Near the end of Socrates’ life, many contemporaries suspected of Socrates’ disfavorable attitude towards the Athenian state and established religion. In acknowledgement of these suspicions, the Athenian state charged 70 year old Socrates in 399 B.C. for impiety and corrupting the minds of the young of Athens as the result of introducing them to new religious studies. In Ancient Greece, citizens believed that the gods protected their cities from natural disasters and invasions from other cities. For that reason, the State deemed Socrates to be endangering Athens by teaching the young to disrespect the gods of the city. Although in reality, Socrates had done no such thing and knew as much (Plato 29-30). Found guilty by a slim margin, the courts …show more content…
As part of the law of Athens, the courts’ failed to uphold one of its principals: bring about just resolutions to disputes within the city-state. By sentencing an innocent man to death, the state broke the obligations that they had to Socrates by imprisoning and executing him on false accusations, revealing that the law was flawed and unjust. Therefore, the wrong imprisonment automatically voids the agreement that Socrates has with the …show more content…
While it’s reputable to uphold promises, no promise existed between Athens and Socrates. The agreement between Socrates and the state was nullified when the state failed to abide its principle by unjustly convicting an innocent man to exile then death. Another reasoning Socrates presents in his decision to not escape prison is his opinion of obeying the opinions of the many, especially the 500 jurors from [Enter Reference] his trials since it was the majority who made the judicial system in Athens the way it was. However, in “Crito”, Socrates continues to talk about how one should not care what the majority thinks (Plato 44c, 48a). Thus, whether Socrates escaped or not, his actions would be deemed hypocritical seeing that he would be subjecting to the majority either