One of the major philosophical dilemmas for the citizen is whether or not the laws of his state are an accurate representation of justice, which is the social consciousness that makes a society internally harmonious and good. If it is granted that they are not, is he still obligated to respect them? Surely, the world knows corrupt, self-serving governments today and has known them throughout history. The natural offspring of such governments are constitutions fundamentally based on injustice. Even in more advanced states, it is not uncommon to discover unjust laws, and it is in fact the continuous re-examination of established rules that lead to a progressive and vibrant legal system. Thus, it can be seen that what is just and what is lawful is not always indistinguishable. Though the concepts of citizenship and statehood ask of us that we at all times submit to the rulings of our nation’s judicial system, as proof of our loyalty, it is prudent for us to question whether or not honoring the law and being true to justice coexist. Therefore, it was not completely just of Socrates to obey the law without attempting to defend himself. In the dialogue, Crito, Socrates states that he must suffer the judgment of the Athenian court for the false accusations brought forth against him, even if it means being sentenced to die. He asserts that one must not concern himself with the opinions of the masses but limit himself to the advice of wise men (Plato 50). This could be an argument for escaping from prison when context is taken into account. Socrates is sentenced by many jury members chosen from the general public, a public whose anger has been riled up by false accusations of impiety and corrupting the youth. As Crito argues, Socrates does both himself and those around him an injustice by choosing to submit to charges he knows to be incorrect. Thus, not only is Socrates’ counsel of concerning oneself only with the wisdom of enlightened indi