Crito – or Socrates if he agreed with Crito – could have replied that he does not oppose the entire law, only a wrong judgement. The onus would then be upon him to ask whether he had the right to critique his hometown, whose legal system he undermines with his behavior. Socrates would be reminded and would have to refute the basis of his existence: that the existence of the state allowed his father to marry his mother. Thanks to this order he was born and educated. Like all Athenians, he owes all of the good things a lawful order can give to citizens. Anyone who disapproves of the conditions and laws of Athens could emigrate but those who decide to remain choose to follow the laws of the state. If they thought something in the law was wrong, the onus to argue against it would be upon them; if they were unable to do so they would have to respect the applicable law. This is especially true for Socrates because he spent his whole life in Athens, preferring it to anywhere else, even the states he used to compliment. He also demonstrates his agreement with Athenian living conditions by establishing a family there. Socrates also rejected banishment as an alternative to execution and explicitly preferred death. He could have chosen exile during the trial and left Athens legally. An afterthought to unilaterally undo a free and binding decision would be disgraceful.