Not Guilty: The Criminality Of Socrates

The question of Socrates’ criminality is not straightforward. The truth or falsity of the accusations is not certain. Also, the perspective from which the question is viewed changes its answer. The only certainty is that the philosopher, Socrates, was found guilty and sentenced to death by a jury of his peers for corrupting the youth and a disbelief in the Athenian’s Gods. If the Apology’s origins are to be believed, as in if Plato wrote a true description of events, then it can be said that Socrates does not believe himself to be guilty of these crimes. This is evident from the very beginning of the text, as Socrates states, “And yet hardly anything of what [my accusers] said is true” (p. 22). While the texts suggest Socrates is not guilty, being presented with only the Apology and Crito leaves a gap of knowledge, which presents the question of whether Plato and/or Socrates are depicting the truth.
If a criminal is defined as someone committing a crime, and crime is defined as the breaking of a law, then certainly Socrates is a criminal, as he did break the laws. The laws of Athens that Socrates’ is accused of violating were put into place to avoid the spread of ideas and thoughts like those that Socrates introduced to the city. Philosophical ideas were suppressed in an attempt to preserve the ‘peace’ of the state. The law may not have been morally justified, however; the law is the law just the same, and when it is broken there will be