Crito, "Two Wrongs Don't Make a Right"

According to the Crito dialogue, Socrates argues that "two wrongs don't make a right." In this argument, Socrates claims that no matter how unjust someone was treated, it never gives them justification to injury someone. I will argue that there is a potential objection to the claim of Socrates' argument. I will show that it is possible to oppose the idea that with or without prior injustice from someone it is unjust to do injury to them; by showing that without prior injustice it is justifiable to injure someone. Finally, I will illustrate why Socrates would be unable to produce an adequate reply to this objection due to the fact that the only thing that is important in life is justice.
In the Crito, Socrates' argues "two wrongs do not make a right" and he should not accept Crito's offer to help him escape from prison. Socrates argues that he should not escape from prison, the reason being that a best life to live is one of justice. Since it is always unjust to do something to someone, without previous injustice from them then it is also unjust to do something to someone with previous injustice. Also without prior injustice by someone then it is unjust to injure them. So, it is always unjust to injure anyone. Because it is always unjust to injure anyone, if Socrates were to escape from prison he would be injuring the State, therefore it is unjust for Socrates to flee from prison.
There is a potential objection to the main claim. The most challenging objection to the claim becomes apparent when the idea that, without prior injustice by someone it is unjust to injure them, is more closely analyzed. This objection to this argument becomes apparent when we consider the situation what if; when injuring someone, you protect someone else from a greater harm. An instance in which it would be just to injure someone is this, what if in order to save someone from a potentially serious injury or a possible death situation, it was required for you to break