"Justice that love gives is a surrender, justice that law gives is a punishment." - Mohandas Gandhi

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

In the reading for Plato’s Apology, Socrates happens to put forth, in what my mind, stands for quite the compelling argument.  Socrates is put in quite the situation where he must prove his own innocence. But there is a difference in how today’s society and how the Athenian society portrays Socrates charges “of engaging in inquiries into things beneath the earth and in the heavens, of making the weaker argument appear the stronger, and of teaching others these same things” (Plato, 23).  Allow me to put Socrates in today’s society where he would have no apparent label on his charges: innocent or guilty, rather Socrates would remain innocent until proven guilty. Now if I were to place Socrates back into the appropriate time of charges I must acknowledge the fact that Socrates is already charged as being guilty and is required to prove his innocence.  This along with contributing facts discussed anon force me to believe that these charges against Socrates are indeed illegitimate, and that this trial stands to be unjust.

Socrates approaches his defence as a matter of proving that he is innocent by speaking of the prejudices against himself, one these being that he wishes to make profit through his “teachings.”  Socrates goes on to develop his argument by stating “[He] is so busy in this pursuit that [he has] never had leisure to take any part worth mentioning in public matters or to look after [his] private affairs (28). Socrates continues this by stating he is “in great poverty as the result of [his] service to the god” (28), and carries on to prove his innocence by addressing the charges of “corrupting the youth” as being involuntary.  In this argument, Socrates points out that the law does not give Meletus the authority to “prosecute [him] for an error which is involuntary, but to take [him] aside privately and reprove and educate [him]” (31).  In Socrates’ defence, Meletus nor attempted to educate him and correct him, rather he resorted to prosecution and brought men for his sentence.  Furthermore, Socrates provides the fact that he has been directed by god to scrutinize men in each way possible, and if this was not the case then the families of the so called “corrupted youth” would have come forth in the trial to take their own revenge.   This is wrapped by Socrates in his words of defence,

“Those of them who have been already corrupted might perhaps have some reason for supporting me, but what reason can their relatives have who are grown up, and who are uncorrupted, except the reason of truth and justice— that they know very well that Meletus is lying, and that I am speaking the truth.” (41).

Now if I were to assess Socrates charges and bring them back to today’s society, the fact that he was condemned to death is a tragic event given the fact that many of his defences were legitimate in the twenty-first century.  This compels me to conclude with considering Socrates defence in the trial itself.  Socrates put forth an argument that allowed me to justly believe that his charges were illegitimate and that this was an unfair trial.