of Socrates transgressions against the Athenians, only the results of long-term slander by those of influence who felt wronged by Socrates use of wisdom. His argument is very straight forward and should have proven Socrates innocent on this account. The fact that only thirty votes would have acquitted him seems to be enough for Socrates to feel that his arguments have been accepted (Stone 93). Socrates has essentially proven that he does not deliberately corrupt the young and that if he did so unintentionally Meletus has no right to bring him to court.As for the accusation brought against Socrates that he is an atheist, and he believes in new gods, it seems somewhat an awkward statement. How can one be an atheist, believing in no gods, but at the same time being accused of believing in new gods. Meletus is accusing Socrates of not believing in the known gods of that time period, but believing in his own gods, namely spirits and voices. Although he does not necessarily refute the idea of believing in his own gods, he concentrates more on the awkwardness of Meletus' accusation. Socrates just simply states that if he worships new gods, then he is not an atheist. However, if he does not believe in gods or that he is an atheist, then he does not believe in new gods. Either way Socrates is not guilty of the charges. What Meletus is actually trying to do is questioning Socrates' piety. Although Socrates does not attempt to defend himself against the questioning of his piety, he desires more to attack the formal charges brought against him (Brickhouse 219). Probably one of the biggest trials of his time, Socrates was wrongly accused and sentenced to death. Socrates never had the intention of corrupting the youth. He merely had conversations and arguments with people, only so they would open their own eyes and question their beliefs. Either they would stay faithful to what they believe in, or they would change their beliefs once...
