I had celebrated my last birthday in a very unusual way. I wanted to invite my friends for the party and birthday cake, and we were already planning all the details with my mother, but over sudden my small sister got seriously sick, and emergency took her with my mother to the hospital two days before my birthday. I felt myself lost, extremely worried about my sister, and helpless. All of my friends were already invited to the party and I didn’t know what to do. I called my best friend to talk about my problems and cancel the party, but he told me: “Let’s take the cake and go to the hospital!” Why didn’t I think about it myself? I called all my friends and asked them what did they think about the party in the hospital – and they all agreed to this plan. My father arranged the cake in the hospital, and some balloons for decoration, and also he invited a funny clown for all the children. The party was short, but very nice and filled with joy and happiness. We were playing games, laughing and eating my birthday cake, and I was very happy to be with my family, friends, and all the children from the hospital.
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: