In 399 BC, an absurd accusation and trial befell the famous philosopher Socrates. A court composed of 5,065,438+0 people finally found Socrates guilty and sentenced him to death in the name of blasphemy, corruption and misleading young people. After learning this news, his students and friends were very anxious. They took turns to visit the prison and persuaded Socrates to escape. But Socrates refused to escape, accepted the arrival of death and took it for himself.
From the perspective of modern people, this trial is undoubtedly absurd and tramples on individual freedom and rights. But for the Athenians at that time, this case was far from an inextricable knot, and it was not a problem at all, because the whole case was tried in accordance with the laws of the Athenian city-state, and the trial procedure was complex and democratic.
Different from modern times, the courts in Athens have no judges, only presiding judges, who are responsible for organizing trials and maintaining court order. The power of judgment belongs to the jury. Jury members draw lots from citizens to decide. For example, at the beginning of each year, citizens voluntarily sign up to compete for jury members of that year, and then draw lots to select 6000 people from volunteers as jury members of that year. In the case of a court session, city-state officials will determine in advance the size of the jury needed to hear each case, ranging from 5 to 2,000, and then draw lots from 6,000 jury members to select the total number of jurors needed for that day. Before the trial, these jurors were assigned to different courts to hear different cases by drawing lots.
The trial in court is also different from modern times. First, the plaintiff and the defendant defend themselves and provide evidence, and then the jury votes for the first time to decide whether the defendant is guilty or not. If the defendant gets the majority of the votes, he will get the name of innocence. But the case is not over yet, and it depends on how many votes the plaintiff gets. If he gets less than one fifth of the total votes, he will be punished. This measure is to prevent malicious false accusations. If the votes of guilty and innocent are equal, the defendant will be acquitted. If the defendant is found guilty, the plaintiff and the defendant will put forward specific penalties respectively, and then the jury will vote for one of them as the final penalty. This kind of trial seems absurd, but it is reasonable. Because the plaintiff and the defendant will definitely put forward as reasonable a penalty as possible in order to get their punishment accepted, and they will not do whatever they want.
The jury that tried Socrates consisted of 500 people. In the first round of voting, the jury found Socrates guilty by 280 votes to 220 votes, and then punished himself unreasonably. Instead, he forced some jurors who had sympathized with him to choose the punishment proposed by the plaintiff, and was finally sentenced to death by 360 votes to 140.
In the eyes of modern people, it is absurd to sentence Socrates to death only by jury vote, because the charges against Socrates have neither criminal acts nor direct damage to the results. However, in Socrates' view, his trial was completely in line with the legal provisions of that era, both in substance and procedure. Although the laws of that era were unfair, unfairness did not mean that the judgment was not legal. Since it is a legal judgment, it is binding on citizens, and any citizen has the obligation to obey, otherwise there will be no public interest.