* 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. * If a builder builds a house for someone, and does not construct it properly, and the house which he built
Such as R v Pittwood (1902) in which Pittwood was a gatekeeper at a railway crossing and left the gate open. When someone crossed the track they were killed, Pitwood was charged for manslaughter because he was contractually obliged to close the gate. You have a duty of care to each of your family members meaning a failure to safeguard a family members welfare could lead to criminal liability. Such as in R v Gibbons and Proctor (1918) where a child was starved to death by her parents. Gibbons made out that Proctor was in charge of the child and didn’t know about her condition but the court convicted him on the grounds that he was the father and lived in the same house and should of noticed the condition she was in and had therefore neglected her.
Even though this may seem strict to some; the victim who endured the limb breaking would have to disagree. That is why there are laws such as those, they are sufficient and crucial. Although some laws are fair, there are plenty in the code that are not. Such as law number 230, “If it is the owner’s son that is killed, the builder’s son shall be put to death.” Which merely means, “If a house falls on the owner’s son the house builder’s son will be put to death.” This is absolutely wrong in everyway. It is not the son’s fault the house has fallen down.
It is excessively unfeeling, making it impossible to dispossess individuals' opportunity to change. According to me; it is additionally excessively unfeeling, making it impossible to make the groups of individuals who got capital punishment trap in misery. In the event that the criminals have opportunities to change, possibly they can get to be educational for the society and make commitments for the society. Without a doubt capital punishment denies criminal's lives and chances, yet capital punishment does make more advantages for the social security and social structure. According to my point of view; capital punishment can offer solace to the victims and their families, and it may make the victims or the victim's families feel better realizing that the criminal will never have the capacity to hurt anybody until the end of time.
To the man, he was doing justice. Some delinquent hit his wife for no reason and so he killed the man. To the judge, that is not “acceptable” behaviour and the fact that some other man hit his wife does not justify his murder. 2. The world’s view of truth and God’s view of truth, to me, are somewhat similar.
Abby is paying Goody Proctor back for kicking her out of the house as role as the family servant and breaking her and John apart. John’s death was merely a mix of wrong decisions and a final consequence that cost him his life. If John hadn’t gotten involved with Abby in the past, she wouldn’t still be in love with his wife and drink a charm to kill her, or accuse her of murder and witchcraft or even accuse him of being the devil. If John hadn’t gotten involved with Abby, she wouldn’t have drank blood or a potion to kill Elizabeth. Even if Abby wasn’t involved with John, she could’ve gone into the forest with the other girls to dance and drink a potion to kill others.
According to Law 218, a mans hands would be cut off if he accidentally killed a man during surgery, even if he didn’t mean to. That would put the surgeon in a lot of pain and that’s just cruel. It’s also cruel in a non physical way because they treated slaves as property. That was very unequal to the slaves. Nobody should be abused and beaten as much as the people back then did.
C).” I think this is unjust because you shouldn’t be drowned for wanting to hang out with another man. Examples of injustice can next be found in the area of property law. Hammurabi states “If a man has broken through a wall to rob a house, they shall pierce him or hang him in the hole he has made (Doc D).” I believe this is unjust, because what if the owners of that house don’t want him hanging and rotting in there wall? That is extremely cruel to do that!!! Examples of injustice finally be found in the area of personal injury law.
In other words, he was saying I would rather die and honorable death and be myself then become a part of Salem’s lies. In the very beginning of the play, I believed that John Proctor was a sinner and a feared man among the townspeople of Salem. I though that John Proctor was cheating on his wife, Elizabeth, and that he was considered by the townspeople an “evil man”. He commited lechery when he “thought softly” about Abigail. However, John Proctor eventually told Abby that he would “cut off his hand before he reached for her again”.
Slaying a man, even someone wicked, is immoral and therefore unjust. Yes, Asmawil killed Tadji because he had a hunch that he will soon die, too, in Tadji’s hands. His choice was of a human nature, it was a matter of self-preservation, better to kill than to be killed. But the moment Asmawil struck a knife in Tadji’s throat was the moment he sealed his fate of death, for he is no longer blameless, and there are consequences, which he did not have time to consider, that he and his family will have to face. Taking a human life is against the Law of Man and the Law of God, despite the fact that Tadji, whom Asmawil considered is crazy, may or may not have had thoughts of killing him.