Issue17 法律公正性vs违背 【法律类第一高频！求拍】 [Spining Sep]

MagicGlaiveUID: 2112081

TOPIC: ISSUE17 - "There are two types of laws: just and unjust. Every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws and, even more importantly, to disobey and resist unjust laws."
WORDS: 667          TIME: 2:26:00          DATE: 2006-8-22

As the adage says "nothing is perfect", our laws can not escape the fate to be evaluated its justice. The speaker maintains that we should obey those just laws while disobey and resist unjust ones. However, in my view, though the law sometimes contains flaws, we should amend rather than disobey or even resist those we thought as unjust ones for the reason that no one would.

To begin with, people are always different in their opinion about the definition "just law" and everyone can give his or her own explain about it. Thus, a law considered to represent justice in one person's viewpoint, might be full of hostilities and injustice at all according to some other ones. Take a law that restricts chemical plants from letting exhaust gas such as sulfide directly into the air without certain disposal into consideration. This law enacted to protect nearby inhabitants' health, would greatly damage the benefit of such plants since they have to spend more money in purchasing exhaust gas disposal equipments, which would lead them to doubt the just of such laws. The evaluation of fairness to a certain law could vary subjectively from person to person.

Time would also affect the judgment on laws for the reason that our concepts are becoming more and more open and diversified than past. The Scarlet Letter portrays a miserable story in 17th-century American about the female protagonist Hester who suffered a lot under the crime of adultery. However, put in today's law, Hester would not be ashamed or fear to be sentenced adultery at all because our concepts are changing. Under such circumstance, how could one subjectively assert the law is justice or not so easily? Since we can not give an objective judgment on the just of law, the decision to obey or resist a certain law seems unreasonable or even ridiculous.

The line between just and unjust of a low is blurred and it can be seen as a kind of equilibrium of everyone's thoughts and evaluations. Leaving the background of society and history to judge a law is just or not will be totally meaningless. Let's look back to example of aforementioned Great philosopher Hegel once said (and I paraphrased): "what is reasonable is real and what is real is reasonable". As to law, this word can be explained that we have no need to argue about existence of law and it must be just in some way. Our ancestors create the law to record and reinforce our social system and only after obey from people, could the society be stable and handled down to our successors--this is the main function of law, rather than justice which we always assumed as a matter of course.

However, this does not mean that we could disobey it on purpose, or must rigidly obey to the laws without any resistance. On the one hand, we should obey the current law systems. For a simple reason, if everyone disobeys the law or regulation under their own evaluation of justice, this world will be full of violence and crime which would finally lead to an end of human beings. Also, that is why we have to accept the verdict of not guilty to the case of O. J. Simpson although many believed that he did killed his wife. On the other hand, we could adjust the law to the society under democracy. The law must have flaws and would never be perfect. All we could do is to amend it to adapt today's social principles and equilibrium. There are altogether twenty-seven amendments in the American Constitution, which is only an epitome of our efforts to make our laws better.

Accordingly, we do not have a share evaluation of just laws and unjust ones. The line between it is only equilibrium of today's society. As a human being, we should obey those laws enacted by our forefathers and adjust it to adapt new circumstances. Only after that, could our society be better.

flycc28UID: 2164453

As the adage says "nothing is perfect", our laws can not escape the fate to be evaluated its justice. The speaker maintains that we should obey those just laws while disobey and resist unjust ones. However, in my view, though the law sometimes contains flaws, we should amend rather than disobey or even resist those we thought as unjust ones for the reason that no one would这个是在讲什么...去掉吧.

To begin with, people are always different in their opinion about the definition "just law" and everyone can give his or her own explaination about it. Thus, a law considered to represent justice in one person's viewpoint, might be full of hostilities and injustice at all? according to some other ones. Take a law that restricts---->restricting chemical plants from letting exhaust gas such as sulfide directly into the air without certain----这个take也长了点吧...建议改下 disposal into consideration. This law enacted to protect nearby inhabitants' health, would greatly damage the benefit of such plants ---factory吧 since they have to spend more money in purchasing exhaust gas disposal equipments, which would lead them to doubt the just of such laws. The evaluation of fairness to a certain law could vary subjectively from person to person. //不同人对just law定义不同--污染气体排放

Time would also affect the judgment on laws for the reason that our concepts are becoming more and more open and diversified than past. The Scarlet Letter portrays a miserable story in 17th-century American about the female protagonist Hester who suffered a lot under the crime of adultery. However, put in today's law, Hester would not be ashamed or fear to be sentenced adultery at all because our concepts are changing. Under such circumstance, how could one subjectively assert the law is justice or not so easily? Since we can not give an objective judgment on the just of law, the decision to obey or resist a certain law seems unreasonable or even ridiculous.//时间影响法律的判决.对于公正的法律不能给予客观的判断
The line between just and unjust of a low is blurred?没看懂... and it can be seen as a kind of equilibrium of everyone's thoughts and evaluations. Leaving the background of society and history to judge a law is just or not will be totally meaningless. Let's look back to example of aforementioned Great philosopher Hegel 前面有提到?once said (and I paraphrased): "what is reasonable is real and what is real is reasonable". As to law, this word can be explained that we have no need to argue about existence of law and it must be just in some way. Our ancestors create the law to record and reinforce our social system and only after obey from people, could the society be stable and handled down to our successors--this is the main function of law, rather than justice which we always assumed as a matter of course?啥意思?.//法律重要的是existence,使社会稳定.

However, this does not mean that we could disobey it on purpose, or must rigidly obey to the laws without any resistance. On the one hand, we should obey the current law systems. For a simple reason, if everyone disobeys the law or regulation under their own evaluation of justice, this world will be full of violence and crime which would finally lead to an end of human beings. Also, that is why we have to accept the verdict of not guilty to the case of O. J. Simpson although many believed that he did killed his wife例子是否要充实一下,要不..反正我是不知道在说啥 ^_^. On the other hand, we could adjust the law to the society under democracy. The law must have flaws and would never be perfect. All we could do is to amend it to adapt today's social principles and equilibrium. There are altogether twenty-seven amendments in the American Constitution, which is only an epitome of our efforts to make our laws better.//重点落到amend

Accordingly, we do not have a share evaluation of just laws and unjust ones. The line between it is only equilibrium of today's society. As a human being不知道这么说对不对..., we should obey those laws enacted by our forefathers and adjust it to adapt new circumstances. Only after that, could our society be better.

片断的改了下先...思路理清理了一会儿来看结构~------>

MagicGlaiveUID: 2112081

TOPIC: ISSUE17 - "There are two types of laws: just and unjust. Every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws and, even more importantly, to disobey and resist unjust laws."
WORDS: 649          TIME: 2:26:00          DATE: 2006-8-22

As the adage says "nothing is perfect", our laws can not escape the fate to be evaluated its justice. The speaker maintains that we should obey those just laws while disobey and resist unjust ones. However, in my view, though the law sometimes contains flaws, we should amend rather than disobey or even resist those we thought as unjust ones.

To begin with, people are always different in their opinion about the definition "just law" and everyone can give his or her own explanation about it. Thus, a law considered to represent justice in one person's viewpoint, might be full of hostilities and injustice according to some other ones. Take a law restricting chemical plants from letting exhaust gas such as sulfide directly into the air without certain disposal into consideration. This law enacted to protect nearby inhabitants' health, would greatly damage the benefit of such factories since they have to spend more money in purchasing exhaust gas disposal equipments, which would lead them to doubt the just of such laws. The evaluation of fairness to a certain law could vary subjectively from person to person.

Time would also affect the judgment on laws for the reason that our concepts are becoming more and more open and diversified than past. The Scarlet Letter portrays a miserable story in 17th-century American about the female protagonist Hester who suffered a lot under the crime of adultery. However, put in today's law, Hester would not be ashamed or fear to be sentenced adultery at all because our concepts are changing. Under such circumstance, how could one subjectively assert the law is justice or not so easily? Since we can not give an objective judgment on the just of law, the decision to obey or resist a certain law seems unreasonable or even ridiculous.

The line between just and unjust of a low is blurred and it can be seen as a kind of equilibrium of everyone's thoughts and evaluations. Leaving the background of society and history to judge a law is just or not will be totally meaningless. Great philosopher Hegel once said (and I paraphrased): "what is reasonable is real and what is real is reasonable". As to law, this word can be explained that we have no need to argue about existence of law and it must be just in some way. Our ancestors create the law to record and reinforce our social system and only after obey from people, could the society be stable and handled down to our successors--this is the main function of law, rather than justice assumed on the surface.

However, this does not mean that we could disobey it on purpose, or must rigidly obey to the laws without any resistance. On the one hand, we should obey the current law systems. For a simple reason, if everyone disobeys the law or regulation under their own evaluation of justice, this world will be full of violence and crime which would finally lead to an end of human beings. Also, take the Simpson Case into consideration. Though many of us believed that O. J. Simpson did kill his wife, we have to accept the verdict of not guilty to him. On the other hand, we could adjust the law to the society under democracy. The law must have flaws and would never be perfect. All we could do is to amend it to adapt today's social principles and equilibrium. There are altogether twenty-seven amendments in the American Constitution, which is only an epitome of our efforts to make our laws better.

Accordingly, we do not have a share evaluation of just laws and unjust ones. The line between it is only equilibrium of today's society. As a part of the society, we should obey those laws enacted by our forefathers and adjust it to adapt new circumstances. Only after that, could our society be better.

Ajax555UID: 2241288

As the adage says "nothing is perfect", our laws can not escape the fate to be evaluated its justice. The speaker maintains that we should obey those just laws while disobey and resist unjust ones. However, in my view, though the law sometimes contains flaws, we should amend rather than disobey or even resist those we thought as unjust ones. // 开头只说了应该遵守法律,哪怕是有缺陷的法律.但是没有直接点明“法律不能简单地被分为just和unjust”,感觉有点不够.让人感觉你的论述重点放在obey和disobey上,可你的论述重点是围绕前面一个论点来展开的.这段的第一句话是不是应该更直接点题一点.

To begin with, people are always different in their opinion about the definition "just law" and everyone can give his or her own explanation about it. Thus, a law considered to represent justice in one person's viewpoint, might be full of hostilities and injustice according to some other ones. Take a law restricting chemical plants from letting exhaust gas such as sulfide directly into the air without certain disposal into consideration. //看的太累,难道是在show长句?This law enacted to protect nearby inhabitants' health, would greatly damage the benefit of such factories since they have to spend more money in purchasing exhaust gas disposal equipments, which would lead them to doubt the just of such laws. The evaluation of fairness to a certain law could vary subjectively from person to person.  //例子很不错,证明的很到位

Time would also affect the judgment on laws for the reason that our concepts are becoming more and more open and diversified than past. The Scarlet Letter portrays a miserable story in 17th-century American about the female protagonist Hester who suffered a lot under the crime of adultery. However, put in today's law, Hester would not be ashamed or fear to be sentenced adultery at all because our concepts are changing. Under such circumstance, how could one subjectively assert the law is justice or not so easily? Since we can not give an objective judgment on the just of law, the decision to obey or resist a certain law seems unreasonable or even ridiculous. //论证时间会影响法律的公正性, 这个"红字"不太了解,不知道在美国火不火,如果他们也不知道,感觉会失去论证的可信度,不过用人们对女性观念的转变,这个角度还是不错的.不过感觉论证好,难度比较大

The line between just and unjust of a low is blurred and it can be seen as a kind of equilibrium of everyone's thoughts and evaluations. Leaving the background of society and history to judge a law is just or not will be totally meaningless. Great philosopher Hegel once said (and I paraphrased): "what is reasonable is real and what is real is reasonable". As to law, this word can be explained that we have no need to argue about existence of law and it must be just in some way. Our ancestors create the law to record and reinforce our social system and only after obey from people, could the society be stable and handled down to our successors--this is the main function of law, rather than justice assumed on the surface. //你要论证的就是,存在就合理,法律存在,它总会有它公正的一面. 我觉得这一段是不是放前面去比较好,先这么一说,然后从 不同的人看法律,和不同的时间看法律,法律都是合理的. 放在这里算什么呢?一个小结? 感觉有点不舒服.

However, this does not mean that we could disobey it on purpose, or must rigidly obey to the laws without any resistance. On the one hand, we should obey the current law systems. For a simple reason, if everyone disobeys the law or regulation under their own evaluation of justice, this world will be full of violence and crime which would finally lead to an end of human beings. Also, take the Simpson Case into consideration. Though many of us believed that O. J. Simpson did kill his wife, we have to accept the verdict of not guilty to him.//估计我孤陋寡闻了,这个不知道 On the other hand, we could adjust the law to the society under democracy. The law must have flaws and would never be perfect. All we could do is to amend it to adapt today's social principles and equilibrium. There are altogether twenty-seven amendments in the American Constitution, which is only an epitome of our efforts to make our laws better. //论述法律应该遵守,第一个方面可以概括一下为法律的authority,第二个角度不错,嗯,我要了

Accordingly, we do not have a share evaluation of just laws and unjust ones. The line between it is only equilibrium of today's society. As a part of the society, we should obey those laws enacted by our forefathers and adjust it to adapt new circumstances. Only after that, could our society be better.