Some people believe that laws should be flexible enough to take account of various factors into account.

We say: "to take [something] into account".

Ex:
-When I broke up with him, I didn't take his feelings into account.
-She's so rich that she bought a new computer without taking its price into account.

To begin with, the circumstances described in laws are very limited, while the real world hacontains infinite possibilities.

For instance, killing a person is a felony defined by the laws in most regions, buyet most people deem that killing a person who is going to harm you badlyas an act of self-defense is reasonable.

I changed a few words to make the tone more "academic".

However, how serious must a situation is when it canbe to be defined as a '"reasonable time for killing'"?

If someone just gavepunched you several punchtimes, but caused no fatal damages, can you actually kill that person for this?

We don't say "give punches". Instead we just say "punch/punched".👍

To give the answer to this is not easy. // The answer to this is not an easy, it is one of nuance.

Hence, we must consider the actualrealistic situations seriously when usenforcing the laws.

Using the laws ---> Enforcing the law
(In English, when we talk about multiple laws as a whole, we say "the law".

Second of all, sometimes a court decision can be the catalyzest of enormous consequences.

For instance, a man in China once noticed an elder falling oin athe middle of the street.

We almost always say, "the street".

However, the elder later sued him later, insisting that the man had hurt him owhile they were in the street.

It sounds more academic to put "later" right before the verb.

Ex. The author died, however the book was later published by his son.

This has raised wide discussions among across China. // This resulted in wide discussion across China.

It sounds odd, but "wide discussion" (not plural) is a set-phrase in English.

Many young people avowed that they will never help an elder who fealls in a public space.

-avowed: to publicly acknowledge
-vowed: to make an oath or promise

Therefore, we cannot only focus on the laws and cases themselvesalone when making judgments.

It sounds much more "academic" this way.

Some people may argue that if a judge can go against lawsthe law at anytime, laws will be meaningless.

I agree with ithis sentiment insofar asthat the judge can make flexible decisions that don't violate clearly -defined clauses in laws.

However, it's impossible to writtake every single circumstance when designinto account when creating a law.

If a law has room for different understandings, we have tomust make judgments based on real-world situations specifically.

In conclusion, laws should be takenenforced flexibly to take account of various factors into account, since laws alone cannot consist ofencompass all possible situationcircumstances, and the potential circumstances raiprecedents sedt by a judgment matter as wellcourt rulings are equally as significant.

Since this is your concluding thesis statement, I wanted to make it sound as clear & concise as possible.

"In conclusion, laws should be enforced flexibly to take various factors into account, since laws alone cannot encompass all possible circumstances, and the potential precedents set by court rulings are equally as significant."