When the laws are introduced in Crito, they claim that none of the laws should be disobeyed because to break one is to break them all. Instead of breaking laws in retaliation because they have acted or behaved unjustly, as stated in 51b, they can be persuaded to change, "although he agreed to obey us, he neither obeys us nor persuade us if we do something basely, even if we do offer him an alternative and do not rudely order him to do everything we ask him, but allow one of two things: either to persuade us, or do it” (52a). Persuasion is the only option that allows disobedience; however, it is unclear whether or not Socrates should obey the law if he fails to convince her. Socrates' hypothetical disobedience in his apology to the court's order to cease philosophizing is considered in Richard Kraut's "The Apologies of Plato and the Crito: Two Recent Studies." The article is a review of Socrates by Gerasimo Santas and Law and Obedience: The Arguments of Plato's Crito by AD Woozley. In the article, Kraut comments that Santa's position, that Socrates' disobedience in his apology does not harm the city because he is willing to accept his punishment, is unreasonable: "but it is absurd to say that whenever someone openly violates a law and accepts his punishment, no harm is done to the city.” Kraut doesn't fully explain why no harm is done to the town, but I'm forced to disagree with him for Santa's sake. If harm was caused to the city every time someone disobeyed a court order or broke a law, the state of Athens would have collapsed long before Socrates' trial, because apparently punishing those responsible does not make any reparation. nothing the laws. If this is the case, what is the purpose of justice, in this case a court, if not to repair the damage caused by criminals. If Socrates failed to convince the laws of Athens,