Post your essay. Get expert feedback. For free.We're trying to help students improve their writing the hard way. Do you know students who want critical essay reviews from a professor of English Literature? Click like to share. Click here to sign up and post your own essay. We offer no paid services. All reviews are completely free.
Should Laws Be Flexible? - With A Free Essay Review
Laws Should Be Flexible Enough To Take Account Of Various Circumstances, Times, And Places.
Change is the law of nature. Growth is essential for any society to develop, prosper and reach exponential heights. Rules, laws, principles, thinking and outlook need to adapt according to the present needs of society. The people who formed rules analyzed the issues and problems they faced in the past, so to get rid of the stymie of that era, they made, modified and inculcated new designs that were the guidelines on which the government was run. So with changing times, needs, and demands of the society, laws should be flexible and modified.
Tracing history to ancient times, society was conserved and people believed in orthodox views. The society was reserved and so the formulation of the rules and laws. People believed in child marriages, parda system, education was reserved for high-society people. The laws and rules were dogmatic. In the present times the thought process, the lifestyle, has become moderate and people do not follow the dogged principles. They look at these rules as very orthodox and irrelevant. So the rules that were prevalent in the past need to be changed according to the people who live in the present times. Society is formed by the people who live in it so the rules should be flexible to be changed according to the growing needs of the society - new laws like widow remarriage, equality for women, equality for the underprivileged, banning child marriage, child exploitation.
Earlier education was reserved to the few privileged. Now both men and women are equal and have equal rights to education, to make their own choices and decisions. Promoting the needs of the society at the same time as forming new rules to fulfill the gaps of the past is essential to run society at a steady pace where essential.
In China, the population is growing exponentially, so to control the growth rate the govt. sanctioned a policy of bearing one child per family. In India, the ratio of female population is decreasing, so they banned female feticide. Thus a law needs to be formulated looking at the current factors and urgency.
Earlier, political rights were reserved for a few people, a few families that were controlling the political power. Earlier, rules were formed by old people living in that era. Nowadays countries need young leaders who are aware about the prevalent times. Earlier, taxes were demanded from all. Some poor people who could not afford the taxes were fined; looking at the whole picture it becomes essential for the government to provide subsidies to the ones who need them. New rules like tax free states or new subsidies are important to develop remote areas and villages. This would help in the upliftment of society and help bring prosperity to the farmers, rural people and the society on the whole.
The ecological system changes. Formulating new laws promoting recycling to keep the country and mother nature clean or laws to prevent the depletion of resources will help to save the earth.
In the economical development of the country, laws should be followed and changed keeping the present economic stability in mind. The country is progressing every day, import–export businesses are booming. So new laws to foster the growth of the economy at the same time following exchange policies and helping in promoting the growth of the country are essential.
Nowadays, the globalization and development of the country is making the nation copy western culture. It is essential that rules should be followed to bring about prosperity, at the same time adhering to the cultural values that are essential for sustaining the moral values and preventing people from straying from their roots.
In sum, rules should be changed and modified keeping in mind the values and roots of the society.
Your essay provides a reasonable answer to the question: Should the law, especially in India, change over time or remain always the same? Unfortunately, that's not the question you are being asked here. You are being asked about whether laws should be flexible in principle, not whether laws should be actively changed by new acts of legislation or replaced by different laws. Everything you say about the need to be able to create new laws to account for changes in society is both true and irrelevant. Make sure, then, always to devote enough time to reading and contemplating the prompt before answering the question.
If you were answering the right question, however, the essay would still be problematic because it is one-sided. It doesn't reflect on the opposite point of view. For instance, some might argue that some laws are rooted in nature or are divinely sanctioned and must remain the same always. A stronger version of your essay would acknowledge the existence of such an opposing argument, explain why people hold that opposing view, and explain why you disagree with it.
But to return to the actual question asked, let's look at one example. Take the act of theft. Let's assume we want a society that outlaws theft. We therefore come up with a law: "All acts of theft are illegal and punishable by two years imprisonment." We might think that that's a fairly straightforward, unambiguous law, but it's obviously inflexible: if you are found guilty of the crime of theft, whoever you are and whatever the circumstances, then you must be imprisoned for two years. Not what are the advantages of inflexibility here, and what are the disadvantages of that inflexibility? That's the kind of question you would need to answer to begin thinking about the prompt.
On the one hand, you might think that because it is inflexible, the law prevents judges from being moved by prejudice or favoritism to impose harsher or lesser punishment depending on the race or gender or religious views or age or social standing of the accused. Inflexibility also conveys an unequivocal message to society about the consequences of theft, which you might consider useful for the purposes of effective deterrence.
On the other hand, you might think that an inflexible law is necessarily going to be unfair in its application. Every case of theft is unique: a boy steals a cookie from the cookie jar; a man steals bread to feed his starving family; a woman steals a car to support her drug habit; an accountant steals a million dollars from a pension fund; an investment manager runs a Ponzi scheme and steals billions over the course of several years; a new Robin Hood steals from the rich and gives to the poor; a wealthy actress suffering from a psychological disease steals things she doesn't need from shops; man steals a purse from an old lady whom he threatens with a knife; someone left behind after the evacuation of a flooded town breaks into grocery stores to steal food; others in the same town break into electronic stores to steal televisions and computers; yet others break into a hardware store to steal a pickaxe needed to rescue a dog from a collapsed building. One could go on an on (and of course in an essay one would not go on on). How should the law take account of all of these different situations? Doesn't it need to have some flexibility with respect to how it is applied in order to differentiate between them and serve the cause of justice?
Obviously, you cannot write a law for every possible occurrence, since there an infinite number of possible occurrences. Laws are, of necessity, general, and as we noted above (in the "on the one hand section") there are good reasons for wanting generally applicable laws. But just as obviously you cannot write a law that is universally applicable if you want to avoid what would appear to a reasonable person as gross injustice: Bernie Madoff gets put away for two years instead of a hundred and fifty years, and he shares his cell with the guy who stole bread for his hungry kid. The prompt, I take it, is asking you think about the mutually incompatible features that we might reasonably want our laws to have.