A Jurors Perspective in the Case against Socrates - Research Paper Example

A juror at Socrates’ trial This write up evaluates a juror’s perspective in the case against Socrates. The writer assumes the role of a juror in the case, voting on the conviction or acquittal of Socrates, and then deciding on the penalty. Socrates defense was extracted from Plato’s Apology (Plato 23-30) Two major charges are advanced against Socrates. One is that he is an evildoer and an inquisitive person. He scrutinizes the underground and the firmaments. He convinces others that what is wrong is good and what is good is wrong. Personally, I find nothing wrong with being inquisitive. Inquisitiveness has been the source of great knowledge for a long time. The fact that Socrates has been inquisitive, enquiring the earth and the clouds constitutes no crime. If his chosen way of life does not harm anyone, and no one can confirm that he harmed anyone by being curious, then I find no fault at that. Of concern is the substance of which he enquires about. Contrary, Socrates has confessed about the things he enquires. He has said that he enquires about the presence and the nature of knowledge in selected persons. This, he has confessed, is to try to refute the claims of the Delphin oracle, which he claims elevates him as the wisest man in Athens. First, this raises the question of whether it is true that the oracle construed that he was the wisest man. If it is true, then such an important decree from the Athenian god Apollo should have been made known to all Athenians. The fact that this did not happen, is interpretable that the accused has put words in the mouth of a god. By claiming that the gods have recognized him as the wisest man, Socrates undermines the power of Athenian gods by elevating himself as superhuman. He elevates himself to the level that he converses with the gods, though he is not a priest. In this issue, the accused is guilty of heresy and slander against the gods of Athena. His comparison of himself with Heracles is an insult to all Athenians and their integrity. It is an insult to the time honored belief about the gods and the heroes of our history (Colaiaco 62). Second is the claim that he teaches his inquisitive lifestyle to others. In his defense, the accused has pointed out that he has never been a teacher. He does not take money from anyone in exchange for his perceived teachings. Therefore, if anyone goes to him, it is of his own accord. The teachings gained thereof then are one’s own desire. However, the place where the lessons are offered becomes very difficult for the citizens of Athena to decide whether to attend or not. The accused has confessed of a tendency to start his teachings in public, where people gather for other purposes. This does not leave any choice to those in such areas, whether to listen or leave. This is so because there are in such places in pursuit of their own affair. Additionally, the accused has a tendency to stop people on the way and start questioning them. This constitutes disruption of public peace. He propagates dissension and enmity among the people. If one is a teacher, he should let his students come to him on their own will. This is not in the interests of the state. The questioning of people regarding the level of wisdom is also demeaning. This is quite serious when it is considered that some of the subjects of the defendant’s questioning are citizens of high ranking. This people have made significant contribution to the advancement of the nation. Branding these people as lacking wisdom and knowledge is a dishonor and a disparagement of their good work and sacrifices. On these charges, Socrates is guilty. The next charge brought against Socrates was the claim that he misguides the youth. His accusers have not explained what constitutes misguiding the youth. Using the little information provided to the court by the accusers, this is only interpretable to mean that the teaching of inquisitiveness taught by the accused to the public. It is however, a complex task to prove that the teachings offered by Socrates misguide the youth. How teaching the youth to think critically on whether they have any wisdom, and the nature of that wisdom if at all they have any, can be harmful, is complex to prove. However, whether then nature of the teachings misguide the youth or not, there is an issue arising from what the youth do after that. Socrates has confessed that youths who experience his teachings undergo a transformation and the result is that they assume the same inquisitive behavior. This includes interrogating their seniors on whether they are wise or not, and passing judgment on the same. This is a seed of dissent sawn among the youth. Teaching the youth to doubt the wisdom of their fathers and leaders is a terrible precedence. It would be the beginning of a long slip to more chaos than has ever been observed in Athens. In recent history, the court has adjudicated for people to forget the destructive antics of the vandals. The court viewed that their behavior was attributable to the teachings they received. In that light, Athenians must practice great vigilance in determining the kind of education to offer the youths. Those who are involved in teaching the youth must be of unquestionable character, and be well-recognized teachers. Additionally, their beliefs should be well known and accepted by the people. Imparting wrong teaching to the youth will result to a further downfall of Athens. On the charges of misguiding the youth, the accused is guilty. The other charge is the allegation that Socrates does not believe in our gods and advocates for foreign gods. These are extremely serious accusations if proven true. It is at least consoling to know that the accused appreciates this situation. In evaluation of the evidence brought before the court, nothing can summarily prove that the accused does not pray to our gods. First, the accused claims that he was confirmed as the wisest man by the oracle at Delphi. His intentions in cross-examining people were to prove Apollo wrong. It is impossible to relate with a god who you do not believe exists. This is evidence that Socrates believes in Athenian gods. Furthermore, his present accuser, Meletus, contradicted himself. He said that Socrates did not believe in Athenian gods, but rather believed in foreign gods. On further questioning, he swore by Zeus that Socrates was an atheist. One can only be one of the above, never both. An atheist does not believe in any god, whether foreign or Athenian. Therefore, Meletus contradicts himself. As the defendant has pointed out in his defense, one cannot believe in spirituality and religion and fail to recognize the object of his reverence. It is impractical to believe and lack the object of your belief. Additionally, the accused has, in the course of his defense, called to his defense the oracle at Delphi. It is highly unlikely that a person would call gods to his defense that he does not believe to exist. It is however, arguable that this was a ploy to avert his conviction on the issue; an antic to convince the jurors that he believed in our gods. However, the accused showed no sign of fear of death, and it is quite unlikely that he would have lied to absolve himself of the same. Therefore, regarding the reverence of foreign gods or atheism, Socrates is not guilty. A debatable issue, though outside this case, would have been whether his recognition of our gods was in earnest or was a mockery. Nevertheless, this was not the concern of this case, and thus the matter rests with the not-guilty verdict. In all the four main charges, the accused is guilty of three of them and has been absolved of one. Socrates, however, confesses of committing no crime intentionally. Particularly, he insists that he could not offer misleading instructions to the youth knowingly. He also reasons that no one informed of the fact that his teachings were misleading the youth. Those who believed and acknowledged this did not alert or warn him of the effects of his teachings. In some sense, this case was an ambush to Socrates. Furthermore, Socrates is a first offender. He has never appeared in a court before. For more than 70 years, he has lived in and served Athens. He has never been accused or convicted of any offense, diminutive or grave. Additionally, he confessed of having no ill intention. However, Socrates professed of having no intention to change. This prevents any consideration of the above-mentioned circumstances. It is impossible to have leniency on someone with no intentions of changing his ways. In light of this, and in safeguarding the interests of our state by protecting the youth, I vote in favor of the death sentence. The Socrates case had about 500 jurors. All of them were male property owners. The role of the jurors was, first, to determine whether the accused person was guilty or not. If guilty, the prosecution suggested the verdict, and the defense counter proposed the verdict. The jury then decided on the verdict to be served. This was usually through votes. Each side of the case had three hours to express themselves. The time was measure by a water clock. Socrates saw his accusers to be in two categories; the old and new accusers. One of the old accusers was a poet- Aristophanes. He portrayed Socrates as having no ground in his teachings, and claimed that Socrates taught the youth to beat their parents. The second category included Meletus, who was a poet and the most vocal of the accusers (Smith and Brickhouse 85). A few years before the trial, Athenians had gone to war. Just before they went, groups of young people had destroyed the face of Hermes. Hermes was the god that provided divine protection. This meant defeat, which they suffered. Soon after the war, the state was in a mood of democracy revival. The group of youth accused of causing their defeat was forgiven and the blame transferred to those who had taught the youths. During this time, people who were thought as undemocratic and oligarchic received the blame for Athenian defeat in war. The nature of the jury also affected the nature of decision made by the court. This is because they were all wealthy people who were losing property due to the destruction that followed post war unrest (Wilson 56-58) The political situation in Athens affected greatly the outcome of the Socrates’ trial. These situations were greatly against the acquittal of Socrates. The people were looking for the victims to blame for their defeat in war. This was the most likely reason why Meletus chose the allegations of misleading the youth. At that time, there was a slim chance of Socrates’ trial to be fair. Works cited Plato. Plato’s Euthyphro, Apology, Crito and Phaedo. Masachussets: Adora Publications, 2005. Print. Brickhouse, Thomas and Smith, Nicholas. Routledge philosophy guidebook to Plato and the trial of Socrates. New York: Routledge, 2004. Print.  Wilson, Emily. The death of Socrates: Hero, Villain, Chatterbox, Saint. London: Profile Books, 2007. Print. Colaiaco, James. Socrates against Athens: philosophy on Trial. New York: Routledge, 2001. Print. Read More