sameercool87
May 15, 2011
Writing Feedback / Laws should be flexible enough to take account of various circumstances [8]
"Laws should not be rigid or fixed. Instead, they should be flexible enough to take account of various circumstances, times, and places."
A society can be most appropriately understood and judged from its law, order, and people. Laws, rituals, customs are a face for the society, which represent it in front of the entire world. They mirror the values and sense of thought, of the people it represents. A well-disciplined society is one where law and Order are strictly observed and obeyed. Laws are made to serve the social responsibilities. They are made by the people, for the people and it is of the people. They are entirely based on the needs and wants of the society.
A very important question arises that, with the changing time, circumstances and change of places, does the law system also deserve a change? Let's first talk about some very basic laws we follow in family. When we are kids, we are knowingly kept aloof of the adult talks, but as we grow, even this rule modifies. Parents who use to be very hesitant while sharing some mature topics are now friends and and the conversation between parents and their kids is more congenial and candid. Why? Because, the time and circumstances have changed. So the law also has to be changed.
Few years back, in Indian judiciary system there was no rule for witness protection. Once, during a trial, where the victim was shot dead, the prime witnesses were influenced and threatened by the culprit, who misused his power and money. The witnesses out of fear, changed their statements in court and turned hostile. Because of this, the culprit was announced as innocent and set free. Afterwards, media brought back the attention of entire nation, and the whole judiciary system, that our law needs amendment. This law, which was drafted way back after the independence, is in a serious need of change, because the time has changed, circumstances have change, and more over the society has changes. Finally, the law was amended and the culprit was punished. Had been the law so rigid or fixed, which would have led to a straight disposal of any proposed change, the culprit would never have been behind the bars.
Child marriages were a common practice in early Indian society. The girls and boys were married at a very young age. This had very serious implications, as early motherhood for girls, less options for education for girls. As the sun education started rising, the darkness of ignorance started fleeing away. Society was undergoing a change. Change in time, places and more over circumstances. The need for imposing a ban over this wrong practice was felt by all and thus child marriages were banned in free India. This could never have been possible if the judiciary system was not flexible enough to incorporate changes.
On the contrary, also the law should not be flexible enough that anyone could tamper, mold and use it according to his/her convenience. Any change in the law proposed, should undergo a strict scrutiny, intelligent evaluation, rigorous testing and perfect formulation. Otherwise, the effectiveness of the law may get hampered, and also the sense of obedience of the citizens towards the law might get diminish. Law are made to restore equity, peace, and sense of freedom amongst the society. With such a dynamically changing world, the laws should also be susceptible to change of circumstances, places and times. A law of today ensuring citizen safety may not be fit for ensuring citizen safety few years from now. At such point of time, it would be wise enough to modify that law.
Lastly, i would like to emphasize that the law must be flexible enough to take account of the change in circumstances, times and places. Rigidness should not be in the law, it should be in its motto of serving the society, rigidness should be in its enforcement and most importantly in developing a sense of respect, and obedience amongst the citizens.
From Contrary point of view:-
Rules and Regulations provide a framework to any system. I believe that Laws should never be bounded by situations they should be equal for everyone under any circumstances. Flexibility would only make the system vulnerable.
Laws form the guideline for a society. They provide a set of framework for any individual to perform/act in the society and hence, needs to be rigid. For instance, in India most of the offices have laws regarding beginning of offices and all employees are bound to follow the same. If the Laws would be flexible, employees would come to offices as per there interests and desires and thus would affect the overall progress of the company.
Secondly, Rule modification as per the situation reflects a personal view. To cite this, consider a situation where a person has stolen something as he is very poor. Now, if the rules are not fixed, and based on situations then some would consider that as he is poor he should be relieved but on the other hand, some would consider he should be punished. If Laws are firm than I believe it is easier to make judgment.
Thirdly, flexibility in any regulations make the system more vulnerable. As for example, every country/ company has its trait secrets. All employees are bounded by the Law of Confidentiality. As per this Law a employee is not allowed to provide any information to anyone outside the company/ country. If there would not be firmness on this law, it is very difficult to save the information as flexibility provides loopholes in the system and hence could be adulterated.
Sometimes rigidness of Laws is inappropriate. For instance, a person who had committed a crime mistakenly would be treated by the same Laws as for a person who did intentionally. At these situations flexibility of Laws could provide a better justice.
As laws are not defined for a particular situation, hence, I strongly feel that firmness to the Rules and regulations would make the country's vision more clear and understandable. Flexibility would only deteriorate the overall performance of system.
Please rate both the essays
"Laws should not be rigid or fixed. Instead, they should be flexible enough to take account of various circumstances, times, and places."
A society can be most appropriately understood and judged from its law, order, and people. Laws, rituals, customs are a face for the society, which represent it in front of the entire world. They mirror the values and sense of thought, of the people it represents. A well-disciplined society is one where law and Order are strictly observed and obeyed. Laws are made to serve the social responsibilities. They are made by the people, for the people and it is of the people. They are entirely based on the needs and wants of the society.
A very important question arises that, with the changing time, circumstances and change of places, does the law system also deserve a change? Let's first talk about some very basic laws we follow in family. When we are kids, we are knowingly kept aloof of the adult talks, but as we grow, even this rule modifies. Parents who use to be very hesitant while sharing some mature topics are now friends and and the conversation between parents and their kids is more congenial and candid. Why? Because, the time and circumstances have changed. So the law also has to be changed.
Few years back, in Indian judiciary system there was no rule for witness protection. Once, during a trial, where the victim was shot dead, the prime witnesses were influenced and threatened by the culprit, who misused his power and money. The witnesses out of fear, changed their statements in court and turned hostile. Because of this, the culprit was announced as innocent and set free. Afterwards, media brought back the attention of entire nation, and the whole judiciary system, that our law needs amendment. This law, which was drafted way back after the independence, is in a serious need of change, because the time has changed, circumstances have change, and more over the society has changes. Finally, the law was amended and the culprit was punished. Had been the law so rigid or fixed, which would have led to a straight disposal of any proposed change, the culprit would never have been behind the bars.
Child marriages were a common practice in early Indian society. The girls and boys were married at a very young age. This had very serious implications, as early motherhood for girls, less options for education for girls. As the sun education started rising, the darkness of ignorance started fleeing away. Society was undergoing a change. Change in time, places and more over circumstances. The need for imposing a ban over this wrong practice was felt by all and thus child marriages were banned in free India. This could never have been possible if the judiciary system was not flexible enough to incorporate changes.
On the contrary, also the law should not be flexible enough that anyone could tamper, mold and use it according to his/her convenience. Any change in the law proposed, should undergo a strict scrutiny, intelligent evaluation, rigorous testing and perfect formulation. Otherwise, the effectiveness of the law may get hampered, and also the sense of obedience of the citizens towards the law might get diminish. Law are made to restore equity, peace, and sense of freedom amongst the society. With such a dynamically changing world, the laws should also be susceptible to change of circumstances, places and times. A law of today ensuring citizen safety may not be fit for ensuring citizen safety few years from now. At such point of time, it would be wise enough to modify that law.
Lastly, i would like to emphasize that the law must be flexible enough to take account of the change in circumstances, times and places. Rigidness should not be in the law, it should be in its motto of serving the society, rigidness should be in its enforcement and most importantly in developing a sense of respect, and obedience amongst the citizens.
From Contrary point of view:-
Rules and Regulations provide a framework to any system. I believe that Laws should never be bounded by situations they should be equal for everyone under any circumstances. Flexibility would only make the system vulnerable.
Laws form the guideline for a society. They provide a set of framework for any individual to perform/act in the society and hence, needs to be rigid. For instance, in India most of the offices have laws regarding beginning of offices and all employees are bound to follow the same. If the Laws would be flexible, employees would come to offices as per there interests and desires and thus would affect the overall progress of the company.
Secondly, Rule modification as per the situation reflects a personal view. To cite this, consider a situation where a person has stolen something as he is very poor. Now, if the rules are not fixed, and based on situations then some would consider that as he is poor he should be relieved but on the other hand, some would consider he should be punished. If Laws are firm than I believe it is easier to make judgment.
Thirdly, flexibility in any regulations make the system more vulnerable. As for example, every country/ company has its trait secrets. All employees are bounded by the Law of Confidentiality. As per this Law a employee is not allowed to provide any information to anyone outside the company/ country. If there would not be firmness on this law, it is very difficult to save the information as flexibility provides loopholes in the system and hence could be adulterated.
Sometimes rigidness of Laws is inappropriate. For instance, a person who had committed a crime mistakenly would be treated by the same Laws as for a person who did intentionally. At these situations flexibility of Laws could provide a better justice.
As laws are not defined for a particular situation, hence, I strongly feel that firmness to the Rules and regulations would make the country's vision more clear and understandable. Flexibility would only deteriorate the overall performance of system.
Please rate both the essays