...But legislation cannot reform human nature.

Hi! You’ve made a heck ton of improvements and I really like how your view is clear right from the beginning, so all critiques aside I still really love your essay and how you establish your points.
(P1) I would advise adjoining these two sentences to the following paragraph, since it’s mainly a definition and introducing the topic and P1 and P2 both discuss law and legislation.
(P2) I really love the inclusion of the two examples of laws, though I think you still might want to add some explanation as to why they’re necessary and how that relates to laws changing to protect fundamental rights. Definitely explain the connection between laws and rights. You define laws, and you define fundamental rights, but it lacks a connection.
(P3) “traffic police to regulate traffic to ensure road safety,” Maybe exchange the second “to” with “and” to avoid repetition.
(P4) I’d advise merging this one with P3 similar to P1 and P2 since P3 introduces the idea of crime and subsequent enforcement but P4 is really where you expand that.
“admits the crime and feels guilty for it. But we cannot…” A comma is needed between “it” and the contraction, “but”.
“but don’t remorse on it” is improper usage. Maybe “but do not show remorse for it.”? (Also don’t forget that contractions are considered informal and so should be avoided in an essay. )
(P5) This needs a smoother transition between P4 describing remorseless criminals and P5 giving an explanation. The transition right now reads like there’s no paragraph break at all.
I like how you gave more explanation for why people might cover for someone else’s crime, but I’m still confused as to why. Does this relate to hatred-driven crimes, or is it because they care about their boss?
(P6) (Once again) I’d advise merging this with the previous paragraph, since one sentence definitely can’t stand on its own and it concludes P5 pretty well.
(P7) I think “regulator of fans” could be simplified to “fan regulator”.
You definitely cleared up the fan metaphor and it’s way easier to understand.
(P8) “are the part of…” “the” can be removed and the first sentence could be combined with the second to continue the description of human emotion more easily.
“can haunt a person so much, that their wits” The comma is unnecessary.
It’s not that a garden is a bad metaphor but I still think it needs cleaning up, so I’ll try to be specific.
How do the dreams relate to the essay, and could “dreams” be replaced with a more applicable word, such as emotions or desires?
“a weedy garden of dreams to kill the humans…” This sentence makes it sound like the garden is a physical weapon rather than a metaphor for emotions/intentions. The word “humans” is rather vague, sounding like the criminal wants to kill all humans instead of a specific person or group of people who have triggered the negative emotions.
The use of the word “dream” referring to the garden of dreams connects with “the dream of becoming the most powerful man in the world…” but this example seems extreme. Maybe simplified to a drive for power rather than total world domination would make this example more able to apply to other cases, rather than just to dictators and tyrants.
The last sentence sounds like a bland restating of your thesis, that laws cannot change people, only control their actions.
Speaking of which, your introductory paragraph lacks a thesis or a question that leads up to it. A thesis statement is necessary because it helps the reader know what to expect and what details of your essay are important to your argument.
(P9) Ah conclusions, what a pain. Conclusion advice that I find helpful is to restate the ideas in your previous body paragraphs. The thesis statement is one of the last things you want to say, wrapping up your entire essay, but to do that you want to revisit your arguments and sum up the essay quickly. Mention Rights vs laws, how emotion leads people to ignore laws, and finally how the drive of those emotions can be stronger than the fear of the law.

I really like your writing style and I think you’ve got a great essay going! I really hope all this criticism doesn’t dampen your enthusiasm for your topic, since I promise it’s all meant constructively.
It’s much clearer where you want the essay to go, and your arguments are definitely clear and vocal. Just be sure to watch out for sections where you get lost in the details and lose sight of how it relates to the overall point of that specific paragraph.
Keep up the great writing!

Hello, Eros! I'm here with a review!

First off, let's talk about the title of your article. "Legislation cannot reform human nature" Well, a question can emerge concerning the application of the word "Legislation" here. Why? Well...Laws are rules and guidelines set to govern behavior which are normally made by government officials who are elected by the public to represent their views. "Legislation" on the other hand, is considered as a source of law also, statutory law which come from a legislature or the governing body of a country. It's kind of like the process of making laws. So, you might want to change the word there and use "Law" instead. :3

Next about the fundamental rights bit. Well, are fundamental rights always fixed? I don't really know. Of course, it differs from country to country, as for India, there are six recognized fundamental rights, one of which includes the freedom of religion but in countries like China/Saudi Arabia, I'm not sure if that's one of the basic rights people get to exercise. Also, fundamental rights can be changed (Following a lengthy, complicated procedure) I believe. Although as I said, I'm not sure. I'll certainly have to research it a bit and I'll let you know.

Now, let's get to the main point. You argued on the basis of a murder. But before that, let me talk about other laws we are abiding by every day that, it doesn't really seem like a law now. Like, traffic rules. There are fines and you may even be forced to go to the court if you violate the traffic rule unwillingly/accidentally. (I'm just referring to Episode 5, Suits, Season 1) :3. Then, seat belts. It's a legally restricted behavior in many countries and also is carefully followed. Now the question is, why is it so uniformly followed? (Not referring to certain violation of it, of course, when there are laws, it's bound to be broken) Because people agree with the law. They agree that, without buckling your seat belt, the chances of you getting hurt if an accident should happen is higher and they understand the necessity of it. So, they wear seat belts and ask their children to do the same.
So in a sense, this brings out the sense of responsibility in a person and this is also applicable in many other situations. So, this particular law has changed the way a person acts.

Now, about more severe situations as in, murder. You're right. We are indeed in a complex society where new forms of crime are arising every year. Why do people commit a crime - is a question Sociologists and Criminologists have been asking for ages. Every person has their unique motives, you see? So laws really can't abolish murder from the society. But, it can control certain forms of murders. Such as political murders or, increase the security level so that there are fewer chances of people getting struck with knives in the middle of the night. Also, many people would think twice before actually murdering someone because they might be put into jail for it (Trust me, no one wants to serve 15 years in jail and be socially labelled - bless/blame our prison system) so, in a way, here law is acting as a tool of social control.
Now earlier, I mentioned motives. See, a woman can cause death/grievous bodily harm to someone who supposedly tried to assault her, in the practice of self-defense. So, in a sense that's a murder but, it falls under the General Exceptions. And, you mentioned criminals not having any regrets after committing a crime and you emphasized more on emotional aspects such as hatred, anger, jealousy. Well, a humans are vastly influenced by their environment. For which, social control/social learning/differential association theory are given much emphasis too. Peer influence, family, collective beliefs control human actions. It's not really up to legal restrictions all the time. One won't just restrain from committing a crime which he believes would buy him a ticket to divine pleasure.

So, it depends, really. The more complex the nature of a crime is, the more complicated the application of the law becomes. But, one can't just dismiss the importance of the law by saying it doesn't have any control over how a person behaves. It can reform our nature but for the law to act up to its potential, communities, and individuals all would have to work together because they aren't really in a position against each other.

Hope this helped~

First off, I want to say that this was pretty interesting to read and I like a lot of the points you made. Most of my critique is word usage and sentence clarity, but the main points of your essay are really good.
I’d advise beginning with “The law…” rather than simply “Law” for clarity.
Not really a critique, but are fundamental rights laid down by governments, or are they recognized? Some governments disagree on basic human rights.
Also, you say rights are laid down by governments and are immutable, but laws can be changed “per the requirements” (P2). I’d advise some distinction between the rights and laws laid down by the government and explanation as to why laws are changed. “per the requirements” is vague.
(P3) “the more is the need”. The extra “the” before “more” seems unnecessary. “traffic police” rather than “polices”. “murders and threats” rather than “threatens”.
(P4) The first two sentences both begin with hypotheticals: “Take a case…” and “Say a dead body…”. Once you’ve established the hypothetical scenario in the first sentence, it’s unnecessary to restate it in the second.
A period is needed in “neighbors, CID investigates” rather than a comma.
I also question the use of the word wasted. Expended might be a better choice.
“the criminal accepts the crime”. Accepts could be replaced with “admits to”.
Unless the final sentence in P4 is a direct quotation, I’d advise rephrasing it. It reads confusingly.
(P5) These two sentences are confusing. Are you referring to criminals who feel no remorse, or to those who claim guilt to protect someone else?
(P7) The metaphor of a fan regulator is difficult to follow.
(P8) The third sentence with the garden metaphor is confusingly worded.
“This is a tendency of humans. This cannot be changed by legislation.” These two sentences could be combined into one.

All minor critique aside, I really like the message of your essay. The last three paragraphs are where you really start to take off with the idea behind the whole thing, but it’s hard to know where you’re going at the start. A longer conclusion tends to be difficult to do, so I won’t harp on that, but I’d definitely watch the metaphors, since they can be hard to follow.
Once again, I really like your opinion and I definitely agree with your conclusion, but be sure that your initial paragraphs lead up to and support that conclusion.

Keep up the great writing!