This is the process essay that I wrote for class, and hopfully I got an A on it
Make a Law That People Avoid Disobeying It
When something new appears in the society, the lawmakers try to pass a law to organize it. What is important is whether the new rule is necessary or not. Frequently, the suggestion for the new law is made by the parliament members. Occasionally, the suggestion is made by ordinary people. After the notion of the new law arrives to the parliament, parliamentarians try to discuss it and pass it as an official law. During the discussion about the new law in the parliament, lawmakers have to go through many procedures in order to make an appropriate law that fits the society.
First of all, the philosophy and concepts behind laws must be to accomplish and enforce justice instead of fairness by implementing the laws. Justice means try to know the reasons and the details of why someone committed a crime. Also, justice tries to know the motivation of the crime, and then give the sentences that criminals deserve. For example, Ali stole a car, and Shwan also stole a car. If the judge sentenced them both to 5 years in prison, that would be implementing fairness. If a judge concentrates to know the reasons why Ali and Shwan had stolen cars, then the judge give them the sentences that they deserve not base on the equality. For example, if the judge found out that Ali stole a car because his family was starving and found out Shwan stole a car because he just liked the car, probably Ali would be sentenced to 2 years in prison, but Shwan would be sentenced to 5 years in prison.
Meanwhile, the new law must not be in contrast with the Iraqi constitution because the constitution’s principles are considered as the mother of the rules. For example, one of the principles in the constitution says that the rules must not be against the Islamic principles. Therefore, the parliamentarians can’t pass a law that says people must not pray in the mosque because that would be against Islamic principles.
Then, the sentences must fit the crime. Therefore, there must be rational explanations behind the sentences. Sometimes, lawmakers must regard the time when the crimes take place. For example, in Iraqi law the sentence of the stealing at night is more than the sentence of stealing in the day time. Stealing at night or at day time is still stealing, but there are rational reasons behind the different punishments. Stealing at night is much easier for the thief, and it is most spooky and frightening for the family that had been mugged. Also, if you at midnight found out that someone broke in your house, you would not be able to sleep the rest of the night. So it spoiled your rest time, and these sorts of things are considered in Iraqi laws.
After that, the parliamentarians should consult the jurist’s opinion and propose for the new law. They must make the rules flexible in order to be able to change them down the line if they are necessary. The laws must not be sacred as the Quran because if they were holy then no one can change them in the future. That is one of the problems that Iraqi people are facing today. For example, Kurdistan’s laws have allowed polygamy for many years. In the last two years, however, feminists were trying not to allow polygamy in Kurdistan’s laws any more. There was a vigorous debate going on between religious people and feminists about that. The religious lawmakers believed the polygamy must be allowed legally because the Quran mentioned it. The feminists believed that polygamy should disappear in our society because people now are more liberal and they believe in the principle of equality between men and women. I believe the rules must be reformed according to the sociological change in the society and adapt the old laws to the new situation or thoughts. For example, now Kurdish law has stopped hanging criminals because people believe it is against human rights. So lawmakers agree that the law could be amended when it is required by the majority no matter how holy it is.
After going over all the steps above, now the first draft is ready in the parliament. Then the committee of law reads the new law to everyone. During the reading, if anyone has a suggestion to change something in the new law and lawmakers find the suggestion suitable, then lawmakers will make the change. Usually, very small changes happen during the reading. Voting for the new law takes place right after the reading. After the majority vote for the new law, the law will be sent to the president.
After the parliament ratified the new law, the president has the right to veto the new law in 15 days. Usually the president wouldn’t object the law unless the new law creates public unrest or riot. For instance, the last time that Kurdistan’s President rejected the law was the law of journalism because the law provoked the storms of protest and sparked outrages. Therefore, the president rejected the law and sent it back to the parliament to make some changes that the public needed.
After the president signs the new law, the parliament will publish the new law in the national newspaper in order to make people aware about the new law. The national newspaper tells people unequivocally when the new law will work. Ignorance of the law isn’t considered as an excuse in Iraq as result people must read the new law and be aware of it. Otherwise the Iraqi law will not forgive you under the ignorant excuse if you commit a crime.
Now the new law is official, and people who live on the Iraqi soil must obey the Iraqi laws no matter where they are from. There is an exception for some foreigners who have diplomatic immunity. That doesn’t mean they are free to commit crimes. The only thing that Iraqi laws can do is to ask them to leave Iraq as soon as possible if they commit a crime. The rational explanation for that is the relations between countries can get worse or maybe can get to the state of declaring war if they sentence each other’s diplomats. For example, if an Iraqi judge sentenced the Turkish ambassador to 5 years in prison because he raped a girl, which would be utter disgrace to Turkey, and then the relations between Turkey and Iraq, would get worse or maybe Turkey would try to harm Iraqi people covertly by sending terrorists as revenge.
The final step is to execute the law by judiciary. The law that comes from the parliament doesn’t have all details about the crime. The reason why the laws don’t have all the details is to leave some authority to judges to decide. The judges are only people who can implement justices because they will figure out the reasons and the circumstance of the criminal. It seems impossible to talk about all the details about situations in the law in the parliament. For example, the law says if a man killed someone deliberately, he would be sentenced to 20 years in prison. In this case, the judge must not sentence him to 20 years without knowing the reason why he killed him, even if the killing was intentionally. The judges have responsibilities to know the reasons why he killed him, then decide his sentence. In this case, the criminal might get more or less sentences than what the law says, it depends on the situations and the motivations.
To sum up, parliamentarian’s consultations should customize proper laws to the society. Our society needs a law that can be modified because life fluctuates wildly from time to time. The aspiration of every law is to bring happiness to the society, so the law should be deemed to be the salvation of evils by law-abiding citizens in the Iraqi society.