After reading the Crito, I have come to the conclusion that Socrates was correct in not escaping from prison and from his pending execution. However, I argue that his motivation was not simply to do what is just, but to prove a point. I believe the point he was trying to make was that he was accused unjustly and had died an unjust death. If Socrates had escaped, even though he would have been justified in doing so, it would have been too easy for the citizens of Athens who were against him to justify their behavior in sentencing an innocent man to death.
To understand Socrates position, it helps to begin with some background and discuss his arguments for why he believes he should not escape from prison. Socrates believes that one must never do wrong. If you must never do wrong, then you also must not return a wrong for a wrong (Crito handout). If you harm a person it is wrong and since you are not supposed to do wrong, then you should not hurt anyone even if you were hurt by that person (Crito handout). When an individual breaks a just agreement, that person is doing harm to the person with whom the agreement was held (Crito handout). So you can assume that you must never violate that agreement. If Socrates were to escape from prison he would be violating a just agreement; therefore, to escape from prison would be wrong (Crito handout). If escaping from prison is wrong, then Socrates knows he must not escape from prison. The juries decision in the trial was for Socrates to be executed. Since that was their ruling, Socrates would have to oblige them and obey the law even though it meant his death. To do anything other than that would have been wrong.
To further complicate the situation for Socrates, the very laws that he is to uphold are actually corrupt in the sense they have sentenced an innocent man to die. This is an injustice in 2.
itself; however, one of Socrates primary arguments is that he cannot return one injustice for another.
