And history demonstrates that those who were the most heinous beings to inhabit the planet lived in prosperity and did whatever they pleased. Modern legislation was prompted by the need to put an end to this practice in an age where cruelty reigns supreme. In addition, everyone is now treated equally under the law. No matter what kind of weapons a person possesses, if they commit a crime like murder, they will be punished to the greatest extent of the law. In order to prevent both serious and minor crimes, laws act as a deterrent. Additionally, the absence of rules and regulations in a community would result in terrible warfare. As people would be obliged to defend themselves in the absence of government protection. It goes without saying that if there were no rules, crime rates would skyrocket and there would be a multitude of negative societal effects. Including violence and starvation among robbed individuals. To give an example, if we take a look at contemporary nations with a corrupt legal system, we can see that there is a big disparity between the rich and poor classes. A sizable portion of the population lives below the poverty line, and child prostitution is rife in these countries. In conclusion, I wholeheartedly concur that laws and regulations are necessary for a nation's operation and must be strictly upheld by all of its citizens. This is so that people don't become less human if the law isn't followed.

To put it another way, if a person knows in advance that their wrongdoings would result in punishment, they may decide not to commit the crime. For instance, the death penalty is not the only sanction for serious offences in Iran. such as rape or murder. However, the death penalty is also applied to less serious crimes such armed robbery, blasphemy, drug trafficking, or adultery. The criminal is thus forced by the law to carefully consider the risks of his illicit behaviour. Because of this, not every potential offender is prepared for the kind of penalty outlined above and gives up their animosity. This illustration shows how laws act as a deterrent to both serious and less serious crimes. The fundamental rights of every citizen are also safeguarded by laws. First and foremost, they ensure that every member of society has the right to freedom of thought, expression, and religion. Consider Canada as a prime illustration. There, regardless of a person's membership in any group, their rights are protected. Because of the state's attitude toward the populace, the nation has developed into a true multicultural haven for citizens of less democratic nations. As a result, Canada is ranked first in the world for happiness, equality, and citizen security in 2019. To sum up, I wholeheartedly concur that laws and regulations are necessary for a nation to run well and must be strictly upheld by all of its citizens. If there were no rules or laws in a community, there would be a terrible crime rate and people's democratic rights and freedoms would be violated.

It would seem that those who contend that laws are necessary to regulate how societies operate are justified in their claims. The violent crime and violence statistics, which have substantially increased in recent years, could be the cause. It is preferable for the government to regulate these types of activity by implementing the tightest laws and the most severe penalties. Since then, people will consider their actions carefully before committing some crimes. Consider a survey conducted by the American Guardian Newspaper as an illustration. It said several underdeveloped nations often attempt life-threatening bomb assaults. As their CEOs fail to make any deliberate efforts to stop such a threat. As a result, not just one country but many others worldwide must suffer. However, having laws is essential for a society to function fairly. On the other hand, a government imposing tight legal restrictions on its own inhabitants could lead to many problems. First off, when people are under pressure and being watched by electronic tools like CCTV, their knowledge cannot emerge. And the violation of their privacy also affects them. They are unable to really enjoy life since they are constantly aware of their every move. Additionally, if people are prohibited from engaging in particular activities or are constrained by religious regulations. Their IQ and cognitive levels may decline to a certain degree. A good example is the fact that many nations still forbid women from receiving a basic education at academic institutions due to religious restrictions. Their abilities will never be recognised by the world. Hence, the argument against the need for these regulations. After considering both perspectives, I can sum up that rules are a territory's most essential requirement. However, too much restriction undoubtedly makes it difficult to enjoy life, therefore people should only have a certain amount of freedom.