That Socrates thing is curious. His crime: "Socrates is guilty of crime in refusing to recognize the gods acknowledged by the state, and importing strange divinities of his own; he is further guilty of corrupting the young."
Was that just a convenient law to hang his prosecution on? Why not "inciting others to treason" or some such direct accusion?
Not saying this is the case, but giving bogus reasons makes it impossible to mount a defense. If I say you have invisible murderers at your home, it would be hard to discredit me in front of a jury that believes in invisible people.
It's a less subtle attack than "have you stopped hitting your wife yet?"
The standing of Socrates among his fellow citizens suffered mightily during two periods
in which Athenian democracy was temporarily overthrown, one four-month period in 411-410
and another slightly longer period in 404-403. *The prime movers in both of the anti-democratic
movements were former pupils of Socrates, Alcibiades and Critias*. Athenians undoubtedly
considered the teachings of Socrates--especially his expressions of disdain for the
established constitution--partially responsible for the resulting death and suffering.
Alcibiades, perhaps Socrates' favorite Athenian politician, masterminded the first
overthrow. (Alcibiades had other strikes against him: four years earlier, Alcibiades had
fled to Sparta to avoid facing trial for mutilating religious pillars--statues of
Hermes--and while in Sparta had proposed to that state's leaders that he help them defeat
Athens.) Critias, first among an oligarchy known as the "Thirty Tyrants," led the second
bloody revolt against the restored Athenian democracy in 404. The revolt sent many of
Athen's leading democratic citizens (including Anytus, later the driving force behind
the prosecution of Socrates) into exile, where they organized a resistance movement.
Was that just a convenient law to hang his prosecution on? Why not "inciting others to treason" or some such direct accusion?