issue17 aspire互改小组 No10

lys0209UID: 2209212

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.



Whether there are two types of laws: just and unjust and people should only obey the just laws while disobey the unjust ones as the speaker asserts?  As far as I am concerned, although it is understandable that why there are so many people think some of the laws are unjust, I could hardly agree with the notion that some laws are truly unjust and thus people should disobey or resist them. And I will discuss and develop my notion thoroughly in the following paragraphs.

At first, we must realize the fact many people today really tend to regard laws as just or unjust. Admittedly, nowadays some or even many legislations are not so consummate and have several flaws or defects. Hence many people, most of whom are usually very wealth, would take advantage of those flaws to escape the legal punishment when they violate laws because they could hire the most famous lawyers to plead for them. And under many circumstance, they could eventually win the case not because they are innocent but because of the successful defense of their attorneys. So, it is comprehensible and unsurprising that so many people today view some laws as unjust because in they opinion those laws are always on behalf of the interest of wealthy people and usually do harm to the ordinary people.

However, even if the reason why people type the laws into just or unjust is understandable and acceptable, it is totally incorrect for people to do so. Why? Because the laws and legislations today could not be simply classified as just or unjust. There are just other two types of laws; one type is those that have been well developed and improved over the past years, and another one includes those which are not so consummate and have many defects that are frequently used by some criminals. And the latter type is just the one viewed as unjust by many people. Yet, in my opinion those laws are unfairly been regarded as unjust, because they just have some flaws due to the incomplete consideration and incorrect prediction for future when people originally made them. And what they are truly needed is being amended to eliminate those flaws so that they would no longer be utilized by those criminals rather than being viewed as unjust and criticized by numerous people.

What is more, another significant reason for my fundamentally disagreement with the speakers' statement is that disobeying the so-called unjust laws would just have the opposite effect of what was hoped for and be quite harmful to our society. Since people’s opinion about whether a law is fair or not usually depends on their personal interests, it is not surprised that some people would view a particular legislation as just because it is favorable to their interests while the others might have a wholly different idea. Then in such condition, how could we determine the justness of that legislation? And if there is not a catholic norm to make such decision, then the people’s action to disobey the “unjust” laws as the speaker suggests would only lead to more chaos in society and even the collapse of our current legal system.   

Therefore, taking into account of all these factors, we could finally come to the notion that although today's legal system is not so perfect and consummate, it is still not an advisable idea for us to categorize laws as either just or unjust and to only obey the just ones. In fact, what we really should do is to persistently amend and perfect our current laws and legislations.
                                    

seven741UID: 2260128

Whether there are two types of laws: just and unjust and people should only obey the just laws while disobey the unjust ones as the speaker asserts?[这个句子结构有问题，分两句吧：Whether there are two types of laws: just and unjust? Whether people should only obey the just laws while disobey the unjust ones as the speaker asserts?]  As far as I am concerned, although it is understandable that[删掉] why there are so many people think some of the laws are unjust, I could hardly agree with the notion that some laws are truly unjust and thus people should disobey or resist them. And I will discuss and develop my notion thoroughly in the following paragraphs.[为什么要加这句？可删]

At first, we must realize the fact many people today really tend to regard laws as just or unjust.[意思有错，字面翻译起来是：人们倾向于认为法律公正或不公正。make no sense!] Admittedly, nowadays some or even many legislations are not so consummate and have several flaws or defects. Hence many people, most of whom are usually very wealth, would take advantage of those flaws to escape the legal punishment when they violate laws because they could hire the most famous lawyers to plead for them. And under many circumstance, they could eventually win the case not because they are innocent but because of the successful defense of their attorneys. So, it is comprehensible and unsurprising that so many people today view some laws as unjust because in they opinion those laws are always on behalf of the interest of wealthy people and usually do harm to the ordinary people.[个人认为你对just和unjust的理解有问题，题目说得是有些法律条文有失公正，而不是说整个法律体系不公正或者诉讼过程机制不合理。]
However, even if the reason why people type the laws into just or unjust is understandable and acceptable, it is totally incorrect for people to do so[so指代不清]. Why? Because the laws and legislations today could not be simply classified as just or unjust. There are just[still?] other two types of laws; one type is those that have been well developed and improved over the past years, and another one includes those which are not so consummate and have many defects that are frequently used by some criminals. And the latter type is just the one viewed as unjust by many people. Yet, in my opinion those laws are unfairly been regarded as unjust, because they just have some flaws due to the incomplete consideration and incorrect prediction for future when people originally made them. And what they are truly needed[they truly need] is being amended to eliminate those flaws so that they would no longer be utilized by those criminals rather than being viewed as unjust and criticized by numerous people.

What is more, another significant reason for my fundamentally[fundamental] disagreement with the speakers' statement is that disobeying the so-called unjust laws would just have the opposite effect of what was hoped for and be quite harmful to our society. Since people’s opinion about whether a law is fair or not usually depends on their personal interests, it is not surprised that some people would view a particular legislation as just because it is favorable to their interests while the others might have a wholly different idea. Then in such condition, how could we determine the justness of that legislation[law]? And if there is not a catholic[?] norm to make such decision, then the people’s action to disobey the “unjust” laws as the speaker suggests would only lead to more chaos in society and even the collapse of our current legal system.   

Therefore, taking into account of all these factors, we could finally come to the notion that although today's legal system is not so perfect and consummate, it is still not an advisable idea for us to categorize laws as either just or unjust and to only obey the just ones. In fact, what we really should do is to persistently amend and perfect our current laws and legislations.
评：
1．        文章的语言还是很到位的，要是这个是限时的文字的话，那肯定语言方面是没问题了；
2．        我个人认为本文作者对于just和unjust law的理解发生了偏差，理解为法律漏洞显然不对，应该是一些不合理的条文；
3．        基于2的假设，前两点理由偏题了，而且写得太大太空，不如用一个生活化的例子[假设一个情形]来的清楚；
4．        第三点理由讲得不错，表述也很好；
5．        legislation指的是立法不是法律吧；
6．        个人意见，仅供参考。