When reading the Apology one gets a feel for disobeying the law when the law stands in between of what one believes and what the law states. In the Crito one gets the feel of ethical conduct, to obey the laws, and to endure the blows one has received and accept them regardless of the consequences. The only problem with this is that the sequel contradicts the prequel. In the Apology, Socrates threatens to disobey a court order to cease philosophizing, among other orders. In the Crito, Socrates obeys the orders of the state and doesn’t break out of prison even though he is facing an execution. One might say “did Socrates lose his edge, did he give up because he was condemned to death?” I say that he was caught in his own hypocritical contradiction.

Although many people think Socrates never contradicted himself, both the Apology and the Crito clearly show he did. In the Apology, Socrates contradicts himself by emphasizing the significance of obeying the gods above anything else. In the Apology (29c-d) while defending himself, Socrates states "If you said to me in this regard: 'Socrates, we do not believe Anytus now; we acquit you, but only on the condition that you spend no more time on this investigation and do not practice philosophy, and if you are caught doing so you will die,' if, as I say, you were to acquit me on those terms, I would say to you: "Gentlemen of the jury, I am grateful and I am your friend, but I will obey the god rather than you, and as long as I draw breath and am able, I shall not cease to practice philosophy" he continues saying “I think there is no greater blessing for the city that my service to the god” (30a). In his defense all Socrates is saying is that he has not committed anything wrong, all he has done is worship the gods and abide by them. Socrates believes that it is far more important to obey the gods than the laws.