When Socrates posited the idea of ​​laws and citizens working together in synergy, wasn't this broken when Socrates was unjustly convicted of a crime? Socrates' logic would argue that one should act in accordance with just laws, but when the legal system becomes unjust, there is no need to follow the laws. The only alternative to obeying the law is to expatriate or persuade the government, so one would think that Socrates would find the law code not worth adhering to after it was proven to be unjust during his trial, especially after he rejected wisdom of public opinion. The citizen's tacit agreement to the system of laws is also a moot point. An individual's residence in an area does not presuppose that he or she has in-depth knowledge of the law of his or her place of residence. For a legal code to be truly fair, citizens must be aware of all possible infringements and physically indicate their compliance. If a citizen unknowingly committed a crime, how could he or she rightly be held accountable? Socrates should not be held responsible for his crime unless he knowingly accepted the laws and understood that his action was illegal before it was