* -The Code of Hammurabi was one of several sets of laws in the Ancient Near East. Some laws: * If a Seignior (Lord or Master) accused another Seignior, putting a ban upon him, but he cannot prove it, his accuser shall be put to death. * If anyone brings an accusation against a man, and the accused goes to the river and leaps into the river, if he sinks in the river his accuser shall take possession of his house. But if the river proves that the accused is not guilty, and he escapes unhurt, then he who had brought the accusation shall be put to death, while he who leaped into the river shall take possession of the house that had belonged to his accuser. * If anyone brings an accusation of any crime before the elders, and does not prove what he has charged, he shall, if a capital offense is charged, be put to death.
Hammurabi’s Code of Law • “If anyone ensnare another, putting a ban upon him, but if he cannot prove it, then he that ensnared him shall be put to death” • “If anyone steals the property of a temple or of the court, he shall be put to death, and also the one who receives the stolen thing from him shall be put to death.” • “ If a judge tries a case, reaches a decision, and presents his judgment in writing; if later error shall appear in his decision, and it be through his own fault, then he shall pay twelve times the fine set by him in the case, and he shall be publicly removed from the judge's bench, and never again shall he sit there to render judgment” The first Hammurabi’s code I chose was “If anyone ensnare another, Putting a ban upon him, but if he cannot prove it, then he that ensnared him shall be put to death”. The first code in my own interpretation means that if someone accuses another person but cannot prove the person committed a crime then the accuser will be put to death. I feel this law is not good. Just because a person cannot prove guilt is not a good enough reason to sentence someone to death. If someone can’t prove guilt it does not necessarily mean a person didn’t commit a crime.
It sounds confusing but when people see a man with a gun, no matter what side of the law he is on, they will get intimidated and possibly fear him. Taking away this gun will give that man less power, but he will also gain the people’s respect. For a society with police and people to coexist peacefully without conflict, weapons should not be involved. This way, less crime will occur and police will be respected more. A real life example of this perfect world is England today.
On the case of O’Sullivan vs. Mr. Crow I hear by find the defendant guilty of taking property and for murder. He has taken the life of an innocent man who had a family. He has put the blame on god. We all know that people have the freedom of speech and religion according to the 1st amendment of the Bill of Rights, but he has seriously taken that to the extreme. Mr.O’Sullivan doesn’t have the right to take Mr. Crow’s home and rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness from the Declaration of Independence.
Security vs. Privacy We know that people want security in their in life but prefer their privacy, so when it comes down to it which is more important? We read how Bruce Schneier wanted the people to have privacy and how he knows that people don’t do anything but with constant surveillance the government will accuse you of something. As on the other hand we have Chris Cillizza who believes that privacy is important but it won’t keep you safe from foreign attacks. Also Cillizza shows that any type of information that the government finds suspicious will put people at risk. Honestly in this type of argument it comes down to the better facts rather than opinions and that’s why Cillizza makes the better argument.
One way that D.O.R.A impacted the lives of civilians was by restricting their social freedom. Laws such as being ‘unable to speak of naval or military matters in public’ or being ‘unable to own or use equipment relating to phones or telegraphs without a government permit’ were passed. This would have made it increasingly difficult to talk with family members or friends about what was obviously concerning them. “Allowed the police to stop and question suspects, who could be imprisoned on refusal to answer, and arrest without a warrant.”[1] The source tells us that D.O.R.A allowed the police to arrest suspects without any evidence of a crime that they may have committed, and even without a warrant. This shows us that civilians had to be extremely careful even when they had not broken the law, which would restrict what they could do in public.
William Thomas Oliver 11 September 2011 History 101 Mr. Alexander The early Ancient Mesopotamian civilizations wrote laws that have evolved somewhat into what we use today in our modern laws. What I observed in this topic is that in Ancient Middle East laws were written by kings, not by a group of people known as a governing body. The legal code of Hammurabi from Ancient Middle Eastern time were the most famous laws made after the Hebrew Torah. These laws are interesting to most readers because it tells us how the attitudes of ancient Babylonians. There attitudes were a little barbaric in a sense of the punishments, death, breaking of bones, gouging out of the eyes tied up and cast into the water, I guess its what we call now a days, “ an eye for eye, tooth for a tooth”.
Personally I believe that no one should be sentenced to life in prison, it is a waste of taxpayers’ money. If they commit a crime give them a certain amount of years for that particular crime or if the crime is so horrendous the person should be sentenced to death. I know that some people are for and against the dealth penalty, but
However, the citizens wanted to make their own rules to follow, sensible and understandable rules. Further on Paine explains “the sun will never shine on a cause of greater worth?” I think that Paine is saying that it is such an issue that we should look to reform it in any way so that it is more fair to all citizens. The struggle of having a King or a Monarchy for the people at that time was difficult. The community wanted a more fair and equal government, while the king was not giving that to them. Let’s take for instance when Paine refers to the past writings of another author, Mr. Pelham “they will last my time.” The name of ancestors will be remembered for their great deeds by future generations with destinies of their own.
Thieves had their fingers or hands cut off. Adulterers had an A branded on their foreheads so that they would be discouraged from committing any further adultery. In some instances, banishing was used. The accused would be banished into the wild, left alone to try to survive. Banishing offenders ensured that the crime could not be repeated and often resulted in death because the person could not survive on his or her own.