We also have to debate whether the law is merciful or ruthless Can you help Hehe, we are merciful Th

The upstream of the law is sentient, and the downstream is merciless. If you have a relationship, then go the upstream route.

The upstream means that in the legislative process, the law should be based on culture and human feelings. Good laws, while ensuring fairness and justice, can often fully reflect humanistic care. And now law enforcement and justice often emphasize humanistic care.

This is the basis of your arguments. No matter what the other party says, you must stand firm on your heels and have enough information. This is the first step, the first step is to do a good job, is to oppose them, the best ruthless side I have ever heard of this debate is to see the law as a tool, emphasizing selflessness, emphasizing the ruthlessness and justice of implementation and application, the example of the rule of law country, the example of our country, the whole process revolves around the "tool", no matter what you say in a fanciful way, you don't refute it, you have always stood firm on your own arguments, instrumental theory.

The biggest weakness of the sentient party is the rule of law, and we all know that the rule of law is to establish the supreme authority of the law, and it is a code of conduct that does not allow you to talk about your feelings. The other party throws this point, try not to refute it, as soon as you refute it, you will be pulled downstream by the other party, remember, your argument is always upstream, pull the other party upstream to theorize, that is your position.

In my experience, you also have to consider the question, if the judges are law school teachers or law workers, they should be strong in logic, stand firm, and talk less about those emotional. If the judges are amateurs, you contestants have to be able to speak, open your mouth and talk at length, the kind of mess, and amateur judges like to watch this.

The law ** lives, but there is higher than life.

Legal Analysis: The law is not unforgiving.

The reason is because laws are made by man, and man is sentient.

Specifically, it can be viewed from these aspects:

1.The reason for the enactment of laws is that the management of people by people is often not necessarily effective and does not necessarily show fairness, but the system can theoretically achieve fairness and justice in managing people.

2.Judges have a certain amount of discretion, and they will adjudicate some very humane cases according to the provisions and principles of the law.

3.For example, the Marriage Law stipulates that judges should take care of the elderly, women and children according to the specific circumstances when handling cases, and the Criminal Law stipulates that the death penalty is not applicable to persons under the age of 18 and pregnant women.

Legal basis: Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China Article 49: The death penalty shall not be applied to persons who were under the age of 18 at the time of the crime and to women who were pregnant at the time of trial. The death penalty shall not apply to a person who has attained the age of 70 and 5 years of age at the time of trial, except where death is caused by particularly cruel means.

In my opinion, the phrase "the law is nothing more than human feelings" is just an illusion, the law is the law, the law restricts the power of the people, protects the freedom, wealth and rights of citizens, and is the rule that regulates the society, maintains the operation and stability of the society, and adjusts the behavior between people and the country and between people.

Note that the law should regulate people's behavior, not ideas and ideas. For example, if a person kills another person, he is punished by criminal law, either because he was born a murderer or because his morality is flawed, or because he has morals and values that are contrary to the general morality of society, but because his actions are prohibited by criminal law.

Why, then, is the law considered to have a human element? It is because the law is made by people and implemented by people, and people are not machines, and when formulating laws, the morality, values, and even interests and desires held by the formulators will affect the formulation of laws, and when applying the law, the morality, values, and interests of the people who apply them will also affect the application of the law. Therefore, when formulating laws, there must be a system of constitutional review to ensure that there is no conflict between the law and the Constitution, and when applying the law, due process of law must be observed, and procedural justice must be strictly observed, so as to avoid the morality and values of legislators and judicialists affecting the stability and authority of the law when legislating and administering justice.

In addition, an individual's moral outlook and values will affect his understanding of the law, if a person's values believe that the law is to uphold justice, then in his opinion, the law is just, if a person believes that the law is only the will of the ruling class and protects the interests of the ruling class, then what the law upholds is those things, which is a person's value judgment, and this value judgment is often subjective.

One more thing, a few days before the signing file in Zhihu, it was changed to "Worship Gumeimen all my life", anyone who has watched "The Winner is Justice" should know Gumeimen lawyer, and the interesting thing is that this drama seems to me to be able to answer the subject's question. In my opinion, lawyer Gu Meimen is a typical realist, he clearly knows his identity, morality, and values, and is also very aware of the role and defects of the law, and even knows human nature very well, so he has all kinds of poisonous tongues and obscenities in and out of court, but he has always insisted on being a lawyer, just protecting the rights and interests of the parties, insisting on due process of law, and insisting on procedural justice (especially the witch murder incident that implemented the whole drama in the second season), but Lawyer Dai is an idealist, Insist that the law is for justice, and lawyers are also for justice, no matter what kind of case, truth and justice always come first, there is no right or wrong between these two concepts, the key is what you think.

Answer: The starting point of the formulation of the law is sentient beings, the bottom line of morality, and the restraint of acts and events that restrict the freedom of others for the sake of relative freedom; However, "law enforcement must be strict, and violations must be prosecuted" reflects the ruthlessness of enforcement. So it can be understood like this: sentient law, ruthless enforcement.

The starting point of the formulation of laws is sentient beings, the bottom line of morality, and the restraint of behaviors and events that restrict the freedom of others for the sake of relative freedom; However, "law enforcement must be strict, and violations must be prosecuted" reflects the ruthlessness of enforcement. So it can be understood like this: sentient law, ruthless enforcement.

Ask what the definition of law is.

Answer: A system of norms enacted or approved by the state and enforced by the coercive power of the state, reflecting the will of the ruling class determined by specific material conditions of life. The law is the embodiment of the will of the ruling class and the ruling instrument of the state.

Laws are the general term for basic laws and ordinary laws that are enacted, amended, and promulgated in accordance with legal procedures by the legislature exercising the legislative power of the state, and are guaranteed to be implemented by the coercive power of the state.

The law is the most humane, and the human feelings here are all great love in the world. Supervise people not to go against social morality.

To say that the law is ruthless is the result of an extreme understanding of legal objectivism, but this objectivism is moving towards mechanism. To think that law is a word, a carrier, is to understand law as just a piece of paper or a book. As we all know, laws need to be enforced, they need to be enforced.

What we enforce and enforce is actually the rules, and even the spirit of the rules, which is embodied in the legal text. The legal text is different from the law, the former is the carrier, and the latter is the burden; The former is dead and the latter alive; The former is materialized, the latter spiritual; The former is ruthless, the latter is affectionate.

Indeed, in academia and practice, the law was once regarded as a ruthless thing, and even the ideal law enforcement officer was portrayed as ruthless. In Chinese history, Bao Zheng, who is regarded as the "blue sky", appears in the image of a black face, regardless of what kind of chicken-and-egg-and-egg relationship exists between Bao Zheng's appearance and the social significance of blackface. But throughout the history of jurisprudence, the theory of legal ruthlessness is only a small episode.

People regard law more often as a spirit, an idea, and a public will. The highest consciousness of a legal person is to act impartially and selflessly. But there is a world of difference between selflessness and ruthlessness, the former is positive and the latter is derogatory; The former is the idea of the incumbent, and the latter is the indifference of the villain; The former is the most lovely, and the latter is the abyss of righteousness; The former is human nature, and the latter is animal nature.

From the origin of law, law has undergone an evolution from custom to customary law to statutory law, and in this process, we see that law is not just written and has been without words for a longer time. Even if the law is expressed in the form of a text, this form of law is also an expression of thoughts and feelings. From the perspective of legal history, in China, the punishment begins with soldiers, and the law is determined to restrain the behavior of soldiers in war, and it expresses the ambition of the legislator to defend the country or fight for hegemony, and the soldiers must fight for this purpose, which requires them to obey the command and strictly discipline themselves.

Legislation must always be based on a certain guiding ideology, which must be reflected in the written law, otherwise it will not be adopted and observed.

Criticizing the "ruthlessness of the law" can be carried out from many angles, and what the other side wants to confuse is the law and the legal text, that is, the law and the form of the law. Just seize this and attack, respond randomly, and you will win.

The law is the primary means and tool for the state to govern society, and there is no such thing as merciless or ruthless;

It's just that it is the people who are enforcing the law, so there is the above argument, but it is a false proposition in itself.

It's not worth talking about at all;

The law is sentient, of course, it is also fair, it is different who will manage the law and implement the law, during this period, the law may be ruthless and unfair.

Ruthless and affectionate, it's fair to fight grievances!

How to make porridge and add to the nu.

Xi Zhuo donated liquid and lied to the deer.

The sister is like a key trench.

The original Rin cage is for smashing steel burning.

In my opinion, this sentence is nothing more than a fantasy, the law is the law, the law restricts the power of the law, protects the freedom, wealth and rights of citizens, and is the rule of regulating society, maintaining the operation and stability of a society lacking dates, and adjusting the behavior between people and the country and between people.

Note that the law should regulate people's behavior, not ideas and ideas. For example, if a person kills another person, he is punished by criminal law, either because he was born a murderer or because his morality is flawed, or because he has morals and values that are contrary to the general morality of society, but because his actions are prohibited by criminal law.

Why, then, is the law considered to have a human element? It is because the law is made by people and implemented by people, people are not machines, and when formulating laws, the morality, values, and even interests and desires held by the formulators will affect the formulation of the law, and when the law is applied, the morality, values, and interests of the people who apply it will also affect the application of the law. Therefore, when formulating laws, there must be a system of constitutional review to ensure that there is no conflict between the law and the Constitution, and when applying the law, due process of law must be observed, and procedural justice must be strictly observed, so as to avoid the morality and values of legislators and judicialists affecting the stability and authority of the law when legislating and administering justice.

In addition, an individual's moral outlook and hungry values will affect his understanding of the law, if a person's values believe that the law is to uphold justice, then in his opinion, the law is just, if a person thinks that the law is only the will of the ruling class and protects the interests of the ruling class, then what the law upholds is those things, which is a person's value judgment, and this value judgment is often subjective.

Dharma is faith. A qualified legal person should revere the law. It is not permissible to violate the law or even spit on it for any reason.

There are only "feelings within the law", not "feelings outside the law". Love is in the law. The laws of our country are inherently affectionate, and many places shine with the brilliance of humanism.

It's just that many people can't find it if they don't learn the arts. The law is nothing more than human affection. The law is the epitome of human feelings.

Love and law are not contradictory. The correct interpretation of "the law does not tolerate mercy" is that the provisions of the law have long included the warmth and warmth of human feelings and the rules of social operation, and there is no need to talk about human feelings outside the law.