Should Laws Be Flexible

Instead, I would like to talk about the unnecessary rigidity with which we apply the rules today. Instead of making the rules a flexible code that can adequately maintain order and respect in society, in many cases we have allowed the rules to be elevated to the status of sacrosanct. Instead of examining the pros and cons of applying a rule in a particular situation, we repeat the mantra that « rules are rules » and that the penalty must be applied regardless of the situation. It was this premise of a soft law that became the driving force in law schools and ultimately in American courts and American politics, especially through a series of movements that Mr. Presser describes as accurately as this somewhat dark procession allows. Among the most important was « legal realism, » which, as Holmes suggests, examined what judges actually did, rather than the rules of law, and encouraged them to incorporate social science research into their decisions. This was passed by the Supreme Court under Earl Warren after World War II and played a major role in several of its most notable decisions, including Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, which concluded that segregation was unconstitutional, not because of segregation itself, but because of research evidence on psychological harm. that segregation has caused. The law is a system of rules and guidelines applied by social institutions to govern behaviour to the extent possible. It shapes politics, business and society in many ways and serves as a social mediator of relationships between people. A law, when applied, is common to each individual. If it were flexible for some people, it would create a bias because of the government enforcing the law.

I do not support the author`s statement that state laws should be flexible enough to accommodate different circumstances, times and places. Similarly, societies face new circumstances and challenges that bring with them new consequences that cannot be achieved by predefined law and order. For example, rape cases in Nepal and India are piling up without a point, and current laws are now being changed to solve the problems. If rape-based laws remained rigid, society would never get justice. We can take the example of the « Nirvaya affair » that occurred in Delhi in 2013 AD. There was no strict law regarding rape cases in India before the miserable, inhumane and cruel gang rape happened to Miss Nirvaya. As a result, people stood up, protested to change the law on use, and rapists were sentenced to death. If the rule had not been flexible, she would never have been able to obtain justice. The idea of « law, » « mainstream, » and even the role of the Supreme Court in determining these positions are not as entrenched as proponents of various positions claim. They never were.

There are many ideas about the court`s role within the American political system, the principles it should abide by, and even the definition of a ubiquitous term « rule of law. » Some of these debates date back to the early 18th century, even before America was founded. I can understand the need for schools to pass strict drug and alcohol laws, and I understand the difficulties administrators face when trying to keep schools safe and drug-free. But is there really no room in the system for flexibility and understanding? Do we really need to punish a young girl who brings prescription acne medication in the same way as a student who knowingly brings illegal drugs like marijuana to school? Speaking of India, the country is struggling to remove its name from the list of developing countries and register for the developed country. The reason for this is that the country`s growth is halted by the weakness of the legal system. The Constitution contains laws, but the inclusion of these laws is negligible. Corruption in India can be linked to termites that have emptied the country`s infrastructure from within. The country is still suffering from the adoption of an increasingly strict anti-corruption law. This is due to the leniency and flexibility of lawmakers and the government, who fear being ousted from power if they impose a stricter law on the people.