Being treated like a criminal when you have done nothing wrong is something that no innocent person should suffer. An injustice like this is not only harmful to the victim (because they know they are being punished unfairly), but it is also a betrayal of the rule of law, in terms of legitimacy. This demonstration of injustice demonstrates how in some cases the law is not always fair and that people in authority tend to commit illegal actions to further their own personal agendas. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay In the dialogue "Crito", Socrates was imprisoned on false charges of "corrupting the youth and not recognizing the gods of the city" which arose from the ideas of his philosophical teachings. While he is in prison, Crito comes to him and tries to convince him to escape. Although innocent, he refuses to escape because he believes it is wrong to escape the law. He would ultimately be executed for his beliefs alone. I believe Socrates was an innocent man and should have escaped from prison. Socrates wants to follow the laws, but at this point I would say "to hell" because the law has violated their own rules by unjustly taking over his freedom. He wants to do what is right, which is generally the right thing to do, but at what expense? One of the reasons he doesn't run away includes his unwritten oath to the city of Athens, where he promises to obey the rules and that running away and leaving the city breaks his oath. Although he maintains his innocence, he tells Crito, "to leave this place without having persuaded the city, breaks my promise to the city." He declares that “it is never right to answer wrong with wrong” and chooses to accept his fate instead. I have a hard time understanding his reasoning. He basically says that two wrongs don't make a right, however, if he were to make his "mistake" of escaping from prison, it would be a result of the first "mistake" being made by the law which sent him to prison in the first place for basically no reason. I'm pretty sure that when he agreed to follow the city's laws, he had no idea that he would be punished for holding and teaching beliefs that other people didn't agree with. If the law were a person and could speak, it would describe a topic in its words by saying: “The state is responsible for the conditions in which your parents married, you were born, raised, educated. So, status is really what raised you. You had no problem with these laws and did not leave Athens, although you could have done so if you wanted. So, since you were born, raised and educated, can you deny, firstly, that you are our offspring and slave, both you and your ancestors? how people could live their lives which included marriage, conceiving and giving birth to a child, and going to school. Furthermore, unless there was a third person or guardian angel called “the state” to help provide him with food, clothing and shelter, perhaps he might have reconsidered. Until then, the only known people he was raised by were his parents. The main question that no one has ever discussed here is “who is questioning the law?” Yes, citizens have the duty to respect the law, but in turn the law must also respect its citizens by obtaining effective and adequate justice. Threatening to kill an innocent person for no reason means that the law has gone wrong. I believe that if an agreement is broken by one party, the other should be free from consequences. And therefore, Socrates, a truly innocent man, should have escaped from prison. Socrates also refuses to run away because he claims his friend.