The Trail of Socrates and Concerns of Justice

The Trial and Death of Socrates by Plato recounts the trial and subsequent execution of Socrates. Apology gives an immaculately detailed description of the trial, such as the deposition given by both the prosecution and Socrates. This highly detailed account of the trial allows the reader to examine fundamental aspects of the trial such as how Socrates' was treated, the exact charges against Socrates, how Socrates defended himself, et Cetra. One major point of contention within Apology is whether Socrates was given justice at his trial or not? Given the circumstances documented in the text, most readers would contend that he was indeed not given justice, but this is just a summary decision not considering the many features and faucets the notion of justice entails. Since this is such a critical contention made within the trial's account, it is worth examining this very question, but we may get closer to this crucial question by doing so with a detailed examination. Useful ways we may utilize to answer this dilemma is looking at what exactly justice maybe, what was the specific definition of justice used in Athens during Socrates' case, who should administer justice and how was it administered to Socrates, in what way did the jury reach their verdict, et Cetra. Ultimately, by analyzing these fundamental questions, we hope to arrive closer to the question's truth rather than make a quick conclusion.

Firstly, it is essential to understand why Socrates was on trial and how he handled the affair. Socrates was charged with four specific crimes by the city of Athens; specifically, these were "…makes the worse argument, the stronger.", "…busies himself studying things in the sky and below the Earth", "Socrates is guilty corrupting the youth..." and "…not believing in the Gods in whom the city believes, but in other new spiritual things.". Abridging these charges, he is being prosecuted for being a better arguer, studying philosophy, corrupting the youth, and impiety. Given the charges against him, Socrates decides to defend himself in an interesting manner. Instead of using pathos and detailing all the reasons in which he is not guilty like most individuals would, he instead employs Socratic questioning to the jury and hopes they arrive at a rationalized decision on the verdict. Socrates explains why he would defend himself with Socratic questioning rather than with a traditional convention. "This is the truth of the matter, men of Athens: wherever a man has taken a position that he believes to be best, or has been placed by his commander, there he must I think remain and face danger, without a thought for death or anything else, rather than disgrace…., when god ordered me, as I thought and believed, to live the life of a philosopher, to examine myself and others…" Socrates' is essentially conveying he will not give up his way of teaching and life even if it means dying. Unfortunately, the verdict determined he was guilty and sentenced to execution. However, it should be noted that the trial was partial due to the unpopularity Socrates acquired for himself in the city of Athens and may have implications on whether he was administered justice. The majority of Athens' citizenry vehemently disliked Socrates due to his insistent "philosophical questioning" of individuals in the attempt to "enlighten" them. Socrates' reputation was so well known among Athenians that he even addresses it in his disposition, "As a result of this investigation, men of Athens, I acquired much unpopularity, of a kind that is hard to deal with and is a heavy burden; many slanders came from these people and a reputation for wisdom, for in each case the bystanders thought that I myself possessed the wisdom I proved that my interlocutor did not have." Now, having the knowledge that Socrates' was given a biased trial, we can move closer to an objective conclusion of the fundamental question as to whether justice was received.

A useful starting point to examine in the pursuit of our answer is pondering what justice is and what definition of justice was used in Socrates' case. It can be said that not every individual agrees upon the definition of justice; however, an entity that does seem to have discernment on what justice may be is society. Society agrees upon specific guidelines of what they deem justice to be. These guidelines are only used, and justice is administered when an individual commits a crime. In the case of Socrates in Ancient Athens, justice was deemed to be what the city of Athens wanted, which was accomplished by isolating 500 hundred individual citizens to a jury and asking for their judgment on a matter. Socrates addresses this notion of majority rule after the verdict of his guilt is reached, "…There are many other reasons for my not being angry with you for convicting me, men of Athens, and what happened was not unexpected. I am much more surprised at the number of votes cast on each side, for I did not think the decision would be by so few votes but by a great many. As it is, a switch of only thirty votes would have acquitted me." Another important aspect to consider when defining the notion of justice is that different societies most likely define justice in different forms. For example, a democratic society will most likely have an entirely different perception of justice than what an authoritarian society has. This is important because it is vital that we judge the notion of justice in the context of Ancient Athens.

Secondarily, in the pursuit of reaching a conclusion, it may be useful to examine who actually dispenses justice as well as who dispensed justice in the case of Socrates'. The entity that seems to despise justice is that who makes the judgment on the verdict and who decides the punishment against the prosecuted. In the context of the present-day, a person who usually administers justice is a judge or jury. Similarly, in Ancient Athens, the specific administering entity was a large jury of individual citizens. However, it would be remiss to say that these citizens are the actual ones administering justice, but rather justice was administered by the opinion of the majority of the citizens of Ancient Athens. Given the verdict and punishment were decided by the opinion of the majority of 500 citizens, it would be reasonable to conclude that those 500 citizens also represented the majority of Ancient Athens. This is important because it shows that Socrates' verdict and punishment (justice) was reached in a fairly representative and equitable way as opposed to being reached in an unfair and despotic manner by a single person. This reflects positively in our assessment as to whether justice was given and maybe a vital component when we try to reach our conclusion. 

Now that we have a little more knowledge on fundamental questions concerning justice, it can be concluded as to whether Socrates' was given justice at his trial. I contend that he was given justice at the trial for a multitude of reasons. Firstly, it is important that we examine justice through the context of Ancient Athens. Since Ancient Athens used a large jury to decide what justice was, Socrates was rightfully given a trial, and it was decided, by the majority, that he was guilty of his crimes. It would be negligent not to acknowledge that in the modern context, the crimes Socrates was charged with are unreasonably ridiculous; however, it is important that a judgment be made in the context of this specific time period. Another justification that exists is the verdict was not reached in a lackluster way that was not representative of the majority of Ancient Athens. I personally find this to be one of the best ways of reaching a verdict instead of using a single entity or a selection of a few people as we do in the modern context. However, as in most trials, bias was evident, and the jury had a predisposition to finding him guilty. Socrates acknowledges this bias by saying, "Perhaps you think I was convicted for lack of such words as might have convinced you if I thought I should say or do all I could to avoid my sentence. Far from it. I was convicted because I lacked not words but boldness and shamelessness and the willingness to say to you what you would most gladly have heard from me, lamentations and tears and my saying and doing many things that I say are unworthy of me…" Even though the trial may be biased, I do not think that automatically entails that justice was not administered Socrates' because, unfortunately, every trial has some form of explicit or innate bias within them and sadly still happens in the modern-day.

In conclusion, a lot was learned not in just answering the intriguing question as to whether Socrates' may have been given justice or not, but in realizing how the notion of justice may be interpreted entirely different from one society to another and how justice should be interpreted in the context of the society you are mentioning. Like myself, it seems as though many individuals would inadvertently label the trial of Socrates as injustice and majorly flawed. However, upon closer analysis of such an issue, a lot can be deciphered and rationalized and may lead to a better understanding or even the truth. This is a really important consideration that any individual makes when wanting to understand or find the truth of an issue, instead of assuming their previous assumptions as fact.