OK, I just made this one up. It might be fun or it might be dumb in any case, this is what you do;
a) Find a law in Hammurabi's law code. (There are 282 laws. Some are listed in your text, you can search your data base which your library card gives you access, first come first served- no law may be used by two different students.)
b) Paraphrase the law in this blog. Be sure to use the number of the law.
and
c) Evaluate the law in this blog. Do you think it is fair? Would it be a good idea for our society?
Now doesn't that sound fun! The assignment is worth 15 points and you have until Labor Day to get this done. Act soon because this will get more difficult!
Sunday, August 21, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
38 comments:
Law 22:
If any one is committing a robbery and is caught, then he shall be put to death.
Paraphrase:
Someone who is caught stealing will die as thier punishment.
Evaluation:
I actually don't like the idea of the death penalty. I just think it is too harsh. A lot of the punishments on Hammurabi's Law code were pretty intense and in no way do I think this is any more fair. Stealing then getting put to death? A person would have to be kinda stupid to steal then... I'm sure they could have had a chiller punishment for the crime.
Today, there is still the death penalty used out there, but I don't think it should be in our society. The punishment for theft tends to be prison time anyways. I suppose using "an eye for an eye" as a rule would be fair, like if a person killed someone, they owe their life but in my opinion I don't like it. Maybe if someone stole from you, you should just steal from them. Actually, that's a bad idea too... What does killing off one person really accomplish? Does it really satisfy the victim? There are still more theives in the world.
I don't like the death penalty, it's kinda lame.
(:
Law 6: If any one steal 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.
Paraphrase: If someone steals property of a court or temple will be punished with death, and the person who receives the stolen land will also suffer the same punishment.
Evaluation:
I do not agree with Hammurabi's law number six. I don't think it fair that if someone steals property for a temple he should be put to death. there could be a different punishment. For example that person could spend time in jail. And i totally do not agree with the second part of the wall because how is a person supposed to know that the land someone has just given you was stolen. I believe that people could of had found other punishments not as horrible as death, because in my opinion no one can have the right to take away the life of another human just because he committed a crime, because everyone makes mistakes in life and i believe he should have another chance to make up his errors.
In other words i disagree with this law!
law 282: If a slave say to his master: "You are not my master," if they convict him his master shall cut off his ear.
Paraphrase:
If a slave tells his master that he is not his master, the master will cut off the slaves' ear.
Evaluation:
For our time period, this law seems harsh. But I think in that time period this law was actually lenient. I'm also surprised that they even took the time to take the slave to court back in that time period (1750 BC). In most of the laws for slaves, the consequence was the death penalty, and in this law they just cut off his ear. I believe that in the war between the states (North versus South) that slave owners were much harsher to their slaves. It's sad to say, but Hammurabi's Law seems easygoing compared to the laws of the 1800's.
Law 209: if a man strikes a free-born woman so that she loses her unborn child, he shall pay ten shekels for her loss.
Paraphrase: if a man hits a free woman and causes her to lose her unborn baby he will have to pay for the death of her baby.
Evaluation: I like the fact that the man will be held responsible for the death of the baby but I don't think that by paying a mother is going to make her feel better for her loss. I think that the man should have a bigger punishment than just giving the mom money. Its like trying to say that anything can be fixed with money even a death. The mother of the baby shouldn't have to be okay with just being paid. I don't think that by giving her money for causing her babies death is going to make her forgive the man or forget that he caused the death if her baby.
I don't agree with this law because I don't think that everyhing can be fixed with money.
Law 3.
If any one bring an accusation of any crime before the elders, and does not prove what he has charged, he shall, if it be a capital offense charged, be put to death.
Paraphrase:If you say someone did a crime, and can't prove it, you have to die.
Evaluation:
I think if someone is put on trial, and is not found guilty because lack of evidence, or proof, that person who accused should not be killed. I think it's a bit intense for such a thing. Even though a lot of the law's talk about killing someone, or paying money, I think law's punishment should be equal to what they did, not "money" or "die". I think a system of records to keep records who did what would be better to ensure everybody get's a fair punishment. That would be a lot for fair, for the crucial punishment's of law code.
Law 19. If he hold the slaves in his house, and they are caught there, he shall be put to death.
Paraphrase: If someone is caught harboring slaves in their house, the person shall be put to death.
Evaluation: For these times, or even any time period, I don't like this law at all. Why would someone be killed for letting a human being be free? Freedom is a universal right. And even if if slavery were somehow to still be legal, the punishment of the "offender" is very severe and unnecessary. Slavery is wrong to begin with, so I especially don't like that someone can be put put to death for helping a slave. The law and consequence for breaking it was very unfair. This law would not be a good idea for our society because times have significantly changed, and there would be a huge public outcry if something like this was even attempted.
2. If any one bring an accusation against a man, and the accused go to the river and leap into the river, if he sink in the river his accuser shall take possession of his house. But if the river prove that the accused is not guilty, and he escape 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.
Paraphrase:
if someone accuses you of something, the man will jump into the river. If he sinks, accuser get all the man's stuff. If he is safe, accuser is put to death and the man will get the accuser's stuff.
Evaluation:
I personally think this is a really dumb law. I don't see how jumping into a river solves anything. It's like what they did to the women in Salem who they thought were witches. If they sunk and died then they weren't really witches, but if they survived they were considered witches and they were killed. Neither one seems very logical. I don't think this would be a good law for this day in age. Relying on a river to give you answers doesn't seem reasonable. If one accuses another, then they better have evidences to back it up and give a fair trial and all that good stuff.
So yeah.
138:
If a man wishes to separate from his wife who has borne him no children, he shall give her the amount of her purchase money and the dowry which she brought from her father's house, and let her go.
Paraphrase:
If a husband wants to leave his wife because she cant have children then he gives her back what she brought to his hows and she goes away.
Evaluation:
I think this law is fair, but yet at the same time it isnt. If the man wants to leave his wife because he wants kids and she cant give them to him, he has the opportunity to find another wife to have kids with. But yet it isnt fair to his wife, because then she will have no where to go and no other man would want to marry her becuase she isnt young and cant have babies. I don't think this would be a good law for our society(considering husbands already do this kind of stuff still), because then there would be a bunch more divorses then there already is. And instead of divorsing they could adopt a child rather then just giving up on eachother.
Law 132:
If the "finger is pointed" at a man's wife about another man, but she is not caught sleeping with the other man, she shall jump into the river for her husband.
Paraphrase:
If a man accuses another mans wife for sleeping with another man, and she is not guilty, she jumps into the river for her husband.
Evaluation:
Okay, I'm not sure if the woman is supposed to die from jumping into the river. However, I think this is totally wrong. If the woman is found not guilty, why should she jump into the river for her husband? If it is just to jump in then thats one thing. But if she has to kill herself because of this, thats just crazy! In this law code, it seems like women are known to cheat...ALOT. But if they are proven innocent why should they be punished? I think it makes no sense. So overall, i think this law is baloney! :P
Law 117.
If any one fail to meet a claim for debt, and sell himself, his wife, his son, and daughter for money or give them away to forced labor: they shall work for three years in the house of the man who bought them, or the proprietor, and in the fourth year they shall be set free.
Paraphrase:
If someone fails to pay all their debt they must sell themselves and their whole family and work for the owner for years or be forced into a hard labor camp.
Evaluation:
This law is very crude. Actually alot of these laws are. It is pretty sad that when one man messes up, his whole family must pay fo it. I disagree with this law because I think only the man should pay and not his whole family. Alot of these laws focus on not only the individual but the individual's entire family. I really dont think consequences should be settled like this. It should just be focused on the criminal and only the criminal. (Also, why would anybody want to disobey when these laws are just horrible?)
Leo Partido
Law #14: If any one steal the minor son of another, he shall be put to death.
Paraphrase: If one steals another man's minor son, then he/she will be put to death...
Evaluation: I like this law, except for the death part. I don't like the way the law uses death as a punishment. I think that this law is still in our society, except for the death penalty. People go to jail these days for doing wrong things. I think that this law should be in our society, because someone should be punished (put to jail) for stealing another's child/children. But instead of death, it should be life in prison...
Law 51:
If he have no money to repay, then he shall pay in corn or sesame in place of the money as rent for what he received from the merchant, according to the royal tariff.
This law is basically saying that if someone has no money to pay the merchant, he must pay him in corn or sesame.
Evaluation:
I think this is a fair law. If someone has no money they need to pay with their crops. The Merchant is not being mean by making them pay, it's just business. If people were to get free stuff, the merchant would be out of business. Therefore the people with no money need to pay the merchant somehow , like with there crops.
Law 129: If a man's wife be caught lying with another, they shall be strangled and cast into the water. If the wife's husband would save his wife, the king can save his servant.
Paraphrase: A wife who is caught cheating will be strangle and her body will be thrown into the water. If her husband tries o save her then his servants will be given to the king.
Evaluate: I don't really agree that this law is very significant, and that it's too harsh. Well, yes, it is wrong that the wife is cheating but I don't think strangling her is the answer. This law definatley wouldn't be a good one to have in today's society because if you followed this law then you would be counted as a murderer. No one should be put to death, they have less harmful answers such as jail.
I don't agree with this because it's mean.
Law 196:
If a free man has destroyed the eye of a member of the aristocracy, they shall destroy his eye.
Paraphrase:
If a free man blinds the eye of an aristocrat, the aristocrat will blind the free man in his eye.
Evaluation:
I think this law is very fair, because then the free man will have to live with the same disabilities and the aristocrat who he disabled. However, I think it is not fair that this law applies if an aristocrat is blinded and not a commoner. That is a different law with lesser punishments. This law set the basis for many laws that we see today in our country. Finally, this law had spawned the saying, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind". So I guess this law hopefully was not taken to that extreme.
To sum it up, I agree with this law.
Law 154:
If a man be guilty of incest with his daughter, he shall be driven from the plae.
Paraphrase:
If a father has sex with his daughter he is banned from the area.
Evaluation:
I think this law is very reasonable. If a father has sex with his daughter he should be banned! Thats discusting, and wrong in so many ways. But at the same time i dont think it will stop the problem, the daughter could easily leave with her dad..So just to clarify. I agree with this law and think it is very reasonable, i just think it could have been more thorough i guess..
Law 11:If the owner do not bring witnesses to identify the lost article, he is an evil-doer, he has traduced, and shall be put to death.
Paraphrase: The owner has to bring someone to identify his lost article or else he will be killed.
Evaluation: In my opinion this law is really cruel and unfair to the person whos item was lost. Just because he lost something doesn't mean he has to be killed for it if the witness doesn't identify it. In our society this law wouldn't work. If somebody had to identify the item that was lost everytime something is lost and was killed for it then our world wouldn't be as populated as it is today.
Law 5: If a judge try a case, reach a decision, and present his judgement in writing; if pater error shall appear in his decision, and it be through his own fault, then he shall pay twelve times the fine ste 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 judgement.
Paraphrase: If a judge has reached a final decision, and later realizes that he has made a mistake anx it was his fault, then he must pay 12 times the amount of money needed to be paid by the accused and will be fired as judge.
Evaluation: The punishment given to the judge because of a mistake is very harsh. We are all human and we all make miatakes. Is that any reason to punish someone? No. The judge should be able to evaluate his reasoning again and undo the fine and pumishment given to the acused. We do not need this law in current times to put a job on the line.
Law 195:
If a son strike his father then his hands shall be hewn off.
Paraphrase:
If a son hits his father then his punishment is to have his hands cut off.
Evaluation:
I think that if a son were to hit his father then he should be punished, but not something as harsh as cutting arms off. Also, this punishment should be determined by the father no the government.
2. If any one bring an accusation against a man, and the accused go to the river and leap into the river, if he sink in the river his accuser shall take possession of his house. But if the river prove that the accused is not guilty, and he escape 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
paraphrase:
you can accuse a person of a crime and that person will be made to go in to the river, it that person lives you will died and they get your stuff, but if they die you get there stuff.
evaluation:
i do not think this law is fair one because any one can claim a person did a crime and they could drown because of it and two if some one did do it and they live you must die for there crimes . so i must say this law is unjust and would not work in modern life.
-Gracie Stephens
I put my assignment thingy on the other one that said "Hammurabi's Law Assignment." :O
127. If any one "point the finger" (slander) at a sister of a god or the wife of any one, and can not prove it, this man shall be taken before the judges and his brow shall be marked. (by cutting the skin, or perhaps hair.)
Paraphrase:
If you slander at a woman, or say a false statement about a woman, in public you will be cutn the skin or hair.
Evaluation:
I dont like the fact of men saying false statements about women so some kind of law would be great to have. I dont think the consequence on breaking this law is right thought. Cutting a man on the skin for telling a lie? Its way out of line in my opinion, they really shouldnt be punished. Now, men do it all the time and there is nothing we can do about it, its not fair but its life.
I think it could be good to have in our society because men have gotten so much crueller to women over the years and most women dont stand up for themselves. If this law was in effect i think it could help so much, and honestly cut down a great number of suicidal deaths. Men would watch what they say and women wouldnt be afraid and get upset/depressed to be themselves.
I agree with this law (:
Law 126:
If any one who has not lost his goods state that they have been lost, and make false claims: if he claim his goods and amount of injury before God, even though he has not lost them, he shall be fully compensated for all his loss claimed.
Paraphrase:
If you lie and say that they're stuff is lost even though it isn't they will get the stuff they say they lost if they swear under god.
Evaluation:
I do not believe this law is fair because it just takes on faith that this person is fearful of the gods and wont lie about something like that. This law would not work in today's society because many do not even believe in god so it would be just meaningless words. Now a days we even have professional liers and if we just took on faith if you swear under god they could control the world.
Law 23:
If the robber is not caught, then shall he who was robbed claim under oath the amount of his loss; then shall the community, and on whose ground and territory and in whose domain it was compensate him for the goods stolen.
Paraphrase: If a robber isn't caught and the person who got robbed reports it, the community and the person in control of that land must pay him back.
Evaluate: I think this law is very fair. If I were robbed, I would love the idea of getting back what I lost. Yet if you think of it, it wouldn't do so good for our society. There is just way too much crime going on nowadays and our economy is just collapsing. Where would we get the money to pay back all of the people who get robbed. Our country would go back to the days of the great depression.
Anyways, just to be absolutely to the point, I like the idea of this law, but it just wouldn't help our poor society.
-Kristine Bragado
Law 248: If any one hire an ox, and break off a horn, or cut off it's tail, or hurt it's muzzle, he shall pay one-fourth of it's value in money.
Paraphrase: If someone buys an ox and breaks off a horn, cuts it's tail, or hurts it's muzzle, they must pay one-fourth of waht the animal is worth.
Evaluation: I think that this is a reasonable law because when you do this to an animal it's very wrong! You can be hurting an animal by doing that and it's inhumane! So making someone pay for the pain they cause an animal makes sense to me, although if they don't have the money to pay then they should have a second option for punishment. I really don't think this law would fit into our society today with the way the economy is. In this day and age nobody has the extra money to pay for things like this. This law could be used for other animals like dogs, for example; docking a dobermine's tail or ears is now illegal so if someone were to do this then thier punishment could be to pay the penalty.
But straight to the point, this is a reasonable law for back then, but it would not work for us with the way the economy is now.
- Allyson Hensley (:
Law 25:
"If fire break out in a house, and some one who comes to put it out cast his eye upon the property of the owner of the house, and take the property of the master of the house, he shall be thrown into that self-same fire."
Paraphrase:
If someone's house gets caught on fire, and some person tries to help put it out, or save someone, etc. , and he takes something from the owner's house, then he would get thrown into the fire of the house that's burning.
Evaluation:
To be honest, I don't think that being thrown into a fire, or getting put to death is fair for stealing. It would be wrong to steal from the person's house, but a death penalty would be way too extreme. I think that if they got put in prison, or had to do work for the person they stole for, etc. then that would be more fair. After all, the person that stole, was trying to help by putting out the fire. I would just think that putting them to death would be wrong, and there could be other ways of punishment for whoever stole.
Im glad I don't live in that time period. If the death penalty was still used for these laws in this time, there would be A LOT of people dying, which is sad. :P
Law 128:
If a man take a woman to wife, but have no intercourse with her, this woman is no wife to him.
Paraphrase:
If a man gets together with a woman and don't have sex, they're not considered to be together.
Evaluation:
Basically, if you don't have sex with your woman your not together with her.. well that's dumb! I think this is an unfair law because maybe his wife doesn't want to have sex for some kind of reason, and because of this, shes not his wife. It's kind of funny, if you don't have sex, your single, but if you have sex, your married? Why couldn't just make them sign a paper or a cuneiform to show their marriage, like now-a-days? I wonder how many husbands did every women at this time have..I don't think this law would work in our society because of all the AIDS and stuff being spread around. I think signing a paper is better and safer! :)
Well, in other words, I disagree with this law!
-Julina Ornelas :)
Law 230:
If a builder, builds a house for someone and does not construct it properly,and the house which he built falls in and it kills the son of the owner, the son of that builder shall be put to death
Paraphrase:
If a builder builds a house and the house falls and kills the owners son, the son of that builder shall be killed as well.
Evaluation:
This law is not fair at all. If a house does fall on someone's son and kills him, i dont see why it is necesary to kill the builders son as well. The builders son had nothing to do with the house falling down, and i see no reason for him to be put to death. I also do not agree with the death penalty so i dont see why anyone has to die. You may argue that this way the builder will now build the house right. That may be true but what if the house falls for a reason which does not concern the builder? Why should they still kill his son? I also do not believe that this would be a good idea for todays society. I thinkk it would cause way to many problems and arguments. In other words, I do not agree with this law!!:D
Law 21:
If any one break a hole into a house(break in to steal), he shall be put to death before that hole and be buried. Paraphrase:
A person who breaks into another's house to steal will be put to death in front of the hole and buried.
Evaluation:
I can understand the anger a person would have if they were stolen from, but i dont think death is the right solution. This situation makes me think of what you would do with a dog who urinated on the carpet. You take him to the spot, ask "Did you do this?" and hit them on the nose with a roled up newspaper. What should have been done was someone would retrieve the stolen item or get the eqivelent of it in something else and then put the thief in some kind of jail cell, the time spent there being decided by the item and quantity stolen. Death is just way too extreem for a crime that isnt so significant. Save the death penalty for murderers of children.
law 192: If a son of a paramour or a prostitute say to his adoptive father or mother: "You are not my father, or my mother," his tongue shall be cut off.
Paraphrase: If an adoptive child tells his adoptive parents that their not his parent, his tongue will have to be cut off.
Evaluation: I know what its like to have arguments with parents, and if i was adopted too and if got mad at my "adopted parents" I would have said "your not my parents" too. But I really do find this not necessary and unfair. I know it must've been more strict back then but if this happened in our society now I am sure like most of the people wouldn't have tongues. Its more cruel to cut off someones tongue just for saying that and there is other ways you could go with this like another punishment that is not that bad. Like simply being banned from the house for a day then having not having understandable speech for the rest of your life.
Imagining this actually happened back then can be pretty scary, I'd hate to be in a world where those laws were put down on everyone.
Law 154.
If a man be guilty of incest with his daughter, he shall be driven from the place (exiled).
Paraphrase:
If a father is found guilty of having sexual intercourse with his daughter, he will be forced to leave his house.
Evaluation: I somewhat do not think that this law is fair. Yes, a father has to be punished for taking advantage of his daughter in a sexual way, but he would not be correctly punished. This law code took other less harmful crimes to the extreme why not take a crime more serious like this one? A crime like this deserves life imprisonment or even something more worse.I believe that this law would not be a good idea for our society. Our society already has a lot of unfair decisions made for crimes and another one like this would make many people become furious for the fact that it is not the correct punishment suitable for this crime of sexually using his daughter. Therefore, I do not agree with this law.
-Cristina Tinoco
Law 154.
If a man be guilty of incest with his daughter, he shall be driven from the place (exiled).
Paraphrase:
If a father is found guilty of having sexual intercourse with his daughter, he will be forced to leave his house.
Evaluation: I somewhat do not think that this law is fair. Yes, a father has to be punished for taking advantage of his daughter in a sexual way, but he would not be correctly punished. This law code took other less harmful crimes to the extreme why not take a crime more serious like this one? A crime like this deserves life imprisonment or even something more worse.I believe that this law would not be a good idea for our society. Our society already has a lot of unfair decisions made for crimes and another one like this would make many people become furious for the fact that it is not the correct punishment suitable for this crime of sexually using his daughter. Therefore, I do not agree with this law.
Law 195
If a son is to hit his father, his hands must be chopped off.
This law really takes respecting one's elders to a knew level. I strongly disagree with this law, regardless of the time period because violence is never the proper response to violence. I think this is a mistake that different generations continue to make (punishing a deed by doing the same in return.) I think that generally striking one's father is something I would frown upon, but if I had judicial power and someone told me of another striking his father, I would like to know the whole story before making any decisions. This could have easily been an action of self defense.
Regardless of the reason for the violence, the harshest punishment I would find acceptable for striking one's father is a few years punishment. Removing one's limbs does not fix anything.
Aurora Dismukes
Law 21:
If any one break a hole into a house , he shall be put to death before that hole and be buried
Paraphrase:
If someone breaks into a house (to steal), they will be executed in front of the crime scene and later burried there.
Evaluation:
This law is and isn't fair at the same time, I do agree that robbery is wrong and the person that has done this should pay a price, yet I don't agree that this person should be killed. Maybe this law was appropriate for the time period, but in modern society this law would be outrageous, to kill one for stealing!! The punishment should be based on how much one steals. Stealing a peice of fruit and stealing a jewlery box full of jewels are two totally different things!! I think if this law was modified it could be used in modern day society.
Post a Comment