The People of Athens v. Socrates

Overview and Context

Setting: Athens, 403 BCE, shortly after the restoration of democracy. Socrates is being put on trial, loosely based on his historical trial in 399 BCE. The charges he faces are impiety and corrupting the youth – essentially, that he disrespects the city’s gods and misleads young Athenians into defying authority. These were the real charges against Socrates in 399 BC, though we’ll simplify the trial so all students can participate without deep knowledge of Athenian law or Plato’s works.
Purpose: Engage students in a fast-paced simulation where they must apply their historical roles to a new scenario. Instead of formal Assembly debates, they will conduct a trial of Socrates. This encourages them to use their understanding of their character’s beliefs and the historical context to argue, improvise, and react in real time.
Duration: ~45 minutes (one class period). The structure below ensures the trial fits within a single period, including opening statements, witness questioning, jury deliberation, and verdict.
Accessibility: Students have already researched and written reports on their roles (from Threshold of Democracy), but they are not expected to be philosophy experts. The trial focuses on broad ideas (loyalty to the city, religious piety, civic duty, free speech) rather than intricate philosophy. Arguments should be made in clear, everyday language appropriate for high school juniors/seniors. Encourage students to draw on their characters’ perspectives and the common knowledge from class (e.g. Athens’ recent history, the concept of democracy vs. oligarchy) without needing to quote Plato verbatim.

Roles and Factions in the Trial

Each student will participate in-character using the same role they have in the Threshold of Democracy game. Athens’ political scene is divided among several factions, all of which will have a part to play in the trial:

Thrasybulans (Radical Democrats): This faction of ardent pro-democracy revolutionaries will take the lead as Prosecutors. They view Socrates with suspicion due to his anti-democratic leanings and his association with oligarchs. For example, a student in the role of Thrasybulus or a close ally could act as the lead prosecutor. These radicals will press the case that Socrates’ ideas threaten the hard-won democracy.
Pericleans (Moderate Democrats): The moderates have more nuanced views. Some may quietly agree that Socrates is troublesome, while others value Athens’ tradition of free speech. In the trial, Periclean characters can be assigned to either side as needed or serve as additional witnesses or jurors. For instance, a moderate democrat might testify to Socrates’ impact on the youth or could be a fair-minded juror. They should play their roles consistent with being more measured and open to persuasion.
Solonian Aristocrats (Oligarchs): These are the oligarchic or aristocratic characters. Having recently been on the losing side of the civil conflict, they have reason to distrust radical democracy. Many oligarchs might actually sympathize with Socrates (he was associated with some of their circle, like the Thirty Tyrants). Oligarchic characters could join the Defense team as co-counsel or act as defense witnesses. For example, an aristocrat might testify that Socrates is a scapegoat and that ideas alone shouldn’t be punishable. Oligarchs might also sit on the jury if needed, though note their bias may incline them to acquit Socrates.
Socratics (Followers of Socrates): This faction includes Socrates’ friends, pupils, and admirers (e.g. roles inspired by Plato, Xenophon, or other intellectuals). They form the core of the Defense. One student from this group can actually portray Socrates himself – the defendant on trial – or they can act as Socrates’ legal advocate. (Decide in advance whether a student will play “Socrates” as a role or whether Socrates is treated in the third person with his supporters defending him. Having a student embody Socrates makes the trial more engaging.) The rest of the Socratics can serve as assistant defense lawyers or witnesses in his favor. Their goal is to convince the jury that Socrates is innocent and that his contributions are being misunderstood.
Indeterminates (Neutral/Unaligned Citizens): These students are not part of any strong faction. They will serve as the Jury for the trial. As “ordinary Athenian citizens” who have not picked a side, their role is to listen impartially to both prosecution and defense and render a verdict. Indeterminates (and any other students who don’t have an active speaking role in prosecution or defense) should make up the bulk of the jury panel. Note: If additional jurors are needed, you can also include one or two moderate democrats or even an oligarch who isn’t actively involved in the case – but ideally the jury should consist of those with the most neutral stance possible for fairness.

Role Assignment Summary: Prior to the activity (or at the very start), assign specific roles to the trial functions:

Prosecution Team: 2–3 students from the Thrasybulan (radical democrat) faction. They will act as the synegoroi (prosecuting speakers). They should coordinate to decide who gives the opening statement, who questions which witness, and who delivers a closing argument. (For example, one student can be lead prosecutor for openings, another focuses on witness interrogation.)
Defense Team: 2–3 students led by the Socratics (and possibly one ally, such as a sympathetic moderate or oligarch). This team includes Socrates (the accused) and his defenders. One student – ideally a Socratic – can deliver the opening statement for the defense. Another can handle witness cross-examinations. Socrates himself may speak as well (either delivering his own statement or answering questions). If a student is portraying Socrates, that student can either do the main defense speech in character or have a colleague speak on Socrates’ behalf and then step in when it’s time for Socrates to be questioned. (Decide this based on student comfort – if the “Socrates” player is shy, they might prefer to mostly answer questions while another student does a prepared defense statement.)
Witnesses: 2–4 students assigned as witnesses who will be called and questioned during the trial. These should be volunteers from various factions to provide a balanced narrative:
- Prosecution Witness: For example, a radical democrat or a devoted Athenian patriot who distrusts Socrates. This could be a Thrasybulan not already on the prosecution team, or even a moderate democrat who has strong feelings against Socrates. Their testimony might include statements like, “I heard Socrates dishonoring the gods,” or “My son started questioning our laws after spending time with Socrates.” They provide evidence to support the charges.
- Defense Witness: Perhaps one of the Socratics or a sympathetic moderate/oligarch. For instance, a student playing Xenophon (a student of Socrates) or a moderate who respects Socrates can testify: “Socrates saved my life in battle and taught the youth to think critically, not to rebel.” They will refute the accusations and speak to Socrates’ positive influence.
- Optional Additional Witness: If time permits, you can include a second defense witness or a character who offers context. For example, an ex-oligarch might testify that “Socrates was not involved in the oligarchs’ crimes, he’s being scapegoated for what others did.” Alternatively, a religious official (if any role fits, or a neutral character) could speak on whether Socrates’s spiritual beliefs are truly heretical or just unusual.
Jury: The remaining students (primarily Indeterminates and any others not assigned above) will sit as the jury. Aim for an odd number of jurors (to avoid ties) – for example, 5, 7, or 9 jurors depending on class size. All jurors should remain neutral and in-character as ordinary Athenians. They will observe silentlyduring the trial (no speaking or interrupting), then deliberate and vote at the end.

Charges Against Socrates

The indictment of Socrates in our simulation mirrors the historical charges brought against him, framed in simpler terms for a classroom setting:

Impiety (Disrespecting the Gods): Socrates is accused of asebeia, failing to honor the city’s official gods and introducing new ones. In practice, this charge means the prosecutors will argue Socrates has openly shown disrespect for Athens’ traditional religion. They might cite his habit of questioning the existence or stories of the gods, or mention that he speaks of a mysterious inner voice or “daemon” (divine sign) guiding him – implying he trusts his own god over the city’s. Essentially, they claim he rejects the gods of Athens. The defense will counter that Socrates is not an atheist at all – he does believe in divine matters (he talks about a guiding spirit, which implies belief in the divine), and he has not outright denied the gods. They may also argue that questioning stories about the gods (as in Plato’s Republic) was a philosophical exercise, not an act of blasphemy.
Corrupting the Youth: Socrates is accused of leading young Athenians astray – undermining their loyalty to the city and its values. The prosecution will point to Socrates’ prominent students or associates who caused trouble for Athens. Notably, Critias (one of the Thirty Tyrant oligarchs) had been a follower of Socrates, as was Alcibiades (the traitorous general) – examples they’ll use to claim Socrates’ teachings bred anti-democratic or immoral behavior. They will argue that Socrates taught these young men to question authority and tradition to the point of turning against their city. The defense will respond that Socrates encouraged critical thinking, not rebellion. They’ll note that questioning the status quo is not the same as inciting treason. They may also point out Socrates had many students and admirers who remained loyal citizens; blaming him for a few individuals’ actions is unfair. Furthermore, Socrates himself served Athens in the military and even upheld the law when he refused to support an illegal trial of generals during the war (showing he has civic integrity). In short, the defense will claim there is no direct proof that “Socratic teaching” causes youth to become corrupt – rather, Socrates might actually improve the youth by teaching them to think and be moral individuals.

Other Possible Charges or Themes: While the formal charges are the two above, students can also bring up related issues in their arguments. For example, prosecutors might imply “undermining democracy” as a motive behind Socrates’ actions (since he was an open critic of how the democracy worked and was friends with known oligarchs). Though not a formal legal charge in 399 BCE, it’s very much a concern in 403 BCE Athens. The defense, meanwhile, might invoke Athens’ values like free speech (parrhesia) and the idea that executing a man for speaking his mind would betray the city’s ideals. Keep these arguments in the realm of what a typical Athenian citizen of the time might say – i.e., focus on loyalty, piety, and public orderrather than abstract philosophy.

Sequence of Events (Class Timeline)

To fit everything into one class period (~45 minutes), the trial will proceed through a structured sequence. The teacher should act as a kalos(moderator) or magistrate to keep time and order. Here is a step-by-step timeline:

Setup and Introduction (5 minutes):
- As class begins, the instructor explains the scenario and rules. Remind everyone that this is a simulation of a trial in Athens, 403 BCE, and that they must stay in character. Quickly recap the charges and what’s at stake (Socrates’ life). Introduce the key roles: identify who is on the prosecution, who is on the defense, who will portray Socrates, and who the witnesses are. Ensure the jury knows their role (to listen quietly, then deliberate). If needed, allow each team 1 minute to huddle and finalize who says what. Set up the “courtroom” space: for example, have Socrates (the defendant) and the defense on one side, prosecution on the other, and the jury seated separately.
- Magistrate’s Call: The teacher (or a chosen student playing a magistrate) can formally announce the start: “Hear ye, hear ye, the People of Athens vs. Socrates is now in session!” This adds a bit of drama and signals everyone to begin.
Opening Statements (5 minutes):
- Prosecution Opening (2 minutes): A prosecutor (Thrasybulan radical) makes a concise opening statement. They should clearly state the charges – impiety and corrupting the youth – and give a forceful summary of why they believe Socrates is guilty. For example: “Honorable jurors, we will show that Socrates has rejected our gods and poisoned the minds of our youth with dangerous ideas. After all we’ve suffered in war and tyranny, we cannot tolerate a citizen who undermines our democracy from within.” Keep it passionate but to the point.
- Defense Opening (2 minutes): Next, a defense speaker (Socratic or ally) presents the defense’s narrative. They should assert Socrates’ innocence, perhaps highlighting his contributions or principles. For example: “Jurors of Athens, Socrates is a loyal Athenian who has served his city. The prosecution will offer fear and scapegoating; we will offer facts: Socrates has never told anyone to betray Athens. Asking questions is not a crime – it’s how we Athenians find truth. We urge you not to condemn a good man on the basis of rumor and fear.” This statement sets the stage for their case.
- (Allow an extra minute if needed for transition or if either side runs slightly over, but keep openings brief to save time for witnesses.)
Witness Testimony (20 minutes):
This is the heart of the trial – interactive questioning of witnesses. Each witness will be sworn in (the magistrate can say “Please give your testimony truthfully as the gods are your witness” – though actual oaths can be skipped for time). We want live Q&A here, not monologues. The basic format for each witness:
- Witness 1: Prosecution Witness (approx. 5–7 minutes total). The prosecution calls their witness (e.g., a radical democrat citizen).
  - Direct Examination (2–3 min): The prosecutor who calls the witness asks them a series of questions to elicit testimony supporting the charges. Questions should be leading the witness to tell a story. For example:
    - “State your name and your role in the city for the jury.” (E.g., “I am Meletus, a proud Athenian citizen and a follower of Thrasybulus.”)
    - “Have you observed Socrates engaging in impious behavior?” The witness might respond with a prepared anecdote: “Yes. I saw Socrates in the agora, publicly questioning the Oracle of Apollo and saying that a divine voice speaks to him instead. To me, that sounds like he trusts his own personal god over our city’s gods!” The prosecutor can follow up: “How did young people react to him?” and the witness could say “They laughed at our traditional stories and started doubting the gods – exactly what the Spartans or the oligarchs would want to weaken us.”
    - “What is Socrates’ influence on the youth, in your opinion?” Witness might say: “He makes them question our leaders and elders. My neighbor’s son now sneers at the Assembly and says Socrates told him that random lottery elections are foolish. This is how it begins – with doubt and disrespect, leading to chaos.”
      This direct exam should paint Socrates as a bad influence and impious. The prosecutor may also ask about Socrates’ associates: “Did you know Critias or Alcibiades, and did Socrates associate with them?” The witness can affirm: “Yes, Socrates taught Critias – one of the Tyrants who bloodied our city. If Socrates had taught him loyalty instead of cynicism, perhaps we’d have been spared that horror.”.
  - Cross-Examination (2–3 min): After the prosecution is done, the defense gets to question the same witness. The defense’s goal is to expose bias or doubt in the witness’s story. For example, a defense attorney or Socrates himself might ask:
    - “Isn’t it true that Athens prides itself on free debate? Did Socrates ever force anyone to agree with him, or did he just ask questions?” (Aim to show Socrates didn’t actually coerce youth.)
    - “You mentioned a ‘divine voice’ Socrates hears. If anything, doesn’t that mean Socrates believes in a divine power, rather than denying the gods?” (Turning the impiety charge on its head – the witness might stumble or say “Well, it’s not our gods...”)
    - “You claim a young man sneered at the Assembly after hearing Socrates. Did Socrates tell him to do that, or could the youth have misunderstood? Has it occurred to you that perhaps the youth question the Assembly because of the Assembly’s own mistakes (like the execution of generals) and not because Socrates ‘corrupted’ them?” (This can be a bit pointed; maybe the witness will defensively say that it’s Socrates’ fault for encouraging questioning.)
    - “Are you personally opposed to Socrates because he embarrassed you or someone you know in debate?” (This could be asked if, say, the witness is portrayed as having a personal grudge – referencing how Socrates made people look ignorant, which caused many to resent him.)
      During cross-exam, allow some back-and-forth. The witness may get defensive; the lawyers can improvise short follow-ups. Keep it civil but lively. After a couple of questions and responses, the magistrate can conclude: “Thank you, you may step down.”
- Witness 2: Defense Witness (approx. 5–7 minutes). Now the defense calls their witness (e.g. a Socratic or friendly character).
  - Direct by Defense (2–3 min): The defense asks questions to highlight Socrates’ positive traits and counter the accusations. For example:
    - “Please introduce yourself to the court.” (“I am Xenophon, a general and student of Socrates.” or “I am a moderate democrat who has known Socrates for years,” depending on the character.)
    - “In your experience, how does Socrates influence young people?” The witness might testify: “He teaches them to think for themselves morally and logically. I never heard him urge anyone to defy the law. In fact, he encourages virtue. For example, he always says one must follow one’s conscience under the gods.”
    - “Has Socrates demonstrated loyalty to Athens in any way?” The witness could share: “Yes. Socrates served bravely in the war against Sparta. He fought at Delium and saved my life in battle. Does that sound like a traitor? He was also a member of our Council (boule) and when the Assembly tried something unconstitutional (executing generals without trial), Socrates refused to go along – he upheld our laws even when it was unpopular. That’s the kind of man he is.”
    - “What about the claims of impiety? Does Socrates disrespect the gods?” The witness can reply: “No – I’ve heard Socrates speak of the divine often. He may question some stories, but questioning is not the same as disbelieving. He believes some divine force guides him. He also encourages piety in a thoughtful way – he doesn’t perform empty sacrifices, but he lives justly which he considers the true service to the gods.” (Or any such spin that fits the role’s perspective.)
      This paints Socrates as loyal, moral, and misunderstood.
  - Cross by Prosecution (2–3 min): Now the prosecutors cross-examine the defense witness, trying to poke holes or reveal bias:
    - “Isn’t it true that you are Socrates’ friend/student? Wouldn’t you say anything to save him?” (Highlight potential bias.)
    - “You claim Socrates never urged defiance, yet you admit he questions Athenian traditions. Wouldn’t you agree that constantly questioning the foundation of our laws erodes respectfor those laws among impressionable youth?”
    - “About that incident with the generals: perhaps Socrates was right in principle, but many feel that stance dishonored the war dead. Could it be that Socrates always thinks he knows better than the people’s assembly – a sign of his arrogance and impiety?” (This is a more argumentative question; it tests the witness’s ability to defend Socrates’ character.)
    - “You mention Socrates served in war – but so did many of us. Does one good act cancel out his subversive teachings over decades?” (Trying to downplay the defense’s points.)
      The witness should answer honestly according to character, but the prosecutors will try to make the jury doubt the rosy picture. After a few exchanges, conclude the testimony.
- (Optional) Witness 3,4, etc.: If time allows and if you have more volunteers, you can include additional witnesses. For example, Socrates himself as a witness: Instead of (or in addition to) giving a long speech, Socrates could take the stand to be questioned by both sides.
  - Questioning Socrates: The prosecution might directly grill Socrates: “Do you or do you not believe in the gods of Athens?” (Socrates can answer thoughtfully, e.g. “I believe in gods, but perhaps not in the same way you do.”) “Did you teach Critias and Alcibiades?” (He might say, “I spoke with them, yes, as I speak with anyone who will listen. I cannot control what they became.”) The defense counsel can then do a brief re-direct asking Socrates to explain himself: “Socrates, why do you question people in the Agora?” (S: “To stimulate critical thinking and virtue, not to mock the gods or the laws.”) etc. This can be very engaging as the student playing Socrates gets to directly embody his defense, and other students get to challenge him. Keep this segment short (maybe 5 minutes: 2 min prosecution Q&A, 2 min defense Q&A).
  - Alternative: If not putting Socrates on the stand, you might have a character witness like a respected general or a religious figure briefly testify. Only do this if time permits; it’s better to have two solid witness examinations than to rush four.
- Witness Testimony Timing: Aim to wrap up all witness questioning by around the 25-minute mark of class. The teacher should gently cut off discussion if it runs long – perhaps saying, “The court has heard enough on that point, thank you,” to move things along. The interactive nature is important, but so is covering all parts of the trial.
Socrates’ Statement (if not already done, 2 minutes):
If the student portraying Socrates has not spoken yet (for example, if others handled the defense), you may insert a short moment for Socrates to address the jury in his own words. This can be treated like a mini speech or Q&A:
- Socrates could make a brief, heartfelt plea: e.g. “I have lived in Athens my whole life and served her in peace and war. I have only tried to make my fellow citizens examine themselves and strive for goodness. If this is a crime, perhaps I am guilty – but ask yourselves, jurors, what kind of city executes a man for speaking his conscience? I am not above the law, but neither will I say I’m guilty of something I am not. I leave my fate in your hands – guided by justice and the gods.” This is essentially a defendant’s final statement, akin to what Socrates says in Plato’s Apology but much shorter and in simpler language.
- (If Socrates already testified as a witness, this step can be skipped or folded into that. Alternatively, if time is very short, skip a long statement and proceed to closings.)
Closing Arguments (5 minutes):
Time for each side to make a final appeal to the jury, summarizing why they should win.
- Prosecution Closing (~2 minutes): The lead prosecutor (or a teammate) addresses the jury one last time. This is their chance to drive home their main points: “You heard the evidence. Socrates’ own witness admitted he questions our ways. We’ve seen how his followers turned against Athens. If we let Socrates go free, we send a message that anyone can defy our values without consequence. He is guilty of impiety and corrupting our youth, and justice demands a conviction. Don’t let his clever words fool you – Athens must protect itself.” Encourage the student to be passionate and use rhetoric, appealing perhaps to the jurors’ recent experiences (e.g., “Remember the dark days of the Tyrants – we almost lost our democracy. We cannot take chances again.”). Keep it within time.
- Defense Closing (~2 minutes): A defense team member (or Socrates himself, if that fits) makes the final plea for acquittal. They should recap key defense points: “Honorable jurors, the prosecution has given you fear and speculation. We have given you facts and character. Socrates is a man of ideas, yes, but ideas are not crimes. No actual law has been broken – no evidence of him sacrificing incorrectly or inciting revolt was presented, only fear of what free thinking might do. Punishing Socrates for the misdeeds of others or for asking questions will not make Athens safer; it will make us unjust. Show that our democracy is strong enough to tolerate a dissenting voice. Find him not guilty.” This should be delivered earnestly, appealing to reason and Athens’ higher ideals.
- (If time remains, you could allow a very brief prosecution rebuttal, as was customary in Athenian trials the accuser spoke last. But in a tight 45-minute frame, it’s fine to end with the defense. The historical Socrates didn’t really grovel in his closing – he remained defiant – but students can choose how defiant or humble to be, as they think will win the jury.)
Jury Deliberation (5 minutes):
After closings, announce that the jury will now deliberate. The jurors (Indeterminates and others assigned) should physically huddle in a corner or step outside the classroom for a few minutes if possible (to simulate secrecy). Provide guidance to the jury before they go:
- Instructions to Jury: Remind jurors that they are Athenian citizens of 403 BCE who just heard this case. They must decide guilt or innocence on the charges of impiety and corrupting the youth. They can interpret “guilty” to mean they think Socrates truly violated those norms and deserves punishment, or “not guilty” if they are not convinced. Emphasize that they should weigh the arguments and evidence presented, not just side with their friends or faction. In-character, they might also consider what’s best for Athens’ future. It’s okay if their biases play a role (since real jurors had them too), but they should at least discuss the case reasoning.
- Deliberation Process: Suggest that one juror act as a foreperson to lead discussion. They have about 3 minutes to talk. They might each share their thoughts: e.g., “I found the defense witness convincing that Socrates isn’t a threat,” or “The fact he was linked to Critias really worries me.” Encourage them to come to a majority decision. Historically Athenian juries didn’t need to be unanimous – verdict was by majority vote among hundreds of jurors. In our mini-jury, majority rules as well. If the jury is split, they should vote and the majority vote will be the verdict. (If it’s tied and you have an even number of jurors by accident, the teacher might consider that, historically, a tie would result in acquittal – but try to use an odd number of jurors to avoid this.)
- Optional Authentic Touch: If resources and time allow, you could mimic Athenian voting by giving jurors two tokens (one for guilty, one for not guilty) to drop into an “urn” secretly. Or use black and white marbles drawn from a bag to simulate randomness if appropriate. However, given the time constraint, a simple show-of-hands or secret ballot counted by the teacher is fine.
- The rest of the class (prosecution, defense, audience) should remain quiet while the jury deliberates. This is a good moment for the instructor to remind everyone to stay in role – perhaps the prosecutors and defense exchange tense whispers or hopeful looks, etc., as would happen in a real court awaiting verdict.
Verdict and Sentencing (3 minutes):
Bring the jury back (if they left) and have the foreperson or magistrate announce the verdict. For example: “On the charge of impiety – we find Socrates Guilty/Not Guilty. On the charge of corrupting the youth – Guilty/Not Guilty.” Or they may give a single overall verdict if that’s simpler (since in Socrates’ real trial the charges were voted on as one). Once the verdict is read:
- If Not Guilty (acquittal): Socrates is free. This could prompt a quick cheer from his supporters. You might have Socrates/the defense say “Thank you, honorable jurors, for upholding justice!” and a prosecutor might mutter about the city making a mistake. It’s interesting to discuss how the class outcome differed from history (since historically he was convicted).
- If Guilty: In an actual Athenian trial, there would follow a penalty phase (Socrates famously suggested a reward instead of punishment, and the jury chose death). Given limited time, you can simplify: assume the prosecution asked for the death penalty (common for such charges). The jury can decide a punishment or you, as instructor, declare one. Often in these simulations, death or exile are options. For educational drama, you might announce, “The jury has voted to convict. Socrates shall be sentenced to death by hemlock.” This is powerful and drives home the seriousness. Alternatively, the jury could recommend exile (especially if some jurors wanted a compromise). You can decide if you want to include a quick sentencing vote or discussion. If time is nearly up, it may be best to declare the sentence yourself based on class vibe (e.g., if it was a narrow guilty verdict, maybe exile; if overwhelming, death).
- Reactions: Allow a brief moment for in-character reactions. Socrates (student) might give a famous last line like “I bear no grudge against you” or “I only hope you care for your souls as I cared for truth,” etc., or simply hang his head. Prosecutors might look satisfied or solemn. Defenders might try to beg for mercy or be heartbroken. This is a good experiential moment for students to really feel the consequence.
Debrief (remaining time or next class):
If time remains (even 2 minutes), step out of character and quickly ask students how it felt and why they think the jury decided as it did. This connects the simulation back to learning:
- Was the outcome fair?
- What arguments were most persuasive to the jury?
- How does this result compare to what actually happened in 399 BCE (Socrates was found guilty by a narrow margin and sentenced to death)?
- What does this tell us about Athenian democracy and values?
  Given the 45-minute limit, a full discussion may wait until the next class. But even a quick reflection is valuable to solidify the experience.

Guidance for Participants

To ensure a fun and educational trial, give students some ground rules and tips in advance:

Stay In Character: Each student should channel their role’s perspective. A radical democrat prosecutor should act outraged that someone would insult the gods or question democracy. A Socratic defender should be calm, logical, and principled. Jurors should think like everyday Athenians (considering their fear of another tyranny, their piety, but also fairness).
Encourage Improvisation: This trial is meant to be interactive. Students should not read fully pre-written speeches (aside from perhaps a few notes). Instead, they should listen to what each witness says and respond spontaneously. For example, if a witness says something surprising, the lawyers should feel free to ask a follow-up question on the fly. If an argument strikes a chord, others can reference it later (“You heard the witness admit Socrates believes in gods – so why are we even here on the impiety charge?”).
Short and Sweet: Keep statements and questions concise. Long, rambling orations will eat up time and lose the jury’s attention. It’s better to ask a pointed question or make a single strong point than to cover ten points weakly. High school students will find it easier to engage if the pace is brisk.
Respect the Format: Only one person speaks at a time, and the magistrate (teacher) can call “Order!” if people start shouting over each other. No modern phrases or out-of-character jokes during the trial – save the laughs for afterward. Also, remind them this is a respectful debate. They can attack the ideas or credibility of a witness, but no personal insults beyond what’s reasonable in character. (E.g., calling Socrates an “arrogant old man” is in character for a prosecutor; calling the prosecutor a derogatory name would not be appropriate).
Use Evidence and Examples: Students have some historical knowledge from the game – encourage them to use it. If they remember a tidbit from readings (like Socrates’ service in battle, or Critias’ actions during the Tyranny, or what was said in Plato’s Republic), they can bring it up to support their case. This makes the debate richer. However, they should explain it in simple terms so all classmates understand (“Critias, one of the Thirty Oligarchs who killed hundreds, had been close to Socrates – that’s evidence of bad influence”). Likewise, referencing Athens’ values (“We Athenians value our gods and our democracy above all…”) will resonate with the jury.
Lawyer Collaboration: The prosecution and defense teams should strategize briefly before the trial on how to divide tasks. For instance, one handles opening, one closing, and share witness questioning. They can also decide if they want to introduce any physical evidence (perhaps a scroll “written by Socrates” – only if someone prepared something brief). Usually, testimonies will suffice. Remind them to anticipate the other side’s arguments and think of responses. But ultimately, they’ll have to react in real time to what is said.
Witness Preparation: Each witness should think of 2-3 key points or anecdotes to share when questioned. They don’t get an opening statement, so their info comes out via Q&A. It’s perfectly fine (even recommended) for the prosecuting team to coach their prosecution witness ahead of time (“We will ask you about the time Socrates mocked the gods at the festival – be ready to tell that story”). Same for defense with their witness (“Mention how Socrates mentored you to be a better citizen”). This ensures the witnesses contribute meaningful details. Witnesses should also be prepared to answer unexpected questions truthfully according to their character. If they don’t know, they can make a reasonable guess or say “I’m not aware of that.”
Jury Behavior: Jurors must pay close attention to everything. They should take mental or written notes of points that seem important. During deliberation, they should discuss in character – meaning, consider their character’s viewpoint but also the evidence. For example, a juror who is a neutral poor farmer might say “I don’t care about fancy philosophy, I care that the gods are honored – did Socrates dishonor them or not?” or “I just want the city to be safe; if his teachings cause chaos, maybe he should go.” Another might say “Athens should be better than Sparta – we shouldn’t kill people for speaking their minds.” These kinds of remarks help them reach a verdict. Remind them there’s no “wrong” verdict as long as they can justify it in discussion.
Time Warnings: The instructor will keep track of time and may announce time checks. For example: “1 minute left for this witness” or “Please wrap up your closing in 30 seconds.” Students should practice being persuasive under time pressure, a useful skill. It also keeps the simulation on track.
Focus on Engagement, Not Perfection: This trial is meant to be engaging and educational, not a professional courtroom. It’s okay if someone misspeaks or if not every historical detail is accurate. The priority is that students are thinking on their feet, defending their views, and grappling with the dilemmas Athenians faced. Remind them to have fun with it – if someone says something shocking, they can react in character (murmur, gasp, “How dare you!” etc., briefly, until the magistrate quiets things). These reactions make it lively. Everyone should feel involved, whether they have a major speaking part or are listening as a juror.

Sources:

Reacting to the Past role descriptions for The Threshold of Democracy: Athens in 403 B.C.E. (game context of radical democrats, moderate democrats, oligarchs, and Socratics)politicalscience.stanford.edu.
Historical background on Socrates’ trial: charges of impiety and corrupting the youth, and his relationship with Athenian democracybritannica.com britannica.com.
N.S. Gill, ThoughtCo: Explanation of the charges against Socrates (impiety = introducing new gods; corrupting youth by challenging status quo)thoughtco.com thoughtco.com.
Xenophon’s account (via ThoughtCo) of Socrates upholding law as a council member, showing his principled behaviorthoughtco.com.
“Saving Socrates” – Reacting Consortium Blog: student experience of a Socrates trial simulation, noting the historical outcome (399 BCE) vs. class outcomereactingconsortium.org reactingconsortium.org.