We construction of a house. It seems the owner

We need to construct theories,
at appropriate places to understand the philosophical importance of Law as such
a Politicians would construct the road-map for winning. For this purpose, I
have invented, a Law student of super-intelligence, patience and insight, whom
I shall call Anisha, I suppose Anisha is a student belonging to any Law School.
I assume she agrees with the basic uncontroversial notion that Law helps Humans
and that one must follow them, as I.

The Role of Law in Society –

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

          Suppose there exist no laws in the
opposite street of Anisha. Laws or rules in any form highly frowns in that
street. A dispute arises among the people over the construction of a house. It
seems the owner wishes to construct the house in the park which is disapproved
by the children of tender to youth. Parents fearing a loss in their children’s
playtime enters into a verbal confrontation with the owner. Tensions rise
slowly like a pressure cooker. First, the verbal spat leads to heated arguments
with each side providing their point to justify their approval/disapproval even
if it suffers from logical fallacy and everything blows out when the most
unfortunate happens, a person lands his fist on the chin of the owner, the
retaliation proves fatal. It leads to a frenzied attack ending with the
lynching of the owner.

There may be, various
reason, for some, it may be the construction of the house, loss of playtime for
their children, a good relaxation time for elders, romantic nights with their
partners, personal motives and for some there exist no reason. But these
reasons must not be taken into account by Anisha to justify the killing.

Anisha must ask herself
first whether the owner was right in trying to build a house. Her answer might
be like this, a park is a public place, a lot of people use it for the various
purpose from playtime to relaxation to other stuff, it doesn’t belong to one
individual rather belongs to the entire society. The owner by trying to
construct his house in the park has infringed the interest of the other members
of the society. His act has affected the various types of people, from the
young to the elderly thus depriving them of their interest.

But can we justify the
Owner’s death by the virtue of his interest?

His action might have affected the society at large by
depriving other members of their pleasures. But still, can it be justified.
Anisha might think, there are various wrongs in the society which are too
gruesome in nature such as sexual misconduct, murder and all those that can
leave a lasting impact on the victim or their family or even in few cases the
entire society. This belief will
lead Anisha to conclude that the owner’s death is not justified. But one
thing that we need to take into account is that no laws are applicable in that
street which means if the owner instead of the construction had embroiled
himself in a controversy involving sexual misconduct the result may have been
the same.

 Now I suppose Anisha would say, had there been
a system of legal regulation, the owner and the aggrieved parties would have
approached a competent court seeking relief and based on the facts probably the
court would have given an injunction.

By this way, the Owner
would still be alive, at the same time the interest of the other parties would
also be satisfied.

But what if the parties
had reached an agreement, yes an agreement which would solve all their problems
this could have prevented the death as well as satisfied the other parties, in
such a scenario Law is not necessary. Anisha I believe would surely be having
the same thought. She might think What if…..?, In such a case

Suppose in the same
street there exist an influential person who while relaxing sets eyes upon a
child who is playing in the park, out of sexual desires, that person lures the
innocent child and forces the child to satisfy the latter sexual desire. No man
or women could confront the individual due to the prevailing influence. The
father owes to punish that person although inside he knows he cant do anything,
the mother with uncontrollable emotions left only in a dilemma over the impact
it had on her sweet child and blames herself for being unable to protect her
child. The individual scot-free roams and lives on the same street so as the child/victim.

In such a case the
perpetrator of the crime remains free whereas the victim, the innocent child is
denied justice. To the entire development, Anisha’s answer would reflect the
following had law existed in that street the person would be serving the jail
sentence as a consequence of the crime.

When posed with a
question over the necessity of law in a society Anisha would answer, the law is
a tool used by humans to refrain, 
restrain and regulate himself from activities that would prove harmful
or disrupt the usual flow of activities in a society. It serves as a mean to
compensate as well as rehabilitate.

Anisha comes to this
conclusion by understanding both the cases, she identifies that had law existed
the Owner attempt to construct his house is unlawful and that the court would
have given an injunction to safeguard the legal rights of others.

 In the case of child abuse, she identifies,
first the person would have hesitated to commit the crime due to the
repercussions. Second, if the crime is committed, the person regardless of the
influence the person wails, the person will be brought before trial and
punished for the crimes committed against the child. Thus Anisha firmly
believes that law not only protects but also prevents crimes from happening.

Why Law matters in a