Socrates Right To Crito Analysis

1650 Words7 Pages
For many centuries, many people continuously have two different stances in the Crito, which is one of the several Platonic dialogues. After pleading guilty in a trial and being sent to prison for the injustice of corrupting the youth’s mind, which he did not commit, Socrates is given the chance to decide whether to escape prison or not. Some believe that it was more righteous for Socrates to follow the Athenian laws and face his punishment. Others believe that he should not have suffered and have his last remaining moments unfairly taken from him. Despite the fact that Socrates accepted his penalty, he should have left with Crito because the trial was, overall, unfair. There was a public misunderstanding of his actions, lack of proper evidence, and people’s personal vendetta against him, which are the reasons that, ultimately, led to his undeserved sentence.…show more content…
This will display he will avoid the penalty of the law to his convenience when he had followed it for his entire time in Athens, which will further many people’s belief of his bad character. However, the Athenian justice system was flawed. It is not right for Socrates to accept his death as his punishment when many people did not comply with the requirements of the jury to uphold the law because they decided to convict an innocent man to his death with no strong evidence needed. The laws are established with the sole purpose to establish justice. Instead of establishing justice, many people in the trial let their personal judgments of Socrates establish him as the criminal when he was innocent. The system is not just if people do not focus on the evidence, but rather, they focus on their opinions on the defendant. If the system is not just, then the conclusion is not just. Therefore, Socrates should not accept the conclusions of trial with jurors that did not follow the rules of
Open Document