Site Feedback

Writing Task: Law, An Inflexible Iron Hand

This is my writing task assigned for this week. Here is the topic:

Some think there should be fixed punishments for each type of crimes. Others argue the law should be flexible enough to punish accordingly. Discuss both views and give your own opinion. Us examples and experiences when and where necessary. (Around 250 words)

Here comes my composition:

Morality alone has been proved by our forefathers as not enough to regulate the society, for self-decipline can’t always be trusted before various temptations. Therefore law was created as an external force to deter people. Compared with morality, what we cherish is the legal certainty it provides. However, some argue that flexibility cannot be excluded from the natures of law. This is where I hold a different view.

Flexibility, in my opinion, invalidates the legal certianty. Law, stands as both the notification of the due consequences an illegimate act can cause, so that it may refrain people from committing crimes, and the clear rule according to which punishment is given that admits of no bargaining. If one is longing for some disreputable interest, he’s likely to be inspired by the idea that he could achieve a narrow escape from the punishment by arguing hard, for the flexible law will take his argument into consideration.

Law with legal certainty wouldn’t allow this. A fixed punishment for its respective crime without any room for negotiation makes people have a full awareness of what consequence a violation of law will certainly lead to, so the thought of taking an “adventure” will topple down.

To require law to be flexible also means to confer discretion on judges. There is no guarantee that they will not abuse such a power. Besides, people all err and judges can’t be exempted from it. Giving their judgement full trust wouldn’t be considered as wise and may again, dissolve the legal certainty.

In conclusion, I believe in my assersion that the legal certainty can never be sacrificed just to prettify it to be sympathetic and sentimental, for law, in its true nature, seemingly hard-hearted though, is most respected for the stability it assures us, and it can be only achieved by an inflexible iron hand. (The end)

Corrections of grammer errors and inappropriate choices of words will be greatly appreciated. Also, I account myself a lousy legal students who has no gift for reasoning and arguing. So I'll be so grateful if you could improve it in a legal sense.

Heartfelt thanks.

Share:

 

1 comment

    Please enter between 0 and 2000 characters.

     

    Corrections

    Writing Task: Law, An Inflexible Iron Hand

    This is my writing task assigned for this week. Here is the topic:

    Some think there should be fixed punishments for each type of crimes. Others argue the law should be flexible enough to punish according to the individual circumstances of a crime. Discuss both views and give your own opinion. Use examples and experiences when and where necessary. (Around 250 words)

    Here's my composition:

    Morality alone has been proved by our forefathers to be not enough to regulate the society, as self-discipline can’t always be trusted in the face of temptations. Therefore law was created as an external force to deter people from committing crimes. Compared with morality, What we cherish is the legal certainty it provides, something pure moral judgement does not. However, some argue that flexibility cannot be excluded from the natures of law. This is where I hold a different view.

    Flexibility, in my opinion, invalidates the legal certainty. Law, stands as both the notification of the due consequences of an illegimate act can cause, so that it may refrain deter people from committing crimes, and as a clear non-negotiable rule according to which punishment is given that admits of no bargaining. If one is longing for some disreputable interest planning to commit an illegal act, one is likely to be inspired spurred on by the ideathought that one could achieve a narrow escape from the punishment through argument, for as the flexibility of the law will enable his argument to be taken into consideration.which flexibility in law allows.

    Law with legal certainty wouldn’t allow this. A fixed punishment for each respective crime without any room for negotiation makes people have a fullly awareness of what the consequence of a violation of a law will be, so the thought of taking an “adventure” will topple down highlighting the severity of the act.

    To require law to be flexible also means to confer discretion on judges. There is no guarantee that they will not abuse such a power; Besides, people all err and judges can’t bearen't exempted from this. ***Giving their judgement full trust wouldn’t be considered as wise and may again, dissolve the legal certainty. *** I'm not sure what you mean here

    In conclusion, I believe in my assersion that the legal certainty can never be sacrificed just to prettify it to be sympathetic and sentimental, for law, in its truest form, is seemingly hard-hearted. It is most respected for the stability it assures us, and this can be only achieved by an inflexible iron hand. (The end)

    Corrections of grammer errors and inappropriate choices of words will be greatly appreciated. Also, I account myself a lousy legal students who has no gift for reasoning and arguing. So I'll be so grateful if you could improve it in a legal sense.

    Heartfelt thanks.

     

    NOTES:

    1) Something deters someone from doing something. Someone refrains from doing something.

    2)Flexibility, in my opinion, invalidates  legal certainty

    OR Flexibility, in my opinion, invalidates the legal certainty of law.

    3) I would use 'as' instead of 'for'. 'For' sounds very old fashioned.

    4) We use 'this' or 'that' to refer to an idea that has just been mentioned in a text. Not 'it'!

     

     

     

    Writing Task: Law, An Inflexible Iron Hand

    This is my writing task assigned for this week. Here is the topic:

    Some think there should be fixed punishments for each type of crime. Others argue the law should be flexible enough to punish accordingly. Discuss both views and give your own opinion. Us examples and experiences when and where necessary. (Around 250 words)

    Here comes my composition:

    Morality alone has been proved by our forefathers as not enough to regulate the society, for self-decipline can’t always be trusted in the face of various temptations. Therefore, law was created as an external force to deter people. Compared with morality, what we cherish is the legal certainty that the law provides. However, some argue that flexibility cannot be excluded from the nature of law. This is where I hold a different view.

    Flexibility, in my opinion, invalidates the legal certainty. Law stands as both the notification of the due consequences an illegimate act can cause, so that it may refrain people from committing crimes, and the clear rule according to which punishment is given that admits of no bargaining. If one is longing for some disreputable interest, he’s likely to be inspired by the idea that he could achieve a narrow escape from the punishment by arguing strenuously, for the flexible law will take his argument into consideration.

    Law with legal certainty wouldn’t allow this. A fixed punishment for its respective crime, without any room for negotiation, makes people have a full awareness of what consequence a violation of law will certainly lead to, so the thought of taking an “adventure” will topple down.

    To require law to be flexible also means to confer discretion on judges. There is no guarantee that they will not abuse such a power. Besides, people all err and judges are not an exception. Giving their judgement full trust wouldn’t be considered as wise and again, may again dissolve the legal certainty.

    In conclusion, I believe in my assertion that the legal certainty can never be sacrificed just to prettify it to be sympathetic and sentimental, for law, in its true nature, although seemingly hard-hearted though, is most respected for the stability it assures us and it can be only achieved by an inflexible iron hand. (The end)

    Corrections of grammer errors and inappropriate choices of words will be greatly appreciated. Also, I account myself a lousy legal students who has no gift for reasoning and arguing. So I'll be so grateful if you could improve it in a legal sense.

    Heartfelt thanks.

     

    [Very good work, though I disagree somewhat.  If you every have time to discuss it, I'll be glad to.]

    Write a correction

    Please enter between 25 and 8000 characters.

     

    More notebook entries written in English

    Show More