The better a person sees what is allowed and what is not allowed, the better. There will be no understatement, there will be no double interpretations. Everything is clearly described, and therefore a person will not commit illegal acts, because he will be punished for them.
If something in the law is unclear or unsaid, the criminal has a reason for the crime. He understands that most likely his action is illegal, and certainly unfair, but he sees that it is not regulated by law. Therefore, he will do so - he will commit a crime. If he is caught, there will be a court that may decide that he is guilty, or may find him innocent.
Thus, if the law does not clearly describe the rules, then no one is immune from a crime, because the criminal will have a reason to commit it. And if the set of rights and rules is complete and thorough, then the state takes responsibility for crimes on itself, and a person is freed from the need to solve complex issues independently.
Arguments "against"
Total control over a person's life is a clearly negative property of the state. It is enough to recall the countries in which there was such a thing – it will be Hitler's Germany and fascist Italy. Also, a similar restrictive set of laws was found in China among some princes, and in Africa.
And besides, no set of laws is capable of covering all spheres of human life, and there will always be places where the law can be interpreted ambiguously. Therefore, you should not expect that the law will cover all possible crimes.
B. I am (watching) this film. It’s a musical. A. But you do (not like) musicals! B. I know, I usually ( hate) them. But this one is really good.Do you (want) to watch it? A. Not right now, Susie’s here and we are (studying) for our English test. B. A test? A. Yes, we are ( having ) a test every Friday. A. Are you (using) this computer now? B. No, the boss is (waiting) for me in the other office. Why? A. Because I (need) to use it. B. What’s wrong with your computer? A. It is ( not working) at the moment and I (want ) to send an e- mail.
ответ: Arguments "for"
The better a person sees what is allowed and what is not allowed, the better. There will be no understatement, there will be no double interpretations. Everything is clearly described, and therefore a person will not commit illegal acts, because he will be punished for them.
If something in the law is unclear or unsaid, the criminal has a reason for the crime. He understands that most likely his action is illegal, and certainly unfair, but he sees that it is not regulated by law. Therefore, he will do so - he will commit a crime. If he is caught, there will be a court that may decide that he is guilty, or may find him innocent.
Thus, if the law does not clearly describe the rules, then no one is immune from a crime, because the criminal will have a reason to commit it. And if the set of rights and rules is complete and thorough, then the state takes responsibility for crimes on itself, and a person is freed from the need to solve complex issues independently.
Arguments "against"
Total control over a person's life is a clearly negative property of the state. It is enough to recall the countries in which there was such a thing – it will be Hitler's Germany and fascist Italy. Also, a similar restrictive set of laws was found in China among some princes, and in Africa.
And besides, no set of laws is capable of covering all spheres of human life, and there will always be places where the law can be interpreted ambiguously. Therefore, you should not expect that the law will cover all possible crimes.
Объяснение: