Socrates' Controversial Charge & Trial

1. Do you think these charges are legitimate? Is this a fair trial?

In F.J Church’s translation of “Plato: Euthyphro, Apology, Crito”, the legitimacy of the charges against Socrates and the ensuing trial are debatable, thusly so for a lack of concrete reasoning behind the charges and the exact parameters of the trial procedure. While it is true that what was expected in Athens at the time of the trial is vastly distorted from present society standards, I explore this issue from my interpretations of the dialogue parallel to present standards.

Meletus, Anytus, and Lycon collectively accused Socrates of impiety, which loosely translated in him “corrupting the youth, and of believing not in the gods whom the state believes in, but in other new divinities” (F.J Church, 29). This is tainted by the fact that Meletus et al. are scorned over Socrates cross-examination and wittingly undermining their intelligence. This is resonated in Socrates speech, in which he addresses to the jury and judges,

“But be assured it is certainly true, as I have already told you, that I have aroused much indignation. This is what will cause my condemnation if I am condemned; not Meletus nor Anytus either, but that prejudice and resentment of the multitude which have been destruction of many good men before me, and I think will be so again” (34).

Furthermore, Socrates traps Meletus in a contradictory statement in which Socrates argues that if he in fact believes in divine things, than in turn he should also believe in divinities which directly correlates to divine things, ironically defined by Meletus himself. This ironic and contradictory fashion is also portrayed in Socrates argument that if he had not questioned the wisdom of the wisest of men, that he would be directly disobeying the oracle, thus disobeying the direct order of the divinities themselves, resulting in the same predicament: so who is to decide which instance will be given more weight than the other. Socrates further goes on to argue that Meletus et al. did not state he has ever demanded or received any payment for his teachings, which to they have no witness, and he, in turn, has sufficient witness to the truth of what he says: his poverty and utter devotion to god in which he carries out his life. Socrates articulates that he was, and still is willing to engage in conversation despite one’s social stature and financial state, and did not ask for followers but merely attained them through practices of piety.  In addition, Socrates refutes that if he had indeed corrupted the youth in his past, they would take revenge upon him by now, and if not, their family and elders would have avenged this injustice indefinitely. He then directs this into the audience in which he exemplifies this notion, that in reality they “will find all these men ready to support me, the corrupter who has injured their relatives”(41). For these reasons, I believe that the charges against Socrates are illegitimate and in most cases exhibit prejudice, highlighting the indignation of Meletus, Anytus and Lycon.

            In respect to the trial itself, I believe that it also was flawed. Taking in account that our current system of justice focuses on “innocent until proven guilty", Socrates in contrast had to prove his innocence by cross-examining the facts himself. This seemed apparently futile to me, for Socrates was essentially accused of impiety – a vague concept that was illustrated by Socrates and Euthyphro’s episode – which the jury exploited to mask their indignation: ultimately leading to Socrates' demise.