Is Socrates Innocent Or Guilty

In 399 BC, following the disastrous Greek dispute known as the Peloponnesian War, Socrates, an Athenian intellectual and widely disliked man, was put on trial by his own fellow citizens, with Meletus as prosecutor. There were two charges held against him - the corruption of youth and impiety (Plato, Apology 24C). The charge of impiety came from his supposed lack of belief in the city’s gods, as well as his supposed belief in and introduction of other spiritual things. Ultimately, while he was considered a pompous annoyance, and these arguments against Socrates are valid, it isn’t enough to put someone on trial and sentence them to death for something they did in the private sphere; Socrates, therefore, should be declared innocent. The first

It is true that his ideas may have seemed impious and dangerous during “a wave of religious fundamentalism,” but unless there was specific evidence of his impiety other than through the actions of others, this charge should have been invalid. The second reason for Socrates’ innocence is that he was not truly responsible for corrupting the youth. Socrates was accused of doing so by teaching them to be impious and detrimental to Athens. However, he makes a solid point when he says, “Either I do not corrupt the young or, if I do, it is unwillingly, and you are lying in either case. Now if I corrupt them unwillingly, the law does not require you to bring people to court for such unwilling wrongdoings, but … to instruct them and exhort them; for clearly, if I learn better, I shall cease to do what I am doing unwillingly” (Plato 26A). As mentioned earlier, the trial could have been avoided had Meletus spoken to Socrates privately, though he didn’t because he clearly had issues with the older man (Plato 25A). There’s also the concern that he corrupted his former “students” - like Alcibiades and Critias - to the point that they did wrong against Athens, but Socrates can’t be held liable