Beyond the bars live the free men, and I dwell inside. 

The executioner whispers, 

"Socrates, bring those tainted thoughts to the grave!" 

Light is brought in by my dearest Crito. 

My friend, traversed woods and seas, 

Carves me a passage to another life. 

Rolling wheels, bustling agora, a land graced with fresh rain. 

All of that a guiltless man gets to enjoy. 

He takes my hand, 

"Socrates, your students will delight in your escape. 

Let not those court men silence an intelligent mind." 

He offers me like so, but how can I evade my death sentence? 

Laws of Athens, unyielding and divine. 

Nourish growth, civilize men. 

In return, my destiny rests in the judges’ hands.  

Without my blood, the blade of justice would dull. 

Return home, my dearest Crito. 

The law has determined where we should go. 

You to the glorious sunrise, and I set in twilight. 

(EXPLANATION: This is a poem about the earliest known struggle in social contract theory when Socrates was given a death sentence but refused to escape jail. I referred to the original story and had a draft layout of what I was going to present in the poetry. After going through a couple of edits, this is what I have now, and I am satisfied with the outcome. )

In the initial setup of the problem, of the 9 responses to the question, 5 (56%) went for B and said that Heinz should steal the drug for the loved one and accept his jail sentence, and 3 (33%) people opted for C also thinks that it’s justifiable to break the law, but Heinz should not receive any penalties. Only 2 (11%) A’s think Heinz should respect the legal system and not challenge the law. 

Most students mention that Heinz can justify his position on breaking the law since he does it to maintain the “emotional connection”. Even the two students who chose A said that they understood the significance of a loved one for Heinz. It seems like students have a high tolerance for criminal actions when they are done for “a person they love”. 

The second question eliminates the factor of emotional connection, and surprisingly, 9 out of the 9 people picked the option d. All the students think that it “feels wrong to go against the law” if it’s for a total stranger. They agreed that human lives are undoubtedly valuable, but it isn’t worth risking oneself for it, especially when there are alternative ways to provide help like “donating money” and “seeking healthcare options”. 

The survey gives me a fresh perspective on how people may go against their own justice after a careful evaluation of the consequences of law enforcement. This leads to reflections on how the establishment of laws sets up the standard of “right behavior” for citizens when the right courses of action might vary from case to case. But in the meantime, while the laws might not be perfectly refined yet, they prevent people from acting recklessly against society and encourage them to think twice about their behaviors.

(Word count: 298)