Parents should be held legally responsible for their children’s acts. What is your opinion? Support it with examples from your experience.

 Parents should be held legally responsible for their children’s acts. What is your opinion? Support it with examples from your experience.

The debate about whether people should face penalties for the unsocial conduct of their wards, is quite heated. I believe this approach is unfair and unrealistic. Although families are central in shaping the character of youngsters, they cannot be expected to exercise control over their conduct, for the latter must bear the consequences of their own actions.

 

As young people mature, their behaviour is influenced by numerous external forces, including friends, social media, and the school environment. Even at homes despite being rendered a strong guidance and support, young ones can still make harmful or illegal choices. For instance, if they choose to cheat, lie, or engage in scuffles, it reflects more on their own judgment than on their upbringing. Thus, it is not right to hold fathers and mothers liable for actions they did not directly cause.

 

Moreover,  putting legal pressure for such matters could prove to be counterproductive. Many already struggle with financial, or emotional, stress while trying to raise their young ones properly, and holding lawfully obligated for every mistake the latter commit can discourage, rather than supporting them, exacerbating complications, which could cause chaos for already distraught families.    

 

Having said that, some do support this move, despite this view lacking in substance, and profess such a policy will precipitate a quick impact, for the fear of reprimand, fines  and levies would motivate mothers and fathers to act, and educate their offspring about righteous ways, and embracing socially acceptable behavior.  

To conclude, although parents must be legally responsible for the well being of their little ones, they should not be blamed for every wrong decision their child makes. Young minds need to take the onus and understand the consequences of their actions, rather than depending on their parents to take the call.

In some countries, people are allowed to keep arms, while some people feel that private citizens should not be allowed to keep arms and ammunition as it can threaten the society and pose serious problems for public safety. Discuss and give your opinion

In some countries, people are allowed to keep arms, while some people feel that private citizens should not be allowed to keep arms and ammunition as it can threaten the society and pose serious problems for public safety. Discuss and give your opinion 

There is a great public discourse hovering around the sensitive issue of private citizens possessing guns. While some commentators propound that it is the need of the hour, and such equipment can afford appropriate safeguard against undesirable situations, others dissent with this proposal.  

To embark upon discussion, a lobby favors affording(give/extend/allow) permission for keeping guns for the sake of safety as they consider such devices as a permanent solution against unlawful elements like robbers, who not only steal their goods but also ensure deleterious effects on their lives. Moreover, those residing in areas such as city outskirts, suburbs, and those deprived of jurisdictions need to rely on self defense, making it imperative to have a hold on appropriate safeguard. 

Additionally, those dwelling within close vicinity of wild areas must acquire certain devices to deal with wild creatures, and this kind of protective equipment can help them ensure that they remain away from trouble. In a pilot study carried out by Hindustan Times, it was revealed that nearly forty seven percent of those having agricultural land neighboring the forest regions, aided themselves with armament to help shelter their crops  from foraging deer and elephants.  

Nevertheless, as per critics, this kind of arrangement would turn out to be a fiasco, as if children get their hands on these devices, they might misuse these, and jeopardize their lives; hence firearms should not be made a lawful possession. Similarly, those having anger issues might consider using arms as the first resort instead of the last, consequently resulting in exposing others to serious harm.  

In hindsight, I opine that this practice will lead to chaos in the society as many might become vulnerable to the unwarranted outcomes if weapons are used unintentionally or in a fit of rage.

Every country in the world has its road rules, but many drivers don’t obey them. Why is this happening? What can be done to solve this problem?

 Every country in the world has its road rules, but many drivers don’t obey them. Why is this happening? What can be done to solve this problem?

Various countries, despite having elaborate traffic laws, witness a breach of these by motorists. In the further discussion I would share the causes for driving these violations and the ways to overcome this tendency. 

It has been observed that countries have humongous laws but these laws are not implemented strictly; consequently,  violators do not take the charges seriously and disregard all the norms since  even after contevening, drivers are not penalized heavily. Besides, punishments for the various violations are perceived as so soft that instead of creating a fear among road users, embolden them, who in turn flout the statutes brazenly. Apart from that, numerous, after committing infringements that are serious in some cases,  are found using their clout among influential and eminent personalities, and tend to walk scott free. On top of that, law enforcement officials act callously while on duty, and instead of punishing motorists they prefer accepting bribes and letting them off. These factors are persuading a majority to overlook laws meant to make roads safer. 

Nevertheless, such propensity can be mitigated, if not eliminated by adopting prudent remedies. Penalties should be levied on the culprits and to the officials who fail to perform their duties honestly. Moreover, the amount of fines should be increased astronomically for disobeying and transgressing rules meant to regulate traffic. Additionally,the process of issuing the license should be made tougher, so that the applicants would get more aware of these, and learn to follow them diligently. Further, warnings, harsh punishments like imprisonment should be awarded to offenders. 

Overall, undeniably, those sitting at wheels tend to adopt uncaring attitude towards the safe driving conventions and stipulations; however, everyone can be made to fall in line by applying the principles of non tolerance towards traffic offences.   

Some people claim that not enough of the waste from homes is recycled. They say that the only way to increase recycling is for governments to make it a legal requirement. To what extent do you think laws are needed to make people recycle more of their waste?

 

Some people claim that not enough of the waste from homes is recycled. They say that the only way to increase recycling is for governments to make it a legal requirement. To what extent do you think laws are needed to make people recycle more of their waste?

It has been observed that people are not cautious enough about recycling their household waste. There is a lobby that believes the policy makers should don the mantle to integrate recycling into their lives by making it an obligation by law. This essay will justify the rationale behind this notion.

Since the state is well equipped with the funds as well as jurisdiction so it can easily take the initiative to enact the laws for escalating the process of recycling to protect the environment from the envisioned ecological disaster by imposing heavy penalties on non-compliance and such actions would compel/push people to incorporate recycling into their daily regime in order to avoid legal punishments. From this perspective, making recycling mandatory would be of great afford.

Moreover, due to the lack of awareness amongst a slew of people since not many awareness campaigns render information/coverage on this topic,  therefore, government intervention through the legal code would enlighten them about the practice, the method to integrate it, the equipment required to carry out the process, and so on, thereby keeping them abreast of their social responsibility towards improving their surroundings. Besides this, such regulations would help individuals to comprehend how the process of reusing could save their valuable earnings which can be further utilised to accomplish their other indispensable commitments, which would act as a motivation factor for them.

 

To reiterate, I strongly feel that the state should take initiative to frame policies to incorporate recycling into the regimes of the individuals as a mandatory process, but simultaneously, also making them comprehend that this process is accompanied by a plethora of positive aspects such as safeguarding the environment and monetary benefits as well.

Some people claim that not enough of the waste from homes is recycled. They say that the only way to increase recycling is for governments to make it a legal requirement. To what extent do you think laws are needed to make people recycle more of their waste?

Some people claim that not enough of the waste from homes is recycled. They say that the only way to increase recycling is for governments to make it a legal requirement. To what extent do you think laws are needed to make people recycle more of their waste?

Ielts Essay Household and Recycling 

Environmental concerns, across the world, have led to proposing extension of recycling with more force, as a law, to the household sector: it produces equally huge amount of refuse; however, it does not really recycle as much as it should. I, thus, uphold the view that it is necessary to make recycling mandatory for every family.

It has been commonly observed, unless something is introduced as a statute – that involves penalties for any infringements, people fail to take the matters seriously. Over the years, governments have invested extensively in campaigns aimed at encouraging  every individual to include recycling in their social obligation. Nevertheless, the outcomes have been quite disappointing: everyone seems to be bitten by the bug of apathy, they feel that other sectors should handle such initiatives, and express their inability at being capable of handling such initiatives by themselves.

Moreover, by incorporating recycling as a regulation, state would be able to make citizens gradually realize and appreciate the benefits, both financial and environmental, and need of introducing recycling in their compulsory obligations. Most have seen little action and more lectures on this concept, which of course fails to attract many. But, when people would do it themselves, they would be able to see the tangible outcomes themselves.  In continuation, tangible results would encourage households to take recycling as a habit, which would help persuade others to take a cue and follow the precedents. When some practice brings in visible outcomes in form of benefits, practitioners become feel encouraged and try to inspire others too.

To sum up, institutionalizing recycling would go a long way, for it would gradually make people get used to this practice. After all, the future of the planet is at stake, and any step taken to ensure it is welcome. 

Under British and Australian laws a jury in a criminal case has no access to information about the defendant’s past criminal record. This protects the person who is being accused of the crime. Some lawyers have suggested that this practice should be changed and that a jury should be given all the past facts before they reach their decision about the case. In what extent do you agree or disagree?

Under British and Australian laws a jury in a criminal case has no access to information about the defendant’s past criminal record. This protects the person who is being accused of the crime. Some lawyers have suggested that this practice should be changed and that a jury should be given all the past facts before they reach their decision about the case. In what extent do you agree or disagree?

 

Ielts Essay - Concealing Part Records Of Criminals 

Giving fair trials to the accused has been a practice of law world over since ages. In countries where the jury system prevails, the jury members are not informed about the track record of the people facing trials. This allows law to take its own course and deliver impartial judgments though some people raise objections to this.

Various law experts vouch for continuation of such a system, as it helps upholding the tenets of fair trial and delivery of judgments. Concealing the past records of the people, is supposed to be the right approach to ensure a fair trial. It is the basic human right as per human rights organizations, every human should be allowed an opportunity to present their case adequately, either to prove their innocence, or more facts about the circumstances in which they committed crime.

Moreover, discrimination against ex-convicts is rampant in the society. A common notion, ‘Once a criminal always a criminal’, may not hold true in every case. The jury members are also humans, and some might act overzealously, thus, it is quite likely that jury might take predetermined decisions. Concealing past history would help ensure flawless judgments that are not biased; influenced – by adverse views of jury members; preconceived; and are arrived at by following proper procedures during investigations of the purpose and the circumstances of the offence.

However, revealing the facts of past record of the activities can prove to be substantial in case of the assessing the modus operandi of hardened criminals. This would greatly help in drawing a clear line between coincidental, otherwise unintentional first timers and the ones who are used to committing crimes frequently.

To conclude, I feel that scrapping the law of concealing past records of criminals would help in assessing crimes correctly.