disregarding the old Gods the Athenians believe in. These were the charges brought on Socrates.

Socrates implies that the true nature of this charge was, in fact, vengeance carried out on the part of the power-holders of the Athenian society; the politicians, the poets, the manual artisans.  Socrates, unwillingly made fools out of these people by exposing their speeches as mere rhetoric than actual wisdom and knowledge.  These men who were seen as the wisest and the most enlightened, but in fact, by believing that they are most knowledgeble is what keeps them from real wisdom.  Socrates is also being charged with attacking the Athenian society by corrupting its citizens, mainly the youth.  He defends himself by claiming that either Meletus beleives that Socrates does not corrupt the youth or he does corrupt them but involuntarily.  Socrates bring to light that "if I corrupt them voluntarily, the law does not call upon you to procecute me for an error which is involuntary, but to take me aside privately and reprove and educate me" (33).  Socrates goes on further to say

He does this simply because he does not believe that it is just nor noble to allow emotions to overtake a situation that is designed to be dominated by logic and justice. In describing, what he believes to be the function of a jurymen he says, “The judge is not seated to give away the just things as a gratification, but to judge them. For he has not sworn to gratify whoever seems favorable to him, but to give judgment according to the laws.” (35c) He also believes that it is their duty to “Concentrate [their] attention whether what [he] says is just or not, for the excellence of a judge lies in this.” (18a) He presents his case with these ideals in mind. He states the facts and gives logical explanations for the deeds of which he is accused. He expects that the jury will adhere to their duties, as previously prescribed, and acquit him in the face of his logic and superior arguments. This does not come to pass and he is found guilty of all charges and sentenced to death. In examining the verdict, Socrates concludes that the decision could not have been based on justice and reason given the clear justice and reason in his argument and subsequent guilty conviction. He reasons that if the decision was not based on the law of justice, it must have been based on the law of emotion:

Despite being taken to court by the Athenians for allegedly corrupting the youth, Socrates continued his line of questioning at his trial. Socrates stated that he saw himself as the only one seeking to uncover the truth about the government and thus the only voice for reform for Athens. His argument continued, later comparing himself and his truth-seeking campaign to a fly on a horse “rousing, persuading, reproving every one of you” (Plato 57). Socrates was so devoted to the idea of truth in government, he refused to renounce his beliefs while facing the death and was willing to argue for them while on trial.

The third issue Socrates was found guilty was because he was assumed to have polluted the children of Athens. This meant Socrates was damaging the minds of the future of Athens and this charge was not taken lightly.

Socrates’s offering to the jury is to tell the truth, despite not admitting that it is simply his truth and thus not the entire truth, he is not able to convey to the jury the importance of not killing him. A bad citizen would try to undermine the jury by committing perjury and disobeying the decision of the court. He however, wouldn’t even like it if the jury committed perjury on his behalf, “Socrates says what he means on the stand hold honesty above all else, so when he is offered a chance to escape from his execution he does not take it. By refusing to escape, he reiterates how sticking to agreements is important to him. Socrates' commitment to the societal agreement between him and the city where he is allowed to live in

Socrates was brought into the courts under charges of impiety and corruption of minors. Socrates did not believe in the divinities of the city-state. The punishment decided upon was an execution, in the hope that Socrates would choose exile, a punishment that would have satisfied the jury.

Socrates, at the other end of the spectrum, saw politics as a wasted venture for him because his life was devoted to a quest for knowledge. He stated his way of life, which conflicts with that of Pericles' model, to differ from that of the democratic system of Athens because he saw the government to be corrupt and the majority to not be just. Socrates did not bother to lead a life of servitude to the ideals of the state because he showed through his actions that an unexamined life without critical thinking was not a life at all. As is made clear by the admittance of Socrates himself, his defense plea is the first time he has appeared in a court of law, even by the age of seventy. Socrates' life was dedicated to the pursuit of further comprehension and debate with the Athenian people on the deeper issues of life, not to a court

Socrates was poisoned and the others were hanged. This wasn’t the result of poor persuasion, but their efforts did both fail. The men failed because the mob didn’t want to consider that the men could possibly be innocent. The majority of both mobs refused to look over any evidence that proved the men were not guilty. Socrates was a known trouble maker, but he did not hurt anyone. The worst Socrates did was annoy the officials, and this resulted in the ending of his life. He stood up in front of the crowd and explained exactly why he shouldn’t receive the death penalty, but the majority of them did not pay attention to his reasoning. Ignoring the evidence was easier at Ox-Bow. There was evidence against them. They had the man’s gun, the man’s cattle with no bill of sell, a motive of cow rustling, and they didn’t have an alibi. With all this evidence, it was extremely easy to overlook the fact that they didn’t know that the man was dead. They acted on the words of someone who thought he had heard someone say that the man had been murdered in a ditch. The messenger had probably heard that the man had been shot and assumed that meant he was

Socrates was accused of being a sophist because he was "engaging in inquiries into things beneath the earth and in the heavens, of making the weaker argument appear the stronger," and "teaching others these same things." (Apology, Plato, Philosophic Classics page 21) Socrates is also accused of denying the existence of the gods, and corrupting the youth. Socrates goes about trying to prove his innocence. The jury that Socrates was tried by was made up of 501 Athenian citizens of all classes of society. While he fails to convince the Athenian jury of his innocence, he does a wonderful job in this effort. I personally believe that Socrates is innocent, and that the Athenian jury made the wrong decision.

In Plato’s Apology Socrates explains to the jury the reasons he should be found not guilty against his accused crimes. Although none of the accusations have any true merit Socrates is forced into the courtroom. During his defense Socrates states, “A man who really

One relevant argument Socrates makes quite well is the fact that those bringing charges against him clearly dislike his character and actions. Socrates openly dissenting with political figureheads such as Meletus and Anytus which spurred their disdain for him. He uses this as a ploy to help his jury find him innocent. Though he is correct in asserting the charges against him are brought because his enemies want to see him dealt with, he is not correct in assuming they are inherently wrong in