pls critique my issue essay

[dicapino]

Laws should be flexible enough to take account of various circumstances, times, and places

 

Laws, by definition, are rule and codes that help regulate and guide the social behaviour of man. While some persons prefer laws to be rigid and clear, others argue that laws should consider disparities in cultures, social norms and times. I believe laws should be flexible, so as not be seen as unjust; and rigid, so that clear statements are made against many social ills and crimes.

 

 

 

Firstly, the Bigamy law, a law that prohibits a man from marrying multiple wives, is a clear example why laws should be flexible. In the West this law is effective because Christianity has propagated this doctrine for many centuries. Such a law would be unjust in the African setting, a continent were many, if not all, traditions and cultures see polygamy as way of life. It will be harsh to indict or punish an African man because of his beliefs, this norm were  passed down to him from successive generations and if such laws are to be legislated, politicians must consider these sharp cultural differences, so that the law is not seen as a punishment by the public.

 

 

To further illustrate my point on flexible laws, take the example of traffic laws. Should the traffic law in Newyork City be similar to that in a small county or town? While it may be argued that strong traffic laws help abate myriad of cases drunk-driving and road accidents in a large city, there fails to be lucid reasons why such laws should be replicated, word for word, in a place where the population density is less, fewer cars taxing the roads and much less accidents. Such strong laws will be harsh in these situations and the public do not view the law as a corrective tool but with fear.

 

 

 

On the other hand, rigid laws are important because certain social ills and crimes have to be counteracted with laws that make strong and clear statements. For instance, issues of domestic violence and terrorism should not be treated with kid gloves and when such laws are broken, culprits must face the rule of law, thereby, dissuading and curbing such heinous acts within the populace. We are aware of the effects of flexible gun control laws in the United States, ordinary citizens have access to military grade guns and this have trickled down into the wrong hands, leading to unnecessary deaths in public places; the Colorado theatre shooting is a vivid example.

 

 

 

In conclusion, laws should both be flexible and rigid. Examples like the Bigamy law, traffic law and gun control law reinforces this view. Legislators must find a balance between rigid and flexible laws, as laws lose their legitimacy when considered harsh; also, can be seen as unjust by the public and can be manipulated when too flexible.

[TakeMyCoffeeBlack]

I think you missed the point of the prompt. You're talking about why laws should be different from region to region. The prompt is asking you - for example - to explain how traffic laws in any given place (e.g. in New York City) should have built in flexibility. For years, it was illegal to honk your horn in New York City, but the horn still has a vital place in safe driving, no? So the law had to be flexible enough to permit horn honking in exigent circumstances, such as warning other drivers of an upcoming safety hazard.

 

I'd also avoid the generalizing statement you start off with. Just state what you're going to argue and defend it - you don't have enough time to try and come up with a clever start (and sometimes it won't be as clever to the graders as you thought it was when you wrote it).

[dicapino]

I think you missed the point of the prompt. You're talking about why laws should be different from region to region. The prompt is asking you - for example - to explain how traffic laws in any given place (e.g. in New York City) should have built in flexibility. For years, it was illegal to honk your horn in New York City, but the horn still has a vital place in safe driving, no? So the law had to be flexible enough to permit horn honking in exigent circumstances, such as warning other drivers of an upcoming safety hazard.

 

I'd also avoid the generalizing statement you start off with. Just state what you're going to argue and defend it - you don't have enough time to try and come up with a clever start (and sometimes it won't be as clever to the graders as you thought it was when you wrote it).

 

thanks, will work on that