Just Trial In Plato's Apology

A man is sentenced and put to death for stealing an apple from the grocery store. Where he resides, theft is a capital crime. Was this trial just? Most people would say no, it is immoral and unjust to execute someone for theft, especially for something as small as an apple. Although this is true, this man broke the law, committing a capital crime. The result of a capital crime is execution. Therefore, the laws were upheld and this was a just trial. If laws are not followed, what would be the point of laws? This question arises in Plato’s Apology. The Apology is Socrates’ speech to defend himself in his trial against the charges of corruption of the youth and believing in false gods. This is written by his student, Plato, who was present during this trial. Socrates is sentenced to death for these crimes because during that time, it was

When one is caught committing a crime, there will always be a consequence if found guilty. Socrates had his own multitude of ideas and questions that he could have just kept to himself or written down somewhere. Instead, he decided to carelessly flaunt his ideas to everyone in sight. He must have known that this would have repercussions. When Socrates says, “A man who really fights for justice must lead a private, not a public, life if he is to survive for even a short time” (Plato, 32), he is right. To fight for justice, one must be careful with how he does it. Socrates may have lived a long life, but he went about his fight for injustice incredibly wrong. There must have been a way for him to appear before the senate or the town lawfully and pitch his ideas politically. Instead, he took the approach of going around town telling the Athenians that they were unwise and causing a disturbance. Socrates chose the illegal path in his fight for justice. He was well aware of the illegality of his actions, and he went through with it anyway, therefore he should have been, and was, punished