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.
Mommy told me never to go into the basement, but I wanted to see what was making that noise. It kind of sounded like a puppy, and I wanted to see the puppy, so I opened the basement door and tiptoed down a bit. I didn’t see a puppy, and then Mommy yanked me out of the basement and yelled at me. Mommy had never yelled at me before, and it made me sad and I cried. Then Mommy told me never to go into the basement again, and she gave me a cookie. That made me feel better, so I didn’t ask her why the boy in the basement was making noises like a puppy, or why he had no hands or feet.
1. did my friend enter the institute last year? my frien didn't enter the institute last year. 2. did the first lecture begin at 9 o'clock yesterday? the first lecture didn't begin at 9 o'clock yesterday. 3. did they spend much time at the swimming pool yesterday? they didn't spend much time at the swimming pool yesterday. 4. did our team win five gold medals last month? our team didn't win five gold medals last month. 5. did we pass our term examinations successfully last week? We didn't pass our term examinations successfully last week.
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: