The Trial of Socrates

In the trial of Socrates, I juror number 307, Ryan Callahan vote the defendant is Not Guilty on the first charge of Corrupting the youth. My justifications for this vote are as follows. Socrates didn't corrupt the youth, he just shared his ideas with them and they in turn chose the path to take these ideas. Part of understanding this case is understand the time in which the case was held. This time being 399 B.C., a time in which Athens was a free democratic city, a town which prided itself at the time on the fact that its citizens had much freedom, particularly freedom of speech. Socrates believed that only people who were educated should rule the people, which meant that people were not capable of government participation unless they had the proper knowledge to do so effectively. The charge of corrupting the youth originated because the people felt that Socrates teachings had led to the many uprisings by his students. Keep in mind that none of these uprising that had occurred have been backed by Socrates nor did they originate due to any action by Socrates. Socrates supposedly had the right to freedom of speech but now somehow was on trial for doing just that. This trial, I feel, is more of a convenience for Athens than a civil right. Athens has been disturbed by Socrates students and there is no law being broken. This is frustrating and they found out how to take care of the problem. Create bogus charges on Socrates and put him to death. These charges that are a result of fear of another uprising were brought forth by three men. The three men were Anytus, Meletus, and Lycon. Now granted Socrates was unable to defend himself to the best of his ability. Whether or not this is the route he chose or if he was incapable, I am unable to decide but one has to focus on the mere facts of the case. The way that I see it is that Socrates did not corrupt the youth. Socrates spread his ideas and teachings to the youths which is perfectly legal. Every man is essentially his own person and Socrates was now being put on trial for the actions of other people which is completely unjust. Its easy to see that this charge is a bogus creation of three men trying to make life a little easier around Athens. I am not buying into it and that is why for the charge of corrupting the youth, I find Socrates not guilty.

On the second charge of refusing to acknowledge the states gods and also introducing new gods to the state, I find Socrates guilty. There is the right to freedom of speech and he had a right to think of these things on his own time but the fact that he spread his ideas to others is where he crossed the line. He caused uprisings, aggravated just about everyone and even when put on trial was not apologetic at all. It is more apparent that Socrates wanted to die for his beliefs rather than be acquitted, and even if he had been innocent he left us the jury little or no choice but to find him guilty and sentence him to death anyways. He made it be known that he felt very strongly about his beliefs and was willing to in fact die for them. Rather than relocating in another area to live for which he felt would be unjust for his children, or at least trying to come up with an "apology" or a defense that was legitimate, he basically mocked the jury and the people, challenged their views and basically sentenced himself to death. Now I don't really know how anyone can counter attack these statements I have just made because that is basically what had happened. Even though I may have wanted to find Socrates Not Guilty I couldn't find any single reason to do so after hearing his Apology. He compared himself to Achilles and to Hercules. The young men that followed in his path were indeed disrupting and corrupting of social order. This was in and of itself a crime. Although I feel that Socrates never really meant to cause such uprisings and some feel that he should not be held liable for these uprisings, he was held directly responsible. The people of Athens found it to be much easier to deal with the problem by getting rid of Socrates than to try and deal with all of his students and followers whom were the real problem. On top of all that when the arrogant Socrates went on trial he left the jury no choice but to find him guilty so he played right into their hands.

So to sum up the trial, the charges against him were officially two, corrupting the youth and impiety. The two charges were, of course, linked, and, in the relevant senses, he was, we must admit, guilty of at least one of them. For his effect on the lives of the young men who followed him was indeed disrupting, and even corrupting, of the social order. What his followers learned from him above all else, is to do two things. They learned to scrutinize, and they learned to be skeptical. It was not that they mindlessly adopted a motto like "trust no one over 30," or that they became, like many of today's young people, contrary simply for the sake of being contrary. Rather, they learned not to take on authority or on faith what