Laws should be flexible enough to take account of various circumstances, times, and places.
Many would assert that laws should be flexible enough to adapt to diverse environments. In some senses, it is undeniable that the evolution of laws is required to cater to people’s needs across different times and places. Only by focusing on the merits of flexible laws, however, does the view overlook the limitations of inconsistent regulations from the perspectives of public reliance and the fundamental rights our society should uphold.
Admittedly, few would disagree that timely modifications to laws are beneficial for maintaining societal harmony. When it comes to a fast-paced society in which economic and political landscapes constantly shift alongside technological advancements, it is often more adaptable laws rather than rigid ones that best address societal needs. Blockchain regulations, exemplifying this concept, adapt to the changing financial landscape, ensuring individuals and entities operate within the confines of the law. The point here is that laws, when amended in response to societal needs, can enhance the social fabric.
Nevertheless, it does not necessarily mean that the flexibility of laws should always be the foremost consideration. Considering the public's dependence on consistent legislation, frequent alterations can disrupt societal equilibrium. In fact, the introduction and frequent amendments to laws governing new technologies, such as smartphones, led to confusion, especially when policies regarding telecommunication fees were constantly revised. This resulted in a diminished public trust in the legal system, indicating that excessive legislative adjustments can be detrimental to societal cohesion.
Moreover, the preservation of certain foundational laws needs to be considered in terms of fundamental human rights. Take into account laws concerning liberty, a quintessential right. Rather than frequently altering these foundational laws, a more conservative approach can help safeguard individual rights against potential governmental overreach. This also implies that the excessive emphasis on legislative adaptability should be reevaluated.
To sum up, despite the benefits of adaptable laws, public reliance and fundamental rights illuminate for us that flexibility is not always the optimal approach. Taken together, I cannot fully agree with the idea that laws should invariably be flexible. Only if we were to ignore the importance of public trust and foundational rights, could we conclude that constant legislative evolution is invariably beneficial for societal harmony.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-10-21 | Celestina Asantewaa | 50 | view |
| 2024-01-16 | jenas | 50 | view |
| 2024-01-16 | jenas | 50 | view |
| 2023-12-29 | mei_unavailable | 58 | view |
| 2023-12-29 | mei_unavailable | 58 | view |
- Laws should be flexible enough to take account of various circumstances times and places 66
- As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate 70
- In any profession business politics education government those in power should step down after five years 16
- If a goal is worthy then any means taken to attain it are justifiable 70
- Laws should be flexible enough to take account of various circumstances times and places 50
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 134, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'publics'' or 'public's'?
Suggestion: publics'; public's
...foremost consideration. Considering the publics dependence on consistent legislation, f...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, however, if, look, moreover, nevertheless, regarding, so, in fact, such as, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.5258426966 77% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.4196629213 105% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 14.8657303371 47% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 15.0 11.3162921348 133% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 33.0505617978 73% => OK
Preposition: 48.0 58.6224719101 82% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 12.9106741573 93% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2187.0 2235.4752809 98% => OK
No of words: 363.0 442.535393258 82% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 6.02479338843 5.05705443957 119% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.3649236973 4.55969084622 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.31656872944 2.79657885939 119% => OK
Unique words: 215.0 215.323595506 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.592286501377 0.4932671777 120% => OK
syllable_count: 682.2 704.065955056 97% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.9 1.59117977528 119% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 6.24550561798 96% => OK
Article: 5.0 4.99550561798 100% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.38483146067 114% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 20.2370786517 89% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 23.0359550562 87% => OK
Sentence length SD: 45.9003214169 60.3974514979 76% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.5 118.986275619 102% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.1666666667 23.4991977007 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.05555555556 5.21951772744 97% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 10.2758426966 107% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 5.13820224719 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.83258426966 83% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.247027520695 0.243740707755 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0839107152917 0.0831039109588 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0823160854382 0.0758088955206 109% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.139370055799 0.150359130593 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0604217305867 0.0667264976115 91% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.0 14.1392134831 120% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 25.8 48.8420337079 53% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 13.0 7.92365168539 164% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 12.1743820225 120% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 17.64 12.1639044944 145% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.5 8.38706741573 125% => OK
difficult_words: 135.0 100.480337079 134% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 11.8971910112 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.2143820225 89% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.7820224719 110% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.