Is Socrates Innocent Or Guilty

In 399 BC, following the disastrous Greek dispute known as the Peloponnesian War, Socrates, an Athenian intellectual and widely disliked man, was put on trial by his own fellow citizens, with Meletus as prosecutor. There were two charges held against him - the corruption of youth and impiety (Plato, Apology 24C). The charge of impiety came from his supposed lack of belief in the city’s gods, as well as his supposed belief in and introduction of other spiritual things. Ultimately, while he was considered a pompous annoyance, and these arguments against Socrates are valid, it isn’t enough to put someone on trial and sentence them to death for something they did in the private sphere; Socrates, therefore, should be declared innocent.

The first

reason why Socrates is innocent is because there was no reason for the trial to occur in the first place. There is nothing illegal about questioning individuals and ideas, no matter how annoying it may be, especially if these things were done privately and without asking for money in return (Plato 31D).

It is true that his ideas may have seemed impious and dangerous during “a wave of religious fundamentalism,” but unless there was specific evidence of his impiety other than through the actions of others, this charge should have been invalid. The second reason for Socrates’ innocence is that he was not truly responsible for corrupting the youth. Socrates was accused of doing so by teaching them to be impious and detrimental to Athens. However, he makes a solid point when he says, “Either I do not corrupt the young or, if I do, it is unwillingly, and you are lying in either case. Now if I corrupt them unwillingly, the law does not require you to bring people to court for such unwilling wrongdoings, but … to instruct them and exhort them; for clearly, if I learn better, I shall cease to do what I am doing unwillingly” (Plato 26A). As mentioned earlier, the trial could have been avoided had Meletus spoken to Socrates privately, though he didn’t because he clearly had issues with the older man (Plato 25A). There’s also the concern that he corrupted his former “students” - like Alcibiades and Critias - to the point that they did wrong against Athens, but Socrates can’t be held liable

for what others did. (Nails, “Trial and Death of Socrates” 11). Whatever those individuals chose to do with that knowledge was entirely up to them, as Socrates himself didn’t even see himself as a teacher (Plato, 33A & B). The third reason is that there was an established bias against Socrates, from both the jury and the accusers, so the trial was never going to be impartial or fair. Socrates says to the jury, “...the accusers are numerous, and have been at it a long time; also, they spoke to you being children and adolescents, and they won their case by default, as there was no defense” (Plato 18C). He also mentions the “malicious and slanderous” work of Aristophanes, whom he mentions indirectly as “a writer of comedies” (Plato 18D).
Had Socrates been voted innocent, it would have strengthened and showed the importance of a just democracy in Athens. This is especially important because Athens had just been under the rule of tyrants some years prior, and this could have helped to establish that democracy could truly be a government of the people. However, the trial showed the opposite by having such a drastic decision being made after only a mere few hours, making it “a misunderstanding that could not be reconciled in the time allowed by the law” (Nails 14). This is the type of careless mindset that made the Athenians mess up and irrevocably ruin the ideal of democracy during the Peloponnesian War.