To Escape or Not to Escape

After reading the Platonic text Crito which involves Crito, one of Socrates' friends, trying to help Socrates escape from prison, the refusal of Socrates to escape led me to think about the concept of justice.  Furthermore, it made me think about whether or not the judicial system that we all face in the case that we break the law is even able to deliver justice.  In this text, Socrates explains that by living in Athens throughout his life and also having children there means that he was willingly entering into a social contract with the city.  Within this social contract he agreed to obey the laws of Athens and thus must accept the court decision that sentenced him to death.  But this made me think about whether or not this social contract should in fact bind someone to accept the decisions of the judicial system of the state they live in.  For instance, should a person, like Socrates, have to accept a decision that many people can agree is unjust?  In this way I disagree with Socrates that citizens of a state who are the victims of wrongful court decisions should have to accept their fate.

Where I do not agree with Socrates is that it seems Socrates believes that whichever ruling is made by the judicial system of the state must automatically be accepted because not doing so would be shaming the state's institutions and laws. The reason I do not agree with this notion of accepting unjust decisions is because the laws and the judicial system of a particular state are supposed to be put in place to carry out justice.  And in my opinion, justice is a concept and idea that exists independently of institutions.  Every decision that our supreme court makes is not automatically just simply because it was made by an institution that is supposed to uphold justice.  Along these lines I do not believe a person should have to be put to death if this punishment is unjust.  Similarly, if a person commits an unjust crime but does not get caught then how is this fair to people like Socrates?

One example I will give is that of OJ Simpson.  Almost everyone knows who O.J. Simpson is but for those of you who don't he is an ex NFL football player who was found not guilty of murdering his wife and her friend despite substantial, compelling evidence that he committed the crime.  As the video below makes clear, this verdict was a "dark day for justice in America."  Now can O.J. walk around feeling as if he has not went against what is just since he was not convicted?  I think the answer is an obvious no.  I understand where Socrates is coming from, and I believe he would agree that every decision a court makes is not going to be just. But I do not agree that victims of unjust punishments should have to face these punishments, and I also do not believe people like O.J. Simpson should be able to live in society simply because they were not found guilty by the judicial system.

What I'm trying to say is that I believe Socrates would have been justified in escaping.  When he considers whether or not it would be just to escape from prison I believe he should be thinking about the nature of his actions and whether they are just or unjust.  I do not think he should be afraid of doing injustice to the laws of Athens when it was his fellow citizens citing Athenian law in their arguments that unjustly convicted him. Moreover, if the judicial system fails to make a just decision then why should this be accepted?  If the sole purpose of a judicial system is to carry out justice to the best of its ability then an unjust decision should not be final.  Especially in the sense that, as Socrates alludes to in Crito, the states' laws serve as a sort of parent to the citizens they govern, would you allow a parent to kill you as punishment for an action that was not unjust?  Would you say, well since you're my parent and going against your authority would be wrong and disrespectful, I will let you kill me.  No, you wouldn't.  The inconsistency is that the institutions we put in place to carry out justice are susceptible to human error.  And thus every decision should not be binding since every decision is not in fact just.

What I am saying in the end is that decisions made by a state's laws and judicial system do not need to be accepted.  Socrates would have been justified in escaping because of the disservice the state is doing to him by sentencing him to death based on actions that were not unjust.  Obviously, because humans in the end run these judicial systems, the concept of justice is more up for interpretation that it should be in an ideal system. And for this reason Socrates, and people like him, should be able to refuse unjust decisions.  Below I have posted a video which offers a unique take on the death of Socrates and its implications. I posted it not only because I think it is a cool video but also because it makes clear some of the points I have mentioned in this post.

Anyway, I am curious to know what you guys think? Do you think Socrates would have been justified in escaping? Or do you buy Socrates argument?