What should Socrates have done?

The Death of Socrates - Jacque-Louis David
(Source: http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/his/CoreArt/art/resourcesb/dav_soc.jpg)

Was Crito right? Should Socrates have fled the city to carry on his teaching? To answer these questions I must first address Socrates' arguments against fleeing, including his notable discussion of early social contract theory. 

Socrates essentially had a get out of jail free card; Crito was already in his jail cell just waiting for Socrates to up and walk out. Why then would Socrates refuse such a tantalizing offer? For Socrates, it's about justice. He argues that injustice is never the correct course of action, even if it is in response to an injustice. So instead of "an eye for an eye" Socrates advocates to "turn the other cheek." He applies this value of his to his current situation by saying that to break Athens' laws and escape from prison would be an injustice. He then goes into why he is bound to Athens' laws, and what he says is essentially a basic form of social contract theory. Since he has tacitly agreed to be a member of the city of Athens and receive all of its protections and benefits, he has subjugated himself to its laws. He has therefore signed a social contract with Athens, and to break this contract would necessarily be unjust. Socrates refuses to leave, and Crito acquiesces and lets him have his way. 

Crito closing the eyes of Socrates
The Death of Socrates - Antonio Canova
(Source:http://www.bc.edu/bc_org
/avp/cas/his/CoreArt/art
/resourcesb/dav_soc.jpg)

Socrates logic seems correct, and under normal circumstances it would be. If Socrates had murdered another Athenian and he was justly tried and convicted, then it would be unjust and a breach of contract to escape with Crito. In this scenario however, the state violated the contract by wrongfully convicting him to death. Since the state has not upheld their part of the contract, it is not unjust to not follow it. It is not an unjust act (him be wrongly convicted) being followed by another unjust act (him breaking the law and escaping). It is simply a change of terms. Now that the contract is nullified by the state breaking it, Socrates should have no qualms with making the rational and just decision. As Crito argues, Socrates has an obligation to take care of his children that necessitates his escape, so by ignoring this Socrates is really doing an injustice by letting himself be executed. 

So not only is Socrates not doing a just act by subjugating himself to the laws of Athens, he is fact doing an unjust act by not taking care of his children when he had the opportunity. It's hard to consider the decision Socrates made one of either morality or justice. Letting yourself be murdered by a corrupt government and not providing for your children? That's the opposite of justice.