I think you could call Socrates behavior suicide by cop by modern standards. The law at the time had a provision that the jury has a binary choice.
Either they could go for the punishment called for or they could go with what the accused offered as alternative.
Socrates offered as an alternative to punishment that he’s to be payed money for his valuable work of teaching. This means that everybody who didn’t want Socrates to be paid by the public purse had to vote for his death.
If Socrates might have instead offered to go to exile, the court might very well have exiled him. Even if he would have just asked for a small punishment and promised to behave differently in the future the court might not have punished him with death.
Socrates initially offered as an alternative punishment that he be given free meals for the rest of his life; he never suggested that he should be paid money, though that’s a quibble. More importantly, the final proposal he made (under pressure from his friends) was that he (well, his friends) pay a whopping huge fine. This may have partly backfired because it also reminded people that he had rich and unpopular friends, but it was a substantial penalty. Though you are right that exile would have been more likely to be acceptable to the jury, especially as you are also correct that he never promised to behave differently in the future (which exile, unlike a fine, would have made irrelevant).
I have also seen interpretations that this was a good chance to die a martyr rather than just wither away. Confessing that he did something wrong would have been way more tougher for him to swallow than any amount of physical discomfort (arguably up to including fatal poisoning). These are the same kind of people that just say “Don’t mess my circles” when threatened with lethal violence by conquerer.
I think you could call Socrates behavior suicide by cop by modern standards. The law at the time had a provision that the jury has a binary choice. Either they could go for the punishment called for or they could go with what the accused offered as alternative.
Socrates offered as an alternative to punishment that he’s to be payed money for his valuable work of teaching. This means that everybody who didn’t want Socrates to be paid by the public purse had to vote for his death.
If Socrates might have instead offered to go to exile, the court might very well have exiled him. Even if he would have just asked for a small punishment and promised to behave differently in the future the court might not have punished him with death.
Socrates initially offered as an alternative punishment that he be given free meals for the rest of his life; he never suggested that he should be paid money, though that’s a quibble. More importantly, the final proposal he made (under pressure from his friends) was that he (well, his friends) pay a whopping huge fine. This may have partly backfired because it also reminded people that he had rich and unpopular friends, but it was a substantial penalty. Though you are right that exile would have been more likely to be acceptable to the jury, especially as you are also correct that he never promised to behave differently in the future (which exile, unlike a fine, would have made irrelevant).
I stand corrected.
I have also seen interpretations that this was a good chance to die a martyr rather than just wither away. Confessing that he did something wrong would have been way more tougher for him to swallow than any amount of physical discomfort (arguably up to including fatal poisoning). These are the same kind of people that just say “Don’t mess my circles” when threatened with lethal violence by conquerer.