There was probably a little more tension in the Athenian court room than in our mock trial, however it was quite interesting to see the different points that were raised for and against Socrates during his process. Considering today's trial, the different points raised and the evidence, it is absolutely absurd that a man would be sentenced to death on the basis of this. However, we are looking at the situation with different eyes and at different times. We don't really understand how those people were brought into that environment and how that affected their thought process. The anger towards Sparta had evidently not yet subsided either, which allowed some jurors to vent their anger on Socrates due to the small correlation. Although Socrates' trial seems ridiculous to me, I will avoid vilifying the Athenian men who decided to put him to death because it was a different time, a different place, and a different thought process. Watching us conduct the trial in person certainly gave me a better understanding of how Athenian justice was carried out. An important distinction is that the evidence presented to both the defense and the prosecution was simply the opinions of the people. We spent a lot of time during the trial just attacking the person who was in the gallery. Since our idea of ​​convicting someone implies that hard evidence must be presented and that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, this rarely happens in our American justice system. If someone could be convicted just because a group of people had a bad opinion of them, then people would constantly go to prison without having committed any illegal actions. The second obvious aspect...... middle of paper... ...and how they thought they should do. It's possible that all of them would have actually voted guilty if they had actually been on the jury in that trial, but compared to the actual trial where only 56% voted him guilty, it's hard for me to believe that all of them 100% would have voted him guilty. guilty. they condemned him. This made me think about the vote at the actual trial, how many of those 280 votes actually thought Socrates was a threat to society. Were there just a few strong voices that convinced others to vote with them? Perhaps the majority simply thought it was the right thing to do because that's what they were told. It is impossible to understand how those who voted guilty actually felt. Did they really believe that Socrates had corrupted the young man or were they simply going with the flow of the trial to scapegoat him for the current problems?.