Socrates' Strong Argument

After reading "Crito" from Dialogues of Plato, I agree more with Socrates' argument. If Socrates were to follow Crito's advice to escape, he would have been a hypocrite! Everything that Socrates argued during his trial was supportive of his willingness to die for what he believes in; therefore, if he were to go against what he believes in in order to live, he would be ridiculed for that and deemed not supportive of his initial arguments/views. In acting as a martyr, he remains consistent with his normal behavior and conduct. I agree that Socrates should submit to Athens because Athens has nurtured him and taught him throughout the years. He chose to live in Athens and nowhere else, so he should deal with any punishment dealt out to him by his "mother and father." After all, Socrates realizes, it is the law.
Although Crito argues that Socrates will be leaving his children behind and that Socrates will be satisfying the many by submitting to their punishment, Socrates has a beautiful argument to repudiate this. He remains consistent with his "do not render evil for evil" argument, and he argues that the wise prevail no matter how many unwise citizens there are. Basically he is saying that doing right by himself, a wise person, is by far the best course of action he could take. As far as the children are concerned, Socrates believes that his children would not have as much if he remained alive because they would be forced to leave Athens and would be subject to other punishments because of their father. He knows that his children will be raised and taught sufficiently with the help of the friends he is leaving behind.
There is a strong connection between "Crito" and the "Law and Justice" packet in that both deal with the law and one's choice to submit to it given various circumstances. In the "Law and Justice" packet, some throughout history have believed that it is best to go against the law in order to right a moral/unjust wrong. Following this, this "group" refuses to accept the punishment for the broken law because they know that what they did was not wrong. On the other end of the spectrum, there have been those who have, like the previous group, done no wrong in "breaking the law," yet they feel it is their duty to accept the punishment, whether to prove the point that they are falsely and wrongfully imprisoned or to remain consistent with their views. Socrates can relate to the latter group in every way. It is unfortunate, however, that he did not even know he was doing wrong! The question that sums up the relationship between the two readings is this: should one submit to the imprisonment bestowed upon himself/herself when he or she sees no wrong in the "wrongful act?"