The Trial of Socrates

Paper Summary:

This paper explains that Socrates was brought before the judges of Athens on two charges, both involving the "corruption" of youth. The author points out that Socrates's best legal defense was in the lack of witnesses against him, or any evidence, which might demonstrate his guilt. The paper concludes that, while he committed no crime, Socrates, by his iconoclasm, did indeed disturb the peace.

From the Paper:

"If the role of the judges was to see justice done, they failed. He had not committed any of the crimes he had been accused of, there were no truly good witnesses, and he had himself proven in speech that he neither was an atheist nor convinced of the rightness of evil, so to speak. Justice would demand that an innocent man, no matter how annoying or dissavory his opinions, be allowed to go free or --at the least-- sent merely into exile. Yet one understands why the judges voted as they did. Their goal was not Justice; it was peace (one might even say complacency) for the State."

More papers on The Trial of Socrates:

• Comparison Essay # 106644 : "The Morality of Socrates and Euthyphro"
• Analytical Essay # 62114 : "The Trial of Socrates"
• Comparison Essay # 128067 : "Plato and Xenophon on the Trial of Socrates"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: