Describe a specific situation in which it might be better to change the law than to tolerate minor defects in it. Discuss what you think determines when it is better to tolerate minor defects in the law than to change it and when it is better to change it.
Laws provide rules that help societies maintain order, uphold rights, and reach towards social, cultural or economic goals. Laws are written by governments and can apply to entire countries, or regions of a country as small as cities. Most laws are written with the intent of being exhaustive and well defined so that they will not be able to be broken or misinterpreted. If a law is clear and well written, it will be difficult for a person or body to take advantage of defects in the law such as vague or ambiguous language. All laws are meant to be interpreted, but the less clear the law, the more the room for interpretation. If a particular law is riddled with complicated or unspecific language, lawyers have a greater chance of being able to convince a jury or judge that their client is not in violation of the law. Laws could also have defects because they are outdated. If a law governing internet use was written 20 years ago, it’s present strength is likely diluted because it doesn’t take into account the new developments in the internet since the time the law was instituted. For some laws, it may be better to tolerate the imperfections rather than try to change or update it. This means that it is better for society to accept that a piece of legislation may have problems with it than spend the time, money and effort required to rework the law. For example, in Canadian tax law, there are ways for people to reduce their tax payments by creating a company (even though the company may not have any true operations) and keep their money in the company. Changing this law could result in more tax revenue for the government, but it would also involve a very complex laborious process. For this reason, it has been judged that it’s better to let this tax loophole exist than try to fix it.
On the other hand, there are times when it’s best to try and correct defects in law. An example of this is Canadian law setting fuel efficiency standards on new cars sold in the country. Fuel efficiency laws created decades ago set much lower standards for compulsory gas mileage. But improvements in technology have made it possible to produce cars that use less gas per mile. The growing concern over climate change and global warming is another reason why the government wishes to impose better fuel standards on cars. For this reason, it was deemed that standards set by old laws were not stringent enough and it was critical to update the legislation to bring it in tune with the present day realities and necessities.
In general, defects in law should be corrected if it is deemed to be in the best interest of society. If a law is seldom enforced, it is less important that it be updated to overcome it’s defects. On the other hand, the law governing car pollution has massive implications for Canadian society. For this reason, it is well worth spending the time and effort updating the law because of the benefits to Canadian society.
mcatessayattempts 