Sam: Well it was an extreme denunciation for such petty accusations.
Carl: Since we agree that Socrates was wronged, I think Socrates was stoically accepting unjust Laws. He didn’t try to convince the jury of his innocence. Do you think Socrates did right by staying and facing death, or should he have escaped?
Sam: I think that Socrates believed that he was doing the right thing by obeying the Laws. Socrates might be able to reply that he was not being wronged at all--that it was just fate and circumstance that led to his execution. If Socrates could have successfully persuaded the Laws that he was wrongfully imprisoned, he should’ve …show more content…
If Socrates escaped and the Laws were broken, that means that it is because of the Laws that he was imprisoned. If Socrates was imprisoned wrongly, and if this was in accordance with the Laws, then it would seem that the Laws were unfair and should have been broken. So if the law failed to fulfill its duties by threatening to kill an innocent person, does this not mean that the law has broken the social contract between citizens and law?
Sam: Nonetheless, trial by jury is a part of the Laws; the Laws are unbending, and if Socrates is found guilty by jury then he is guilty according to the Laws. Socrates obviously knew this because he agreed to the social contract at adulthood. Socrates chose to stay in Athens and willingly obey to the Laws of Athens. It would also be contradictory for him to escape because he declined exile when it was presented to him at will, and then leave Athens when the Laws did not allow him to do so.
Carl: But it was Meletus, and the public that accused Socrates so if the people are wronging Socrates unjustly, that means that they are wronging him in a way that is not in accordance with the Laws. Thus, Socrates should not be breaking the Laws in trying to break free from