Jury Comparison Essay

In addition, Socrates was found guilty by a jury of 501 of his peer for several reasons—he was exceedingly arrogant and tactless, he did not take the trial earnestly, he was a “repeat” criminal, and according to Fitzpatrick, he was above all a nuisance to the community of Athens. Socrates was an elderly man of seventy

So to sum up the trial, the charges against him were officially two, corrupting the youth and impiety. The two charges were, of course, linked, and, in the relevant senses, he was, we must admit, guilty of at least one of them. For his effect on the lives of the young men who followed him was indeed disrupting, and even corrupting, of the social order. What his followers learned from him above all else, is to do two things. They learned to scrutinize, and they learned to be skeptical. It was not that they mindlessly adopted a motto like "trust no one over 30," or that they became, like many of today 's young people, contrary simply for the sake of being contrary. Rather, they learned not to take on authority or on faith what others told them about virtue, justice, or piety; they were seeking, as was Socrates himself, the truth of the matter and the reasons for taking it to be the truth of the matter. And as we all know, the relentless pursuit of the truth produces enemies. A Socrates may in the long run serve mankind, but in the short run he aggravates virtually everyone around him.

Socrates has gained fame from accepting his death for the charges of corrupting the youth and not believing in the Gods. People have argued and debated the truth behind his guilty sentence. In any case, when someone is judging truth and righteousness they must first look at and interpret the law. For Socrates, the law will work as it is and will not change for him. One may be told that they have been found guilty or innocent of any crime, but the true measure of guilt or innocence is only valid to the person committing the “crime”. Although, there are still many people who believe that Socrates was guilty due to the way he had acted in court. There is also people who believe that Socrates is guilty, but feel that the death penalty was a bit

In the section, the Apology, Socrates addresses a jury that found him guilty of corrupting the minds of the youth, believing in his own divinities, and failing to acknowledge the city’s gods. Socrates presented a reasonable case to prove his innocence, however, at the end of the trial, his destiny remained unchanged and was sentenced to death. Plato wanted Socrates to be remembered in “the best possible light” which caused me to question if what Socrates said in the trial was recorded accurately. Even though Plato was an eyewitness, did he alter some of Socrates’ comments so that Socrates would be seen as a victim who was wrongly accused by biased jurors? Either way, Socrates is recognized as a man who constantly obeyed a divine command and

Socrates defends himself against the charges brought against him by his prosecutor Meletus in two ways. One way consists of a description of Socrates’ motivation and method, which he hopes will explain to the jury why some people, including his prosecutors, dislike him. The second defense consists of Socrates responding directly to the two charges brought against him:

Socrates was put on trial because the accusers believe that he was corrupting the minds of the youth. They claimed that his teachings were being mirrored by the young ones and they were making the people look foolish. However, it can be argued that they were corrupting the minds of the young by not teaching them at all. Another inference that can be made is that the reason behind this whole trial was to get revenge.

In his Apology, Plato recounted the trial that led to the execution of his friend and mentor, Socrates. The account revealed that values of Socrates’ accusers and his own fundamentally differed, and that they had been angered because he tried to prove that they had misplaced theirs. Those differences created conflict between the two parties that culminated in his trial. With the understanding that a jury condemned Socrates to death and his defense nevertheless pleased him because he gave it truthfully, it is most sensible to call it a good defense because he felt it was the best that he could do.

This charge was partly brought to Socrates because of his claims to lead by an inner "daemon." Since ancient Greece's religion and laws were intertwined, this could've been problematic for many persons in power at the time. Socrates seemingly threatened to undermine the system in which benefited the societies elite. Since, the citizens (500) in his jury were picked at random and were also from the lower classes, all that was needed by the prosecutor(s) is to persuade the jury that Socrates views threatened to undermine society. Infact, this inner "daemon" was actually Socrates's own intuition.

Throughout the trial, Socrates uses very colloquial diction, frequently verbally attacking the jury for enforcing such unenlightened laws. For example, Socrates likens the jury to “the comedy of Aristophanes” citing their absolute “slander” against him (Apology 19b). He later claims that his “whole care is to commit no unjust or impious deed,” explaining how he has been falsely accused of a truly absurd crime (Apology 32d). Socrates practices what he preaches during the trial, showing how free speech and due process should coexist. While he shows a decent amount of disrespect for the jury, ultimately, he accepts the punishment given: time in jail and a death sentence. In essence, he respects the rule of law, saying that “the law must be obeyed” during the trial (Apology 19a). In Crito, a dialogue between Plato and Socrates following the trial and sentencing, Socrates says that attempting to escape prison would be unethical and unbeneficial to society, explaining that “it would be out of tune” (Crito 43b). Later, I will argue that a lot of the themes that Socrates espouses are consistent with 21st century western republics.

One relevant argument Socrates makes quite well is the fact that those bringing charges against him clearly dislike his character and actions. Socrates openly dissenting with political figureheads such as Meletus and Anytus which spurred their disdain for him. He uses this as a ploy to help his jury find him innocent. Though he is correct in asserting the charges against him are brought because his enemies want to see him dealt with, he is not correct in assuming they are inherently wrong in

His position had an immense impact on the guilty verdict of his trial because he behaved arrogantly toward the judges who would choose his verdict and punishment. For example Socrates refused to refer to the judges to the as their titles but only as, Athenians. This caused an outrage towards Socrates this was seen as disrespectful. As well Socrates would talk back to the judges, “Do not interrupt me Athenians, with your shouts. Remember the request which I made to you, and do not interrupt my words”(pg. 41). Logically Socrates should have been much more agreeable towards the judges considering the situation he was in, but in contrast he remained true to his philosophical lifestyle and pursued his innocence in a way he felt was best.

Socrates, in his conviction from the Athenian jury, was both innocent and guilty as charged. In Plato’s Five Dialogues, accounts of events ranging from just prior to Socrates’ entry into the courthouse up until his mouthful of hemlock, both points are represented. Socrates’ in dealing with moral law was not guilty of the crimes he was accused of by Meletus. Socrates was only guilty as charged because his peers had concluded him as such. The laws didn’t find Socrates guilty; Socrates was guilty because his jurors enforced the laws. The law couldn’t enforce itself. Socrates was accused of corrupting Athens’ youth, not believing in the gods of the city and creating his own gods. In the Euthyphro, Socrates defends himself against the

Living in a democracy, everyone is exposed through television and other various forms of media everyday to numerous trials by jury. Usually they are rarely given a second thought, but every once in a while along comes a specific trial which captures the attention of the entire country. This goes the same for trials throughout centuries in our past. Although they did not have the same forms of media as in this, modern era, there were still specific trials in which everyone knew about. One trial that stands out is the one against the great philosopher Socrates. Accused of corrupting the youth, being an atheist, and believing in other gods, Socrates faced trial by jury. The early forms of democracy

In 399 BC, when Socrates was an old man, three citizens—Meletus, Anytus and Lycon—brought charges against Socrates. A trial was held. In ancient Athens the procedure was quite different from the present day. There was a jury of 500 men drawn from the citizens. Both the accusers and the defendant had to make speeches in person to the jury. Guilt or innocence was by majority vote. There was no preset penalty if the verdict was 'guilty'. Both the accuser and the defendant would make speeches proposing what the penalty should be. Again, a vote was taken.

Socrates begins his defense by asking the jury to clear their minds of the false venoms they heard about him, keep an open mind, and listen to what he has to say. It is important to note that before Socrates truly begins to defend himself, he apologizes to the jury and begs them to “disregard the manner of [his] speech—for perhaps it might be worse and perhaps better—and observe and pay attention merely to this, whether what [he] say is just or not,” 1 as he never stood before a jury before and does not know how these procedures go. Socrates states that he shall first defend himself against the early and false accusations made against him throughout the