Laws should not end up in motley - should give the law makers enough flexibility

The sands of time have witnessed injustice innumerably and those responsible have been castigated. Europeans discovered new worlds and brought with them their knowledge and traditions. Civilization settled and established laws for the smooth governing of the society. With the onset of modernization thinking changed and so did the need for changes in the way people are governed.

But with time these laws have seen a saturated stagnation. The injustice faced by the society demands more stringent punishment as changing times demand for a change in the antediluvian laws. E.g. the worst industrial disaster at the Union Carbide Plant(UCP) in Bhopal, India claimed 15000 innocent lives and maimed millions f others. Twenty five years later the apparition of the tragedy still scares the people. Recently the verdict was declared with 2 years imprisonment and $2000 fine to the seven culprits with the main accused still at large. This is a clear case of 'justice delayed is justice denied.' This amercement is in accordance with the laws formulated by the Britishers in India sixty years ago and cannot account for this act of genocide.

However, a defaulter in the stock exchange caught for unfair trade and embezzlement is imprisoned for 5 years with a fine of $ 20000. The question is, is the cost of human lives less than the monetary loss?

Laws all over the world consider homicide and a regular sex offence as an equal crime. There should be more transparency in the judiciary. There is a need for reforms in the laws. Law should not be fixed instead it should be flexible enough to account for various circumstances, times and places. Coming back to the UCP incident, more compensation should be given t the victims and only timely action will get them justice.

But the modern laws should not end up in motley, it should give the law makers enough flexibility and liberty to deliver timely and fare justice.

This first paragraph should be change a little bit, I think. It's confusing, because you start off by talking about injustice an castigation, and you go on to talk about European domination of other cultures, then about changes in government.

I think the way to fix that intro is to remove the first sentence, because even though it is beautifully written it is beside the point. This essay is not about injustice. You can change it like this:

The sands of time have witnessed injustice innumerable changes that make it necessary to modify and develop laws. and those responsible have been castigated.

Here are some small errors:
...millions of others. Twenty-f ive years later the apparition of the tragedy still scares the people. --- nice sentence!! Nice use of the word apparition. Actually, though, an apparition is like a ghost you can see. Maybe it is better to write this:

...the apparition memory of the tragedy still scares the people.

This is a run on sentence:
Law should not be fixed instead it should be flexible enough to account for various circumstances, times and places.
Law should not be fixed. I nstead, it should be flexible enough to account for various circumstances, times, and places. --- now it is a very nice sentence.

This is great, but I think you should give your thesis argument in the first paragraph, too. Write your argument: Laws should be flexible, and the judicial branch of government should uphold strong moral values.

In order to be a very good essay, though, this has to be longer, because the subject is so complex. It would have to cite sources like Hobbes and Locke, for example, to show deep understanding.

:-)

thank you for replying to my essay.. i'll work on it..