我的第一篇Issue 17，求狠拍！

未限时写了第一篇Issue，结果用了两个半小时，也不知道这样的作文能得几分。希望大家别留情面！小弟先谢谢了！

TOPIC: ISSUE17 - "There are two typesof laws: just and unjust. Every individual in a society has a responsibility toobey just laws and, even more importantly, to disobey and resist unjustlaws."


Should people disobey and resist unjustlaws as well as obey just laws? In response to this issue, we need analyze theproposition from the dialect perspective, investigating the nature of truth bycritical analysis of concepts and hypotheses. The author declares that it is responsiblefor every individual to obey just laws, even to disobey unjust laws. However,it oversimplifies this issue. The final judgment,in my view, should depend on a case-by-case analysis.


Laws, body of official rules andregulations, generally found in constitution, legislation, judicial opinion,and the like, that are used to govern a society and control the behaviors ofits members. Laws help to maintain a peaceful, healthy,orderly and relatively stable society,meanwhile, protecting certain basic human rights and ensuring the equalityamong different individuals. People should obey the laws, and then the validityand authority of laws can be ensured. Imagine the situation in the army troops,if and only if every soldier has carried out thegeneral's commands, the whole troop would have been a combat-worthy one.From this example, we may believe, the laws—commands in the army—just have beenthe glue that keep the soldiers fighting together.


However, the justice of laws usuallydefined as judicial justice, which is actually qualified as distinguished from absolutely justice, should not be judged byindividuals. The judgments made by people, as far as I concern, are probablybased on their subjective intention, which is affected by culture background,education level, custom and so on. If these different responsesare allowed, the law would not reserve its consistencyand would be hardly to execute. Take abasketball game for example, in which each player should stand to the game’sregulations and obey the referee's judgment without reservation. If someonethinks that he is treated unfairly and rejectsthe orders given by the referee, it can be anticipated that the game may turninto a drastic dispute and cannot keep going on. There is a saying that astatute that is neither obeyed nor enforced is an empty law, which properlydemonstrates this point.


Admittedly, despite the best intentions,laws are sometimes created that people later recognize as being unfair orunjust. Laws develop as society evolves; hence,laws are not carved in the stone, but must reflect the changing needs ofsociety. If particular flaws or outdated contentsare founded, laws can be amended and updated through legislativeprocedural by legislature, not by individuals. Accordingto the well-known American president Thomas Jefferson (and I paraphrase):"No society can make a perpetualconstitution, or even a perpetual law", this illustrate that laws shouldbe certain flexible, rather than absolutelyrigid. Another telling example is the Law Commission, an independent body setup by British government to consider the stateof laws in a jurisdiction and make recommendations on those laws, one of whosefunctions is to make recommendations on updating outdated laws and repealingobsolete or spent laws. Resultingly, people may seek to change the laws bylawful means.


Howbeit, common sense often tells us thateverything turns to its extreme may cause badeffect. To be specific, ever-changing lawsare so elusive to make them hard to be respected and carried out by lawman. Thereupon, within a country, a period of time,laws should stay relatively stable, whichdoesn't mean fixed or stationary, but keep a consistency in spirit of laws.Without this coherence, people will be confused and distrust with the laws andlegal system.


From what I have discussed above, I strongly commit to the notion thatlaws should be obeyed by every individual without reservation, only by whichcan laws achieve its basic functions: making the society relatively stable andkeeping equality between different individuals. If one can challenge the lawsarbitrarily and discretionarily, the laws will be too fragile to carry out.Meanwhile, laws must keep up with the developingof society; we should make appropriate changes to update the outdated laws by legal proceedings, butwithin certain compass.