Was Socrates' punishment just? In The Apology, Socrates is put on trial for allegedly corrupting the youth of Athens and for not believing in the gods. The accusations were brought against Socrates because by Meletus. During his trial, Socrates defends himself very well against the allegations made against him. He does this by proving that he believes in gods by saying, “Does anyone believe in spiritual activities, but do not believe in spirits? - Person. »(p. 32). He also proved that he had not corrupted the youth by uttering a very logical statement: "If I corrupt some young men and corrupt others, then surely some of them who have grown up and realized that I gave them bad advice when they were young. the young people should now come here themselves to accuse me and take revenge” (p37). He proves that he is not guilty to the extent that a normal citizen of Athens would find him not guilty if they did not know who he was. He was known to be a bit irrational at times and had a very bad reputation as a troublemaker. Socrates attributes this bad reputation to a comic play by Aristophanes. He believed that gambling was truly ruining his reputation as a wise and respectable man. This is part of the reason he was convicted. Due to the fact that he was portrayed in the play as a troublemaker, he was treated as such by the jury, many of whom had probably seen the play. At the end of the trial, he was found guilty, although he gave multiple reasons showing that he was not guilty. His punishment for corrupting the youth and not believing in the gods is drinking hemlock, which kills him shortly after drinking it. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay In this trial, they found Socrates guilty although they found no evidence that he was actually guilty. No witnesses testified that Socrates corrupted them or anyone they knew, because the court would not have been able to find anyone who actually said that. In today's society, he would not have been convicted because no evidence could have been revealed. However, in ancient Greece, the laws were very different. They did not have the same freedom of expression that we have today. Just because their laws were different doesn't mean that, historically speaking, it was an unfair outcome. No man should have to die for disbelieving in certain gods or corrupting the youth. Even if Socrates had indeed had evidence against him, the maximum punishment for his actions that he would have faced would be a prison sentence. This is only in case he actually corrupts young people by spreading false information and slandering others, which intentionally distorts their beliefs from reality, or if he encourages them to commit acts of violence or things like that. Based on the evidence provided in the story, he was not guilty at all and he should not have been punished for what he did. It was certainly a very unfair punishment for a crime that could not even be proven in court..