Should laws be rigid, or should they be flexible depending on the situation?

Laws should be inflexible, punishment however CAN be flexible. Depends on the circumstance of the crime, the perceived repentance for the crime and the age of the criminal. (I am NOT for trying children as adults).

Laws are rather something that are tricky to nail down. Something that I have thought that no lawmaker ever has gotten life. You have to account for every possible circumstance where something could happen and despite it being against the law, it could be justified. Granted with some laws, there are less justifications, but you just never know a lot of the time what could happen. There are some things out there that are just plain strange to say the very least. To the point where I doubt that anyone would have ever thought that could have been a justification to commit such an act such as that, but it does make sense in some twisted way. Then again, with making exceptions, you do run down a slippery slope in many ways. Allowing one possible circumstances but not another, there is just asking for a lot of headaches for the legal system. The legal system can be a tangled web often enough without complicating it in so many ways when you think about it. Granted, rigid laws are just bound to screw someone over somewhere, as while there was a reason, the law was broken and the law did require punishment. However, what degree of flexibility do you go with? Where do you draw that all important line? I doubt that question will be something that would be answered by any lawmaker ever.

Circumstances should always be considered in every situation. no law can pertain to everyone exactly. There has to be some flexibility to make the laws worl for the ones they are made for.

I think that laws themselves should be rigid but be worded separately from the corresponding punishments. Example: you cannot inflict the same fine on an unemployed (poor person) as on a rich person. I mean you can but that would be unequitable. One should think that punishments are indeed dealt with this way while in fact that's not always the case. Often the poor people have to pay even more (comparatively) than the rich ones (e.g. tax laws).

I think the laws should be flexible depending on each situation. I watch a lot of criminal series, specially Law and Order, and we see that the jury always consider the history of the perpetrator to make their decision.

I'm not a law expert. Well, once that's been said, I don't really think that laws should be flexible. I believe that if laws were considered from different point of views, there would turn into something more like a guidance than real rules. Of course there are cases of killing in self-defense, but that's a whole different thing.