The Trial of Socrates: A Study in Legal Moralism

Abstract

of the law. The paper concludes that in the nature of some public morality crimes, it is desirable to leave the scope of the law empirically underdetermined, so that the Athenian criminal law in question does not fail in legality; that it was appropriate for Socrates to plead his character and to use persuasion as proof; and that it was legitimate to engage public opinion, represented by the jury, in the determination of the empirical content of the law. Based on the trial of Socrates, this is a study in legal moralism, which concerns whether the law does in fact or ought to enforce moral standards. Given that the law is sometimes used to enforce standards of public morality, as is the law against obscenity, bigamy, pornography, and so on, this paper is concerned with certain juridical problems associated with public morality law—problems about legality, and about whether in some public morality crimes the character of the accused is legitimate evidence, persuasion can constitute proof, and the jury can play a determining role in interpreting the empirical content