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 developi

The speaker asserts that laws should be plastic enough to take account of various circumstances, times, and places. I am mainly in favor of this statement for that it raises valid points for claiming that the legislation and magistracy should be circumstantial. However, the laws should not be excessive flexible.

For starters, as for the circumstances, the laws should be flexible enough to suit different circumstances of the crimes. The degree of the crimes and the individual condition of the criminals should be taken into account when implementing the laws. For instance, given the same degree of the severity of crimes, people who violate the laws for the first time should be differently punished compared with the recidivist in many conditions. Besides, the juvenile delinquency should be treated differently from the ones committed by adults. Also, the offenders who have mental problems should be punished less heavily than normal people. Hence, under different circumstances, the laws should be flexible.

It can also hold for the times. As the rapid development of society and technology, the laws which proved to be effective in the past may not have the same effectiveness nowadays. First, with the consistent emergence of technological innovation, the kinds of crimes vary dramatically. For example, though the online shopping has improved the well-being of people, it stimulates various kinds of crimes, such as the fraud and tort online, which have never occurred before. As a result, new legislation with regard to these budding crimes is necessary. Besides, some behaviors which were legal in the past have been no longer the same as before, such as bigamy, which is common in the past while illegal currently. Therefor, the laws should flexible enough to continuously be revised to match the rapid change of technology and the society.

When referring to the discrepancies of laws between different places, we shall admit that the laws should be malleable to take account of various culture, custom and religions in different area. For instance, some countries have banned death penalty for a long period, so it is nearly impossible to require them to change the laws. There are also many countries prohibit abortion, no matter what is the reason for that, we should always show our respect to this discrepancy. Also, in many countries where the majority of citizens are Islamist, eating pork, a behavior which is pervasive in other regions, is illegal in these areas due to the religious beliefs. Hence, the law should never be fixed all over the world. Instead, it should be flexible enough to conform to the local condition in different regions.

However, we should avoid taking the statement to the extreme. We should always keep the flexibility within a limitation. Because if the legislation is too flexible, it may challenge the stability, authority and solemnity. For instance, it may make it easy for people to defy and even scorn laws and cause upheavals eventually. In addition, if the magistracy is too flexible, it may result in exculpation. The leader of Samsung, the biggest business in Korea, was once accused of a series of crimes, such as bribery and abusing the employees. However, he finally escaped from punishment on account of his high social status. Therefore, the laws should never be too flexible in case of the aforementioned behaviors.

Overall, the statement is mainly justifiable, while the flexibility should never be unqualified.