One might reply in Plato's defense that the Laws do not claim that they should be obeyed no matter what, but rather that they must be persuaded of their mistake rather than simply disobeyed. Thus, if Socrates can persuade the Laws that he is wrongfully imprisoned, he should be free to leave without acting unjustly. The clear difficulty here is one of distinguishing between the Laws themselves and the human accusers who have sentenced Socrates. In The Apology, Socrates failed to convince his accusers that he was innocent, and they used the Laws to sentence him to death. Is there any way for Socrates to persuade the Laws that he should be allowed to go free without also having to persuade his accusers? And if he must persuade his accusers in order to change the Laws, that would suggest that the two are the same: if we believe that his accusers have acted unjustly in sentencing him, then the Laws might also be guilty of injustice. Clearly, Plato's choice to personify the Laws of Athens is not without problems.