Socrates argument is based on the fact that he is a citizen of the state, having been born, nourished, and educated within its territory. By living in the state for many years and accepting the benefits it has provided unto him, he has accepted the laws and regulations and to abide by the decisions of courts, regardless of what those decisions might be. (Plato: Crito 54-56).
Plato's argument is even more dictatorial: he states that we have an obligation, for the good of our soul; to obey unjust laws and to accept unfair punishment for laws we haven't broken. How is it so honorable to be put to death for a law you haven't violated? What does the individual owe society? Plato's answer seems to be that the privilege to live in a society justifies any injustice that might go along with it, but by choosing the unjust punishment, Socrates is accrediting injustice against himself. Therefore, I do not believe that Plato's argument is neither sound nor deductively valid. (Plato: Crito 51).
Socrates introduces the voice of laws: an agreement between the citizen and the laws related to both the parent and child, he who obeys them is brought up to be good. In Plato, Socrates crime was described as harming public by being accused of a natural philosopher and not believing in Athenian Gods, corrupting the youth. One must understand that there are two classifications of crime. Those crimes that we agree not to commit because doing so will harm others. Example: rape, murder, fraud, assault and etc. And then you have the crimes where it consists of acts that do not harm others by their performance but could harm through secondary effects. Take drugs for a prime example, the use of drugs doesn't harm another person but once that person is heavy on a particular drug, then the user might hurt someone else.
We've all violated a few laws whether it was speeding on a less busy road or jaywalking across the street.
