Refusing to Escape Justice

In Plato’s "Crito", we meet Socrates who is in prison. His friend, Crito, proposes placing a bribe to help him escape, but Socrates refuses and proceeds to explain why he did so. While Plato was explaining the reasoning for Socrates staying in prison, I believe there is also a larger picture, one where he is attempting to convince the populace against placing bribes to help convicts flee.

Plato was addressing those who have helped prisoners escape and the escapees by trying to convey the message of why running away and aiding runaways is not right. Crito says “Look here, Socrates, it is still not too late to take my advice and escape… a great many people who don’t know you and me very well will be sure to think that I let you down, because I could have saved you if I had been willing to spend the money” (56). From the way he explains his reasoning, it sounds like bribing people to help them out of prison was a common practice. It would make perfect sense then for Crito to bring this up. If multiple others have done so, why not Socrates as well? If the law does not apply to one, why should it then apply to the rest of Athens? Does that mean everyone else in that position should go free? Instead of mindlessly listening to Crito, Socrates shows how this is wrong through his own logic chain. In short, his reasoning looked like this: The law is put over us and it provides protection and order. We should obey it and not try to shirk it or act like it does not matter because in doing so we can very well be saying the law is pointless (“Crito” 60). Plato was addressing the bribers, telling them that helping the prisoners escape the law disregards it and shows the rulings of the authorities is worthless.

Socrates starts of his argument by addressing the fact about people throwing the law around like it means nothing. Every person that has or will have had faced trial in Athens declared themselves subject to the laws, but decided they no longer cared for them. All who lived in the city had the responsibility as citizens to uphold the law. Bribes to avoid punishment were not doing so. Not only would the ones facing trial be breaking the law, if his escape was successful he would be no better off. Like Socrates later states “Incidentally you will confirm the opinion of the jurors who tried you that they gave a correct verdict” (64). They may have escaped one danger but could then see themselves facing others that come with mistrust and suspicion, so Plato was also sending a warning (“Crito” 64). He hoped he could steer the people away from their intended course of action.  Furthermore, Plato brings up the point that Socrates could have left whenever he wished (and by extent everyone) but by staying they have “in fact undertaken to do anything that we tell him” which also means dying if the law demands it (62). Besides, if a man falsely convicted stayed to face death, what should that say to those whom are rightly in prison? Perhaps that they are cowards and are doing wrong by escaping. Or did they think that each of them personally was the only one who could avoid the law?

What if someone says they stayed in Athens despite not liking all the laws, and so they can disregard those. Socrates, speaking for Plato, has an answer for this as well, saying “that if you cannot persuade your country you must do whatever it orders, and patiently submit to any punishment that it imposes, whether it be flogging or imprisonment” (61). In addition to having the freedom to leave the city, they could try to change its mind, but if that failed they had to await the judgment given to them. The ones trying to escape were then still no more right than before.

Law usurpation does not stop with the bribers and those attempting to run away. Prisoners can only run if the bribe is accepted by the bribee. Therefore, they help in the process. Seeing how they could throw away the law in Socrates’ reasoning could have made them more likely to uphold it instead. If no bribes are accepted, that process stops.

Plato was using his mentor’s death to create a picture for the Athenians. He used Socrates’ reasoning to show how the common practice of bribing to escape trial was not right and, in fact, destroyed the law. Citizens were supposed to support the law and all persons involved in the bribe process were doing the opposite. As inhabitants of Athens they had also agreed to follow the legislation and not chosen to leave. As a result, they were to submit to the mandates, even if it meant death. There was no situation in which running away was right. Plato’s explanations effectively supported the belief that the bribing system was wrong.