Education: San Quentin v. Socrates

In a bleak, green-walled hall of California’s San Quentin Prison one day last week, an odd sort of jury—two murderers, one sex offender, assorted thieves and forgers—solemnly took their places at a table before an audience of fellow convicts. The case before them was an old one: Athens v. Socrates. The evidence: Plato’s Apology, in which Socrates defends himself against charges of corrupting the youth of the city, and the Crito, in which the old prisoner refuses a chance to escape.

The 13-man jury had thumbed the evidence carefully, and all had their arguments ready: San Quentin, like hundreds of other U.S. communities, was starting its own Great Books discussion group.

Visiting Moderator James L. Hagerty, professor of philosophy at St. Mary’s College, popped the opening question: “Was Socrates guilty or not?” Thereafter, it was mostly up to the 13 men on the jury.

Al argued for a verdict of guilty. “Socrates made a nuisance of himself. He was a gadfly,” said Al. Jack the Actor objected. “Socrates believed that free thinking was the prime requisite of living the good life. How could that make him guilty if that’s all he tried for?” Theo the Lawyer agreed: “There was no law on the books that Socrates violated. This was simply a trumped-up charge. I say he did not get a fair trial . . .”

Nonsense, said Oliver, who was also a lawyer on the outside. “Socrates wasn’t guilty in our eyes, but he was in Athenian eyes.” Lawyer Oliver did admit, nonetheless, that Socrates had found “a new method of arriving at truth.” “Aha!” cried Theo triumphantly. “If he arrived at truth, then he can’t be guilty.”

Lawyer Theo seemed to have a bare majority on his side. The jury’s vote: 7 to 6 in favor of Socrates. On whether Socrates was right in refusing to skip town, no vote was taken. Quipped Moderator Hagerty: “The purpose here is not to free someone, but to free your minds.” Added Hagerty: “A beautiful discussion.”