Possible to throw in some feedback? Appreciate it.
"
One of the primary constituents of a civilized country is having laws in place to guide the traction of the country and its people. Tracing history back to ancient times, laws started off as verbal non-written rules before slowly morphing into constituted principles. This happened in tandem with the rise of civilization which gave shape to regulatory institutions. On a fundamental level, I tend to agree with the speaker's assertion that laws should be flexible enough to take into account the circumstances, times and places.
For starters, we should look into the reason for the formation of laws. Although there might be a multitude of dissenting views as to the jurisdiction of laws, at least all of us can agree on the same page that laws were created to guide the workings of an institutionalized body. I am therefore staunch in my belief that decisions should be made according to the basic tenet of the law, which is to grease the traction of the body, which might entail different interpretations when it comes to different individuals. We have to take into account the issue of subjectivity, each person would harbor a different understanding of the law and the ruling might differ. As such, to have a fair and impartial ruling, the authorities should always trace the deed back to its root cause as to determine whether it jibes with the basic principle of the corresponding law, rather than blinding passing out judgement according to his/her personal interpretation of the book.
One of my main reasons that laws should be flexible is that too many differing circumstances abound as to pass out a generic blanketing judgment. Take for example the case of abortion. This has been rightfully outlawed in many states in the United States especially those that are skewed toward the right-wing policy. However the law has not fully taken into account the many special circumstances, for the instance the aborting mom was a victim of a horrendous rape or that health issues might complicate the mom's life if she were to go through with her delivery. It is easy to judge that abortion is illegal by the eyes of the law on a prima facies basis, but if we dig deep enough, we realize that the outlawing of abortion was to uphold the sanctity of the human right of the baby. I advance the question: what about the right of the mother? Especially if she were to have been subjected through a rapcacious rape ordeal. The crux thus is to allow flexibility of the law to judge the issue on a per case basis.
In addition to this, my next reason stems from the change in times and along with that, the view of people. Same-sex marriage was banned in United States since time immemorial but New York recently lifted the law under the aegis of Senator Andrew Cuomo to much delight of homosexual couples. The law was changed primarily due to its obsolescence and the rise in acceptance of homosexuality in this society. The laws should therefore look into the era and the intricacies that era entails before deciding to stick to a law, as antediluvian as that law might seem to be.
Furthermore, another reason that substantiates my point of view can be traced through the example of my country. The ruling coalition of the Kedah state passed out a law a couple of days ago banning entertainment outlets from opening in the holy month of Ramadhan, the month when the Muslim cohorts fast from food and sexual stimuli in the process of cleasing themselves. This law, as outrageous as it might appear to be, at least seems apt in a state inhabited by predominant Muslims. If we were however to apply the same law in Sydney for example, people would have balked. This example perfectly illustrates the flexibility of the law when it comes to different municipalities and areas: it has to compromise with the local cultures and traditions.
In essence, through the aforementioned examples I have provided, I am skewed toward agreeing with the speaker's stance. Circumstances, places, times and other factors should definitely be considered in the making of a law. The failure to do so would most definitely bring about discontentment which might lead to uprisings, as vividly shown through the spate of uprisings in the Middle East due to the draconian laws that have been put into place without allowing any flexibilities. Immutable laws that survive times are important and the only way to do so is create a set of laws that can be changed with respect to different circumstances, times and places.
"
I am largely aware that there are mistakes grammar and structure wise (still need getting-used to the short time limit). I'm rather interested as to whether my points/examples show a clear maturity or simply put, are they sound and valid?
"
One of the primary constituents of a civilized country is having laws in place to guide the traction of the country and its people. Tracing history back to ancient times, laws started off as verbal non-written rules before slowly morphing into constituted principles. This happened in tandem with the rise of civilization which gave shape to regulatory institutions. On a fundamental level, I tend to agree with the speaker's assertion that laws should be flexible enough to take into account the circumstances, times and places.
For starters, we should look into the reason for the formation of laws. Although there might be a multitude of dissenting views as to the jurisdiction of laws, at least all of us can agree on the same page that laws were created to guide the workings of an institutionalized body. I am therefore staunch in my belief that decisions should be made according to the basic tenet of the law, which is to grease the traction of the body, which might entail different interpretations when it comes to different individuals. We have to take into account the issue of subjectivity, each person would harbor a different understanding of the law and the ruling might differ. As such, to have a fair and impartial ruling, the authorities should always trace the deed back to its root cause as to determine whether it jibes with the basic principle of the corresponding law, rather than blinding passing out judgement according to his/her personal interpretation of the book.
One of my main reasons that laws should be flexible is that too many differing circumstances abound as to pass out a generic blanketing judgment. Take for example the case of abortion. This has been rightfully outlawed in many states in the United States especially those that are skewed toward the right-wing policy. However the law has not fully taken into account the many special circumstances, for the instance the aborting mom was a victim of a horrendous rape or that health issues might complicate the mom's life if she were to go through with her delivery. It is easy to judge that abortion is illegal by the eyes of the law on a prima facies basis, but if we dig deep enough, we realize that the outlawing of abortion was to uphold the sanctity of the human right of the baby. I advance the question: what about the right of the mother? Especially if she were to have been subjected through a rapcacious rape ordeal. The crux thus is to allow flexibility of the law to judge the issue on a per case basis.
In addition to this, my next reason stems from the change in times and along with that, the view of people. Same-sex marriage was banned in United States since time immemorial but New York recently lifted the law under the aegis of Senator Andrew Cuomo to much delight of homosexual couples. The law was changed primarily due to its obsolescence and the rise in acceptance of homosexuality in this society. The laws should therefore look into the era and the intricacies that era entails before deciding to stick to a law, as antediluvian as that law might seem to be.
Furthermore, another reason that substantiates my point of view can be traced through the example of my country. The ruling coalition of the Kedah state passed out a law a couple of days ago banning entertainment outlets from opening in the holy month of Ramadhan, the month when the Muslim cohorts fast from food and sexual stimuli in the process of cleasing themselves. This law, as outrageous as it might appear to be, at least seems apt in a state inhabited by predominant Muslims. If we were however to apply the same law in Sydney for example, people would have balked. This example perfectly illustrates the flexibility of the law when it comes to different municipalities and areas: it has to compromise with the local cultures and traditions.
In essence, through the aforementioned examples I have provided, I am skewed toward agreeing with the speaker's stance. Circumstances, places, times and other factors should definitely be considered in the making of a law. The failure to do so would most definitely bring about discontentment which might lead to uprisings, as vividly shown through the spate of uprisings in the Middle East due to the draconian laws that have been put into place without allowing any flexibilities. Immutable laws that survive times are important and the only way to do so is create a set of laws that can be changed with respect to different circumstances, times and places.
"
I am largely aware that there are mistakes grammar and structure wise (still need getting-used to the short time limit). I'm rather interested as to whether my points/examples show a clear maturity or simply put, are they sound and valid?