Amazon.com Widgets
  • I am confused.

    I know this will get negative comments but I am confused to what law this question is asking. If this is the law of Man, then it is not always right. But if this is the law of God (law of Moses, plus some of Paul's writings), then I should say yes. Too general, I suppose.

  • Definitely the law cannot decide..

    No, the law is not always right
    Definitely the law cannot decide what is right or wrong, because in many cases right or wrong is decided upon many factors. But since many people are living together, the law, which seems sometimes not perfect, should be established and preserved once established in order to prevent chaos whether diverse people are living together.

  • Definitely the law cannot decide..

    No, the law is not always right
    Definitely the law cannot decide what is right or wrong, because in many cases right or wrong is decided upon many factors. But since many people are living together, the law, which seems sometimes not perfect, should be established and preserved once established in order to prevent chaos whether diverse people are living together.

  • No, laws are made by men.

    No, the law is not always right, because the law is only as good as the people who write it. In many countries, such as the Middle East, laws are used to oppress women. They are not good laws simply because they are laws. Laws are not perfect, because they are written by people who are not perfect.

  • God Supersedes Man's Laws

    Man-made laws aren't always right. We can make laws until we're blue in the face and two things will always trump man's feeble attempts to bring order to our chaotic world. Nature and God will always rule over man-made laws. Law and order are one expression of bringing some measure of comfort to our lives, but the law isn't the only answer.

  • No, the law is not always right.

    Definitely the law cannot decide what is right or wrong, because in many cases right or wrong is decided upon many factors. But since many people are living together, the law, which seems sometimes not perfect, should be established and preserved once established in order to prevent chaos whether diverse people are living together.

  • The Law Is Not Always Right

    The advancement of scientific technology has proven that the law is not always right. One such piece of evidence is the fact that DNA has resulted in more than 200 exonerations of wrongly convicted criminals. These men and women were charged with breaking "the law," they went through the legal system, and they were convicted for their "unlawful activities." In all 200 cases, DNA proved that no such "unlawful activities" ever took place, so the law was definitely wrong in these instances. Even if one does not believe in DNA evidence, for whatever nonsensical reason, one cannot deny that human beings are not perfect, human beings created laws; therefore, the law can only as "perfect" as its creators.

  • No, the law is not always right.

    No, I don't believe that the law is always right. There are many instances in which the law doesn't make sense. A recent instance of this was in the news, when an expectant mother had a miscarriage, and her pain was overwhelming. The doctors realized she had a blood infection, but because her miscarried baby still had a heartbeat, the doctors could not perform an abortion, it was illegal. This is just one of many examples in which the law doesn't seem to follow everyday common sense.

  • Laws are made by humans

    History and the culture of several societies has proven that laws are never rigid, permanent, or sometimes even enforceable. Laws are established by the government of a society, which is a social institution that responds to the demands of the populace it controls.
    Certain laws remain intact throughout all of time because society will generally agree with it (for example, the laws about murder and homicide have rarely if ever been changed to say that killing is permissible with the exception of changing the classification and reasons to justify it).
    Laws that society agrees with at one time can also be changed or abolished at a later time when it has come to the point that society no longer agrees with it. An example of this would be the American civil rights movement in the 1960s. The law said that the African American citizens must use separate facilities than whites, and that it was illegal for them to integrate any form of public institution. In the early days of the movement, black women resisted by refusing to give up their bus seats to white people, getting arrested in the process and leading to boycotts of the busing industry to force a change. They moved on to furthering civil disobedience by sitting at bars and demanding to be served, which businesses would call the police to have them removed and jailed even. The unrest soon escalated to the point that the government finally took notice and in June 1963, President Kennedy announced his intentions to introduce a piece of civil rights legislation that would end this debate forever, which was accelerated by the March on Washington D.C. Two months later. The following year, President Johnson attached his signature to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which officially banned the 70 year old doctrine of "separate but equal" and the Jim Crow Laws. It didn't permanently solve the problems of the race relations gap, but it was a large step forward and it proves that the law can change when the culture demands it.
    Another example I have is Prohibition in the 1920s, where you can actually apply the Freeport Doctrine made by Stephen Douglas in 1857 about slavery. He said that slavery had to be controlled by local police forces and if the law was unpopular, enforcement was virtually impossible. The same applies to Prohibition, which an earlier example of this application can also be the Embargo Act of 1807. Speakeasies ran rampant in the decade, federal police were hard-pressed to do what they could to stop the bootlegging and smuggling, and Al Capone and other "legitimate businessmen" made their fortunes in giving birth to the industry we know as organized crime. Franklin Roosevelt finally put an end to the nonsense in 1933, when he endorsed the ratification of the Twenty-First Amendment, repealing the 1919 Eighteenth Amendment.
    A final example I have is when, in other countries, revolutions break out among populations as the conditions they live in grow intolerable.

  • Laws are made by humans

    History and the culture of several societies has proven that laws are never rigid, permanent, or sometimes even enforceable. Laws are established by the government of a society, which is a social institution that responds to the demands of the populace it controls.
    Certain laws remain intact throughout all of time because society will generally agree with it (for example, the laws about murder and homicide have rarely if ever been changed to say that killing is permissible with the exception of changing the classification and reasons to justify it).
    Laws that society agrees with at one time can also be changed or abolished at a later time when it has come to the point that society no longer agrees with it. An example of this would be the American civil rights movement in the 1960s. The law said that the African American citizens must use separate facilities than whites, and that it was illegal for them to integrate any form of public institution. In the early days of the movement, black women resisted by refusing to give up their bus seats to white people, getting arrested in the process and leading to boycotts of the busing industry to force a change. They moved on to furthering civil disobedience by sitting at bars and demanding to be served, which businesses would call the police to have them removed and jailed even. The unrest soon escalated to the point that the government finally took notice and in June 1963, President Kennedy announced his intentions to introduce a piece of civil rights legislation that would end this debate forever, which was accelerated by the March on Washington D.C. Two months later. The following year, President Johnson attached his signature to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which officially banned the 70 year old doctrine of "separate but equal" and the Jim Crow Laws. It didn't permanently solve the problems of the race relations gap, but it was a large step forward and it proves that the law can change when the culture demands it.
    Another example I have is Prohibition in the 1920s, where you can actually apply the Freeport Doctrine made by Stephen Douglas in 1857 about slavery. He said that slavery had to be controlled by local police forces and if the law was unpopular, enforcement was virtually impossible. The same applies to Prohibition, which an earlier example of this application can also be the Embargo Act of 1807. Speakeasies ran rampant in the decade, federal police were hard-pressed to do what they could to stop the bootlegging and smuggling, and Al Capone and other "legitimate businessmen" made their fortunes in giving birth to the industry we know as organized crime. Franklin Roosevelt finally put an end to the nonsense in 1933, when he endorsed the ratification of the Twenty-First Amendment, repealing the 1919 Eighteenth Amendment.
    A final example I have is when, in other countries, revolutions break out among populations as the conditions they live in grow intolerable.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.