Plato's "Crito," is a dialogue that takes place in prison between Greek philosopher Socrates, and Crito, his friend and ex-pupil. Socrates is in prison, condemned to die for "corrupting the youth of Athens." Crito tries to talk Socrates into escaping from prison but Socrates doesn't want to because he says it goes against his beliefs on justice and virtue. Although Socrates would not agree, Socrates might have the right to escape the punishment of death because he didn't receive a fair trial, and the punishment didn't fit the crime.
             Socrates should consider taking up Crito's offer. Crito would have told him that he was in the wrong place at the wrong time and was a convenient scapegoat to charge with a made-up crime by his enemies. The majority rule of Athens probably didn't like what Socrates was saying in public. They figured the only way to really shut him up would be to kill him publicly and legally (even if they had to make him commit suicide), so that anyone else who thought of doing the same thing would have death as a deterrent.
             Crito may have told Socrates to appeal his sentence on the grounds that the jury was already biased against him. Socrates had no chance to defend himself and he knew it. He said nothing in his own defense at trial because he knew it would fall on deaf ears.
             It is ironic that a man is condemned to death for speaking philosophy in public. He could escape the death arranged for him and not be punished later if he chose to go to another country, one whom advocates speaking philosophically in public. His death sentence is to be carried out by himself, not by others. He commits suicide by drinking hemlock. This is not a death sentence, merely an assissted suicide, which should have been deemed illegal. His enemies did not have the courage to put him to death by any other means.
             ...