When Socrates put forward the idea that laws and citizens work together in synergy, wasn't this broken when Socrates was unjustly convicted of a crime? Socrates' logic would dictate that one must act in accordance with just laws, but when the legal system becomes unjust, one is not required to follow the laws. The only alternative to respecting the law is to emigrate or persuade the government. So one would think that Socrates would find the code of law not worth obeying after it is proven unjust at trial, especially after rejecting the wisdom of public opinion. The citizen's tacit adherence to the system of laws is also a controversial point. The fact that an individual lives in an area does not imply that he or she has in-depth legal knowledge of his or her place of residence. For a legal code to be truly fair, citizens must be aware of all possible violations and physically indicate their adherence to them. If a citizen unknowingly committed a crime, how could he or she be justly held accountable? Socrates should not be held responsible for his crime unless he consciously accepted the laws and understood that his act was illegal before it was authorized.