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 charges were brought against Socrates because by Meletus. During the trial, Socrates defends himself very well against the accusations made against him. He does this by demonstrating that he believes in gods by saying, “Does anyone believe in spiritual activities, but doesn't believe in spirits? - None.”(p. 32). He also proved that he had not corrupted the youth by saying a very logical statement: "If I corrupted some youth and I corrupted others, then surely some of them who grew up and realized that I had given them bad advice when they were now young people should come up here to accuse me and take revenge” (p37). He proves not guilty to the extent that a normal citizen of Athens would find him not guilty, if they didn't know who he was. He was known to be a little irrational at times and he was known to have a bad reputation as a troublemaker. Socrates attributes this bad reputation to a comic work by Aristophanes. He believed that the game had really ruined his reputation as a wise and respectable man. This is one of the reasons he was found guilty Due to the fact that he was portrayed in the show as a troublemaker, he was treated as such by the jury, many of whom had probably seen the show. At the end of the trial he is found guilty, despite having given multiple reasons proving that he is not guilty. His punishment for corrupting the young man and not believing in the gods is to drink hemlock, which kills him shortly after drinking it. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original EssayIn this trial, they found Socrates guilty despite finding no evidence that he was actually guilty. There were no witnesses who claimed that Socrates had bribed them or anyone they knew because the court would not have been able to find anyone who had actually said so. In today's society, he would not have been found guilty because no evidence would have been revealed. However, in ancient Greece, the laws were very different. They didn't have the same freedom of speech that we have today. Just because their laws were different, though, doesn't mean that, based on history, it was an unjust outcome. No man should die for not believing in certain gods or for corrupting the young. Even if Socrates actually had evidence against him, the maximum punishment he would have faced for his actions would have been a prison sentence. This is only if he was actually corrupting young people by spreading false information and defaming others, which intentionally distorted their beliefs from reality, or if he was encouraging them to commit violent acts or the like. Based on the evidence provided in the story, he was not guilty at all and should not have suffered any punishment for what he did. It certainly was a very unfair punishment for a crime that could not even be proven in court.