One of the reasons Socrates gives for not escaping from prison is that it would be a violation of the law. I agree with Socrates, one should never break the law, even when it conflicts with one’s sense of morality because of Socrates's idea of a social contract, as well as if the laws are disobeyed it could bring dissolution of the city or state.
In Crito, we see some reasons Socrates gives Crito for not escaping from prison, for example, one of them is the idea of a social contract. Socrates has lived many years there and agreed to the laws and regulations, so even if the verdict is unjust, he has agreed to abide by the laws there (Plato, pg. 53). If Socrates were to escape the jury would just assume that they were correct in their verdict. To prove them right would mean that they were correct in the unjust accusations they were making. Regardless of the decision just because he believes the decision is unjust does not mean it is actually unjust, if he had no problem with the laws and regulations before it means he believed that they were just and chose to remain there. Socrates also has high morals and believes you can not make a wrong right with another wrong. If he were to escape just because he was wronged, he would do something sneaky and against the law making it wrong, and because his high morals, impedes him from doing so. Socrates' reasoning is very convincing because it leaves Crito with nothing to say.
If the laws are disobeyed it could potentially bring dissolution of the city or state. It is important to follow the law because it keeps its citizens safe and creates balance and order. If the citizens have not had any problems or found the laws unjust, then they have remained in their city. They have the choice to move and live somewhere else if they believe their values are not viewed and respected. Laws should not be broken because they can bring forth legal consequences, people usually follow the law because they respect authority and because they feel that it is morally right to do so. If a law is in conflict with one’s sense of morality, one can move somewhere else, they can try to petition the law, or ignore it.
Some people might argue that the law should be broken if it is unjust or it does not coincide with their values and beliefs. This is not correct, because Socrates's idea of a social contract as well as how you decide if a law is unjust, there are other strategies to fight the law while continuing to obey the law. If a person does not agree with the law, they have the choice to move from that location, remaining there would mean that you are willing to follow the law and believe it to be just. Many people have different beliefs and values though most of us usually agree on our morals sometimes this is not the case. If you believe a law to be immoral but others believe it to be moral how would you argue that you are correct? Cities or states usually coincide with the majority’s opinion, which leads to the next strategy if the law really is unjust. If a law is truly unjust you can get a lawyer to help fight a case against that law and/or start a petition, usually if the majority of the population agrees then a law can be overturned or changed.
In today’s society, this still applies, the law should never be broken. In today's age following the law allows us to live in a civilized society where people can not just do whatever they please. In this day and age, a modern example would be abortion there are a lot of debates and controversies over this topic, people may not agree with it morally but instead of breaking the law, they decide to protest or debate about it. They try to get their voice heard which is a better way than acting on what they believe in and breaking the law in the process example of these would be people killing each other or attacking each other because they do not want the person to abort which in return they would be breaking the law. Instead, they have gone through the justice system to get their voice heard and done everything by the law without having to take or break any law or jurisdiction.
In conclusion, I agree with Socrates and think that one should never break the law, one can move somewhere else or fight against the law in a legal manner if the law is in conflict with one’s sense of morality. If one does not agree with it there are other methods now that people can use to let it be known instead of breaking the law or going the illegal way. They can protest, petition, or take it to court. They can appeal it in the courts if they are in jail and believe they have been wrongfully accused. There is no need to go to the extent of breaking the law especially if you believe it is morally wrong, two wrongs do not make a right you can find another solution to it. You can let them know another way or there can be another outcome to it as long as you keep trying you will eventually persevere. This is what Socrates wanted Crito to understand and this is what we should understand as morally right.