“Laws should be flexible enough to take account of various circumstances, times, and places”

To what extent should laws be flexible and accommodate different circumstances is a pressing question for legislative officials and social study researchers. Some argue that people may commit crime unwillingly under special circumstances, and it would be cruel to deprive their rights without bringing the circumstances into consideration. Others disagree and believe that laws are set in order to bring order to the society, therefore it should treat everybody as equal no matter what circumstance they face. Since I also believe that laws are the most important tools for ensure the justice of a nation, regardless of occasions, I agree that laws should be fixed.

Laws reflect the standard of justice for a nation, and a nation that is strong and thriving must have a well-constructed legal system. From the dawn of mankind, scholars, politicians and researchers have been trying to find the best ways to rule a country. They may prefer different regimes and believe in various ideologies, but one thing that they argue on is that a nation must have fixed laws, in order to ensure the nation functions smoothly. Alternating the laws based on every case’s circumstance not only threatens the sanctity of law, but also tolerates and even encourages people to commit crime, because criminals could plead for mercy in court. If a criminal could make up a story that depicts the whole crime scene as an accident, he might even be pronounced innocent. Moreover, a flexible law requires the judge to have no biases whatsoever, but that is impossible. Flexible laws transmit the burden of justice onto the people who decide them, and demand objectivity of the judges. However, as a human being, nobody can truly be free from prejudices and biases, thus it is unwise to have flexible laws.

Fixed laws are more effective teaching tools, because they state clearly the consequences of violating laws. Psychology researches show that people tend to follow fixed and written rules, instead of oral commands and vague demands, because vagueness often leaves too much leeway for interpretation. Therefore, fixed laws can admonish people’s behavior to a greater extent. Anyone who intent to commit crime would calculate the risk versus the gain before he actually does it. But with flexible laws, people might think they don’t have to be responsible.

Nevertheless, it is undoubtful that flexible laws do have some advantages. Occasionally we see people who are in a dangerous situation would do something for the sake of self-protection. Woman who faces the danger of getting rape might happen to find a knife and kill the rapist. Staff who forgot to turn off oven might cause the entire store burn down to ashes. These people do not have the intention to commit crime, and it is probably reasonable to consider their lack of intent when deciding their crimes. However, if in some cases the judge shows sympathy, criminals of other cases would demand fairness, therefore sympathy for them as well. Flexibility in one circumstance would lead to a chaos in the entire legal system. So comparing the benefits of flexible laws with their drawbacks, it is better to have fixed laws.

In all, from the perspectives of possible consequences of having flexible laws, and its detriment in the legal system, or even worse, the nation’s governmental authority, I think it is better to have fixed laws.