Socrates was accused of corrupting the minds of the youth and influencing them to believe in the supernatural phenomenon of his own beliefs. Socrates did not “corrupt” the adolescent of Athens. He merely changed them to think differently. Not necessarily differently but to think for themselves and to not always trust in what others say. I don’t believe Socrates was guilty. No one’s motive is to make people corrupt. Usually, when people influence others, it’s when they're talking about something they believe and trust in. Now the court may think otherwise because they believe that Socrates’ ideas were corrupt to them. Do you charge someone as guilty if they didn’t know they were corrupting? It wasn’t Socrates’ motive to do so why would he be tried? I don’t believe it was corruption, but to the court it was. Still, if Socrates’ motives weren’t about trying to destroy the youth’s perception, is that necessarily bad? One person isn’t only a good or bad influence on an entire population. Every other person will have a different view on what is wrong and what is genuinely good. …show more content…
Meletus states that Socrates is a bad influence and the whole city of Athens is a good one. Meletus’ statement about the youth is a bit absurd to me. Socrates is the one exception to a good influence to the youth. How can only one person be the worst influence on your being? I believe that multiple people can have a good influence on someone. Not a whole population but many people in your life. Even if someone was a wrong person in your life, you could learn from them. You can learn from the bad and the right people around