secondary accusation, made only so that the prosecution would have a backup plan, so to say. Socrates did not need to argue this accusation, because he wanted to escape from it.Concerning his teaching to the children and other listeners within the city, Socrates needed only to side with the Athenians and convince the jury that the trial was not a trial against Socrates, but against the beliefs held by the citizens of the city. They were attacking Socrates for his exercising of the peoples right to free speech. As mentioned before, the Athenians were proud of this freedom they had, but Socrates did not use this to his advantage. He did not use the fears of the jury to his advantage. He did not want to be acquitted. He did not want to win. Socrates wanted only one thing for democracy to be disgraced. Was he successful in this attempt? By being convicted, he showed many faults in this democracy. These faults were the hypocritical beliefs held by the government and political system. The citizens of this democracy had a right to free speech, but yet Socrates was convicted for his. He practiced and used his right, yet he was convicted for this right as well. He spoke freely about his beliefs and ideas and had many listeners and pupils that agreed with his philosophy. He did not make any actions against the democracy that he despised so greatly.Throughout the events of the trial, both sides were quite hypocritical, although Socrates willingly became hypocritical in order to expose the hypocrisy of the government. Throughout the trial, Socrates did not deny the accusations exactly , because he actually wanted to be convicted. We can also see this in Socrates dialogues with his accusers. He made them talk and answer his questions which most of them were not exactly questions. His questions were as if they were answers. These are all the proofs of what he wanted to do in the trial.Finally, as for the question Should Socrates have ...
