The guy was essentially executed for being annoying. While I often contemplate having that power, no, I do not think a just punishment for being annoying is death by poisoning.

Have you ppl ever played the game SPARTAN TOTAL WARIOR? If so have you reached the level where you have to prtect him from assasins? I hate it. I got stuck on it for ages. He's such an annoyin little twerp. Actually, come to think of it it was Archimedes ya have to protect I think. Oh well. Same thing.

I do believe he was put to death for that sentace, although my history could be completely wrong.

His sentence was in accord with Athenian "Law". They had no system of prescribed penalties for various crimes. The way it worked was that - given a guilty verdict (from a jury of 300-500) - the prosecutor would propose one sentence and the defendent would propose another, and the jury would choose between them. In Socratese' case, the prosecution naturally asked for the death penalty. Everyone expected Socrates to propose exile from Attica, which they would have gladly granted, but instead he proposed a generous lifelong pension, box seats at the theater, and to be feasted at public expense (as Olympic champions were) for the rest of his life. Given the two choices, and finally utterly exasperated with Socratese, they voted Option A.

Are there many today who could face the same accusation?

Socrates’' "offense" goes considerably beyond being annoying. Athens had been utterly ruined by war and plague, and then savaged by a clique of 30 mass-murdering Quisling tyrants. And who was the principle architect of their defeat? The traitor Alcibiades - one of Socrates' former star disciples. And who was the leader of the mass-murdering tyrants? Critias - another of Socrates' former disciples. The charge of "corrupting the youth" needs to be understood in this light. (The fact that Alcibiades and Critias both utterly rejected Socrates' morality didn't matter; in exposing the evils and faults of the society around them, he had inadvertently caused them to reject all moral systems and restraints.) Also, Socrates’ had constantly assaulted the reigning religious paradigm of the day: that might makes right! The Classical Greeks believed in the holiness of beauty and the righteousness of power, and conceived of their gods in the same terms. (Hellenic gods weren’t supposed to be more moral than men, but merely immeasurably happier. The fact that Zeus could do all the wretched things he did and still be Lord of Olympus was – in their minds – proof of his supreme divinity and his right to it.) Socrates, however, preached an inherently seditious and blasphemous message proclaiming the beauty of holiness and the power of righteousness. His preaching against the popular paradigm not only upset everyone but the smallest fish in the pond, they thought his teaching offended the gods and denied them the honor that was their due - and when the Greek gods were offended, plagues, military defeats, economic collapse, and other social and natural catastrophes happened. Given that their gods were obviously ticked off at Athens, Athenians instinctively began looking for the albatross-killer in their midst. It didn’t take them long to settle on Socrates as the source of the polluting miasma. As the abominable thing, Socrates had to be either killed or exiled for Athens to set things right with their gods. In sentencing of those convicted of this sort of offense, the prosecution invariably asked for the death penalty, the defense for exile, and the jury almost always voted for exile. By refusing to allocute to the offense and not asking for clemency and exile, but instead compounding his “guilt” by insisting he had done right and ought to be rewarded for it (essentially giving not only society, but its gods, the finger), Socrates made himself even more “unclean” and “detestable” in the eyes of Greek religion and their gods. So, in the eyes of the typical Greek and Attic law, Socrates certainly deserved his sentence. That Socrates died a martyr for right over might, and that posterity has vindicated him, shows that he did not in truth deserve it – but had he not suffered it, he wouldn’t have won.