cecion Posted April 18, 2014 Share Posted April 18, 2014 Laws should be flexible enough to take account of various circumstances, times, and places. Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position. Modern world requires some rules because of its high population and developments. Heraclitus once said that the only thing that doesn’t change is the change itself. The change brings new rules to follow. Therefore law creates a common ground for everyone in the world, although it is slightly different for each area and land. This is how the protection is provided. Law’s flexibility is a very rough issue to dispute. Guilt is still guilt either one situation comes up in front of the law or not. There may be lawyers, priest or parents to judge but the right thing always falls its place. Without hesitation, wrong or lethal actions somehow reach their punishments in time. For example when a child’s or a disabled person’s innocent involvement is in existence, law’s flexibility does not give a righteous impression. Law is something that is at least fair. If anyhow it is flexible for some situations, it has to be the same for everyone. This only creates indecipherable cases. Many clues may lead to a certain defence, but the prosecutor or the defendant has the same right to dig deep within the circumstances. In the nature of complexity, only development it brings is new issues. Every time the law is shaped by a different action, circumstance, time or a place it loses its credibility. People are the same all over the world and they can present many cases to stand in front of the law and try to change their position on the case. Having said that, law is a very broad practice and every aspect of every different situation must be considered therefore it has a way of protecting the actual innocent people. In addition, security of people belongs to people themselves on the first hand and killing for protection for instance is a case that is in need of more flexibility from certain intentional murder cases. To sum up, law is not to be flexible on various circumstances or situations. Protecting someone’s right when the defendant /prosecutor is not able to express any right is already a hardship and flexibility may only cause more issues and such cases creates inextricability. Law has to put aside shapes and stand for its credibility. Deep investigations already have some flexibility over certain cases and that is still valid among all the people of the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!Register a new account
Already have an account? Sign in here.Sign In Now