Being treated like a criminal when you have done nothing wrong is something no innocent person should experience. Injustice like this is not only detrimental to the victim (because they know they are being unjustly punished), it is also a betrayal of the rule of law, in terms of legitimacy. This display of injustice demonstrates how the law is not always fair in some cases and that people in positions of authority tend to commit illegal actions to further their own personal interests. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay In the dialogue “Crito,” Socrates was imprisoned on false charges of “corrupting youth and failing to recognize city ​​gods”, which was born from the ideas of his philosophical teachings. During his detention, Crito goes to him and tries to convince him to escape. Although innocent, he refuses to escape due to his belief that escaping the law is wrong. He would ultimately be executed solely because of his beliefs. 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 with it” because the law has violated its own rules by taking his freedom unjustly. He wants to do what is right, which is usually the right thing to do, but at what cost? One of the reasons he does not escape includes his unwritten oath to the city of Athens, where he promises to obey the rules and escape and leave. the city breaks its oath. Although he maintains his innocence, he tells Crito, "leaving this place without having convinced the city, breaks my promise to the city." He states that "it is never right to answer evil with evil" and instead chooses to accept his fate. I have difficulty understanding his reasoning. He's basically saying that two wrongs don't make a right, but if he were to commit his "wrong" by escaping from prison, it would be the result of the first "wrong" committed by the law that sent him to prison in the United States. first place for no reason. I'm pretty sure that when he agreed to follow the city's laws, he didn't know that he would be punished for holding and teaching beliefs that other people disagree with. If the law were a person and could speak, it depicts an argument by saying: "The state is responsible for the conditions in which your parents were married, you were born, grew up, were educated." So, it’s really the state that raised you. You did not challenge 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 first deny that you are our offspring and our slave, yourself and your ancestors? " Well, first of all, I don't think there was any written law that stipulated how people could live their lives, including marriage, the conception and birth of a child, and dating. school. Plus, unless a third party or guardian angel called "the state" helps provide him with food, clothing, and shelter, he might think twice. Until then, the only people he was known to have been raised by were his parents. The main question that no one has ever discussed here is "who questions the law?" Yes, citizens have a duty to respect the law, but in return, the law must also respect its citizens by providing real and proper justice. Threatening to kill an innocent person for no reason means that the law has done something wrong. I think if a deal is broken.