Even though the ruling is unfavorable to me, fleeing from my country will not be considered morally justifiable. As much as it would tie me down to imprisonment, staying back in would exempt me from the punishment of extradition. Every citizen must abide by the laws of their very countries without bending them to fit the occasion. According to Abumere (2019), arguing in utilitarianism, the consequence of escaping would be more costly than sitting back and going through the sentence at the end, justifying my innocence. Running would prove a lack of confidence in my plea of not being guilty, giving the jury more reasons to justify their wrong verdict. Studying Socrates’ stand of obeying the law keenly than escaping to exile, Marcou (2020) helps insights into the repercussions of fleeing and disobedience compared to obedience and facing the direction. Marcou states that for Socrates, it was a primary duty to obey the law irrespective of the circumstances surrounding the verdict.
In this scenario, the judgment is unanimous without considering tangible proof of being guilty. Marcou (2020) brings out an argument that I will agree with. Disobeying the law sets a bad example to others that it is permissible to bend the rules and go scot-free, enlarging the gap between law enforcement and the stability of the legal systems. The court processes, in this case, were procedural, and staying back will give a chance for appealing as compared to eloping. The primary role is to enhance obedience to the statutes set to avoid boosting unlawfulness. Given an opportunity to elope is a sign of cowardice and could lead to more grievous accusations. Moral justification comes from the point of acceptable and suitable actions, and eloping, in this case, is not one.
References
Abumere, F. A. (2019). Utilitarianism. Introduction to Philosophy Ethics. Web.
Marcou, A. (2020). Obedience and disobedience in Plato’s Crito and the apology: Anticipating the democratic turn of civil disobedience – The Journal of Ethics. SpringerLink. Web.