The concept of guilt and innocence is a highly subjective one, especially in Socrates’ case. There is no true way to determine whether or not he was guilty based on his actions outside of the courtroom. All that we have to determine his guilt or innocence is what he says in the Apology. We weren’t there on the streets of Athens to see what Socrates was saying to the children in the marketplace and we weren’t with him while he was at home alone contemplating how he feels about the Gods. All that we have to determine his guilt with is what he says in his defense of himself and in his critique of his accusers arguments. Going purely off of that, he is able to prove his belief of the Gods in that courtroom, disproving Meletus’ accusation that he was an atheist.…show more content… First off, there was no law against corrupting the youth of Athens. It may have been looked down upon morally, but there was no legal action to be taken against Socrates. Also, the corruption that Socrates is accused of is that he was teaching the youth of Athens not to believe in the Gods sanctioned by the State of Athens. So there would be no charge of corrupting the youth of Athens if Socrates was under fire for possibly not believing in the Gods. Plus there were clear laws and consequences for having a disbelief in the Gods, so the fact that Socrates was able to disprove this makes it clear that he was indeed innocent. And he is able to prove his innocence in this matter in the same way that he does throughout the Apology- by weakening Meltus’