Leading up to and throughout the trial, Socrates is provided with numerous opportunities to avoid conviction and the death sentence he receives. However, since Socrates had too much hu-bris and was a firm believer in the “death before dishonor” mantra, he refused to attempt to sway the jury through argumentum ad passiones, which was customary. Instead, Socrates opted to uti-lize valid arguments, that were rooted in logic as a means of convincing the jury of his innocence. Nevertheless, had Socrates ceased practicing philosophy publicly prior to the trial, appealed to the jury’s emotions during trial, or suggested a tougher punishment to the jury, he would have successfully avoided his fated conviction and eventual death sentence. The simplest method Socrates could have used to prevent the conviction he received would be to cease practicing philosophy in public, similar to the Pre-Socratics who preceded him …show more content…
In ancient Greece, it was customary for the defendant to use argumentum ad passiones, to prey on the jury’s emotions, in hopes of receiving a lesser or no sentence. Socrates however, had too much pride to throw himself on the mercy of the court. Overall, his logical arguments were of great disinterest to the jury and he received little sympathy from them. Socrates could have used various elements such as humor to win over the jury. This could be done by posing jokes about philosophy or by commenting on how foolish it was of him to practice philosophy. Another method that would have proven effective would be to prey on the jury’s sympathy. By professing how misguided he was and begging for a second chance, Socrates could have successfully appealed to the jury’s emotions, and cause them to tale pity on him. A variety of these behaviors would have yielded a greater effect on the jury than Socrates sarcastic comments and prideful