Laws should be flexible enough to take account of various circumstances times and places Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take In developing

Laws are essential to keep people in line in society, without law we are no different from animals. The prompt recommends that law ought to be modified according to time, situation, and places. Although this might be true in some cases, in my opinion, I strongly disagree with this suggestion for the following two reasons.

First of all, when a state allows the laws to be flexible and could be modified whenever necessary, the victims will not get justice. In case of flexible laws, the judge will consider the situation on which the crime occurs as the main metric instead of the degree of crime. As a result, the criminals can exploit this opportunity to stage false evidence after committing the crime to look it like he or she was forced to do so. For instance, in 2019, a boy from Pakistan killed his own sister and named it as honor killing – she was not following her family ‘customs and traditions’ which brought them shame and he killed to her to protect the honor of his family. As the laws were flexible regarding honor killing, the criminal was set free. The police then found after a through investigation that he killed her because of contention regarding family inheritance. As he was aware of the flexibility of the law, he arranged fake evidences, witnesses and circumvent the punishment of commiting murder. If the situation was not taken into account, the boy would be sentenced to death and justice would be done.

Further, the flexibility of laws will increase the crime rate as well as the number of vigilantes in a country. When the situation, time and place of crime are taken into consideration while prosecuting a person, many lawbreakers will be found not guilty which will then encourages others to break the law and thus results in anarchy. For example, in South Korea, a father killed the rapist of his daughter. Since the court found it as a pre-planning murder, he was sentenced to 12 years in jail. Imagine what would happen if the judge considered the father’s situation - he would be set free. That would exhort others to take the law in their own hand and thus crime rate will skyrocket. Even people will start ‘bribing’ the judge since the decision is highly contingent upon how well they can persuade him. Consequently, the judiciary system will break down and a state of lawlessness will dominate in society which is unexpected in any civilized society.

However, in few cases, a subjective analysis of the crime could help some people to receive justice. Sometimes situations force people to commit crimes that they would never do in normal conditions. For example, people often break laws when defending themselves in dangerous and life-threatening situations. If one wants to kill another person, the law allows the victim to do anything to protect himself from being murdered, even by attacking the criminal with lethal weopons. Because otherwise, it is higly likely that he will lose his life. In that case, the court usually takes into account the life-endangering perspective and might declare him not guilty. This helps to preserve valuable life and enhance faith of people in law and order.

In conclusion, whether considering situation, time, and place will improve the social security or not is a very convoluted analysis due to its reliance of human behavior. However, this will do more damage than it does good as it is human nature to break the laws whenever they think they can get away with it.