Laws should not be stationary and fixed. Instead, they should be flexible enough to take account of various circumstances, times, and places.
Laws, a system of rules enforced by authority to govern behaviors of individuals and the government, are indispensable tools to maintain social discipline and moral justice. It is always a hotly debated issue whether or not laws should be contingent to as many circumstances as possible to be flexible.
For those advocating the more exhaustive and flexible laws, their reasons are listed as follows. First, instruction for individual’s behavior, as one of essential functions of laws, tends to be more specific and effective when laws contain more circumstances, thus better helping people behave more liberally. For instance, a driver might hesitate to break the traffic rules to rush a patient to the hospital if laws are not explicit enough to include such situation. He could be, however, more determined if this kind of emergence has already been taken into account in laws. In this case, more flexible laws instruct the driver how to behave properly and could even save a life. Second, laws, as reflection of social morality, are supposed to keep evolving with social practice. Adherence to the old rules, sometimes anachronism may have great conflicts with new situation. An appropriate example is not very far to seek. The rights of LGBTQ are now almost social consensus in western society, but homosexuality was even a serious crime according to laws hundred years ago. Laws should keep flexible to reflect the current social senses of justice, otherwise laws could well to be considered as evil laws and even lose their power in public. Last but not least, laws cannot include every circumstance since the complexity of human behavior, thus flexibility is more appreciated because it prevents laws to stiffen into some dogmatisms.
Nevertheless, there are also many reasons why laws should not be so flexible, rather, laws are supposed to be stationary and rigid. The most compelling reason is the possibility of exploitation of loopholes. When laws become increasingly complicated to strive to include everything necessary, the loopholes would appear more or less. The e-waste is a typical example. When congressman tried to adapt laws into latest technology circumstances; they forgot the background of globalization. Big corporations in the US shipped electronical wastes to developing countries to avoid disposal expenses. Additionally, to make matter worse, some people with hidden agenda might exploit the loopholes to serve their own interests, which would even lead to social chaos when such loopholes are obvious. People in power are especially likely to exploit the flexibility of laws to threaten, even hollow the democracy and achieve totalitarian. The most compelling example is the culture revolution in Chinese history, when Chairman Mao tried to edit laws directly, even put some of his own willing into the constitution in the name of flexibility of laws. In the scenario above, it is crucial to abide by the laws and keep alert of those who want to edit laws to preserve democracy.
Furthermore, it is important to take the costs of laws amendment into account. It always takes congress years even decades to debate and finally pass the bill or the amendment, which costs taxpayers sometimes much more than the benefits flexible laws would bring. In this sense, it may be more sensible to strike a balance between the flexibility and rigidity in the process of legislation. However, in the enforcement of laws, or rather, jurisdiction, with the help of discretion power, judges could sometimes render the laws more flexible or sentence in his or her own consciousness. What is more, hotly debated issue like homosexual marriage could be judged in the Supreme Court, which could fulfill both the fairness and efficiency.
To conclude, legislation should strike a balance to save unnecessary costs, to help the good function of society and democracy, to better instruct our behaviors. Additionally, with the help of jurisdiction, laws could be more flexible, thus more efficient in the process of enforcement.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 210, Rule ID: WHETHER[7]
Message: Perhaps you can shorten this phrase to just 'whether'. It is correct though if you mean 'regardless of whether'.
Suggestion: whether
...ice. It is always a hotly debated issue whether or not laws should be contingent to as many ci...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 1063, Rule ID: NODT_DOZEN[1]
Message: Use simply: 'a hundred'.
Suggestion: a hundred
... even a serious crime according to laws hundred years ago. Laws should keep flexible to...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 406, Rule ID: THE_SUPERLATIVE[2]
Message: A determiner is probably missing here: 'into the latest'.
Suggestion: into the latest
...e. When congressman tried to adapt laws into latest technology circumstances; they forgot t...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, furthermore, however, if, may, nevertheless, second, so, thus, well, for instance, kind of, more or less, what is more
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 30.0 19.5258426966 154% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 19.0 12.4196629213 153% => OK
Conjunction : 21.0 14.8657303371 141% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 11.3162921348 80% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 21.0 33.0505617978 64% => OK
Preposition: 94.0 58.6224719101 160% => OK
Nominalization: 25.0 12.9106741573 194% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3409.0 2235.4752809 152% => OK
No of words: 647.0 442.535393258 146% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.26893353941 5.05705443957 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.04343084457 4.55969084622 111% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.97240955207 2.79657885939 106% => OK
Unique words: 327.0 215.323595506 152% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.505409582689 0.4932671777 102% => OK
syllable_count: 1085.4 704.065955056 154% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 6.24550561798 128% => OK
Interrogative: 4.0 0.740449438202 540% => Less interrogative sentences wanted.
Article: 8.0 4.99550561798 160% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 3.10617977528 161% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 10.0 4.38483146067 228% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 30.0 20.2370786517 148% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 23.0359550562 91% => OK
Sentence length SD: 45.5313811197 60.3974514979 75% => OK
Chars per sentence: 113.633333333 118.986275619 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.5666666667 23.4991977007 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.83333333333 5.21951772744 93% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 18.0 10.2758426966 175% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 5.13820224719 136% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.83258426966 103% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.256465395201 0.243740707755 105% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.06818424084 0.0831039109588 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0714430802102 0.0758088955206 94% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.153438000896 0.150359130593 102% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0249819726812 0.0667264976115 37% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.2 14.1392134831 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 48.8420337079 85% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.1743820225 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.29 12.1639044944 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.95 8.38706741573 107% => OK
difficult_words: 175.0 100.480337079 174% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 11.8971910112 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.2143820225 93% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 70.83 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.25 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.