Twelve Tables

One of our readings this week was about the Twelve Tables, which was written by the Romans when they wrote their laws on big bronze tables about rights and human rights.  A lot of the rights written were still kind of modern because some of them lasted over 2000 years.  Like woman do not have human rights that changed around 1850 ish.  These tables of laws were a lot different then the laws of Hammurabi's Code, that code of law was a lot more strict and said "shall be put on death" these laws written by the Romans were not a strict they were like a middle ground it was more of a balance.  Like one of the laws were about if owing people money if did not pay had to go to court if then still cant pay go to jail and then increasing got worse unlike Hammurabi’s Code it was if cant pay then that person just gets put on death without a second chance.   I also noticed that the tone of the Twelve Tables were softer and would not really scare people.  There were some laws I did not care for in the Twelve Tables like the woman have no rights and that the father has to right by the law to own his children and can do whatever he wants to do to them.  Like beating them, making them work and also killing them it is legal for the father to do that.  And I just do not think that is right.  This reminds me of abuse but now its illegal. 

Why do the Twelve Tables signify a concept of "rights?" What makes this an important historical moment?

This was a major jump-start to the history of laws; people knew what their punishment would be.  Also the tables showed the citizens the life of property and what their property was including woman.  Unlike Hammurabi's code its more a nicer tone.  This is an important historical document because it had included human rights towards the people.  Unlike Hammurabi's code it was filled with punishments towards the people.  

Socrates

In class a few days ago we were put into groups and side A had he would leave and side B had he should stay we had to think of an account for respect for the law, human rights, respect for justice and fairness.   He was put in jail for just speaking of what his views were on justice and asking what does justice mean to them.  He had many young followers and when he was in jail one came and told him to escape he said no because he would be breaking the rule. I believe that justice must be flexible enough to allow its self to be adapted to changing within the flaws.   I also truly believe that the government put him in jail was because they felt threatened by him.  He wasn't killing any one, the government had bigger fish to fry but they felt threatened and needed to put him in jail.  
He should leave because:

• He should have the right of speaking. 
• He didn't think he did anything wrong he thought he was just educating people
• human rights: its his point of view he should be able to leave 
• Law: he doesn't have the right he was put in jail and he should not break it

After we just put into new groups with some one that had he should stay and compared and talked about the two.  In the group we came to include that we think that they had no real reason to put him in jail except that he was more educated then everyone else around him.  The government felt very threatened by him.  He as no right to be in jail and there was so many more people out in that community that deserved to be put in jail and put on death roe.  Socrates was just educating people he was not causing trouble by any mean.  He has no reason in the first place to be put to death we think he had all the rights to leave.  What the government is doing should be illegal they shouldn't be putting an educated innocent man to die.  

Mosaic Laws and Hammurabi's Code

1) How does the Mosaic Law compare to Hammurabi's Code? Cite some specific examples of similarities between the two. What are some possible explanations for any similarities between the documents?

I noticed both in Hammurabi's Code and Mosaic Law that they both agree on some one acts of doing wrong.  But I also noticed that Hammurabi's Code is more of a punishment and is more extreme and Mosaic Law is more fair more in the middle.  I also noticed that in both Hammurabi Code and Mosaic both of the number 8 is about stealing the only difference is that one is more extreme than the other.  

2)The laws of Manu codified many pre-existing traditions in Ancient India. In your opinion, why is it important for the law to act as a "codifier" of tradition?

I think that it is important and is needed to have a "codifier" in order to have a good lead community.  And that this goes into other important areas in the community like traditions and beliefs that makes it more clear in which their morals should be based upon.  But it doesn't really help every one in that community it only really favors the ones in power.  Like in the Law of Manu there is a caste system.  The system only benfited a few people when the other are left as not as powerful or even worse as un-touchable. 

3)What makes the relationship between religion and law significant in the ancient world? What do you believe is the relationship between religion and law today?

Many years ago people lives and society was driven by religion.  They did not have anything else, it drove there communities into secuss.  And that religions mixed but with law, I believe in this society right now is the authentic way of living its the right balance between the too.  Law being more legal way of living but thatsimportant because humans need rules in order to strive.  And most people need religion that a moral thing to do of living.  Church and state were not really clearly stated in ancient civilizations of religious and political powers.  

The difference of the Laws

The difference of the laws, are that the change of cultural diffusion has changed the ways of how every one in society has been shaped or as shaped others.  Hammurabi's Code has changed the way that people live there life.   Who knows where we would be today if Hammurabi's Code did not exist in written.  If not written over many years and through cultural diffusion the thoughts and rules wouldn't be saved and would disappear.  Why was it written on a big stone, did that want it to appear strict, or just the center of what people can do or cant do.  What would have happened if there wasn't a government to rule over people.  For example now for the USA, president Obama rules over us and makes the rules that congress makes and tries to pass.  Then why do people call it the power of the nation?  We don't set the rules we have to follow them so we don't end up in jail, or on death sentence.  Another example is in school we don't like to do our homework but we just have to do it and get it done.  Rules are extremely important even if you don't like them, what would society be without them?    I believe that it would be insane and crazy.  For example if you give a 10 year old to much freedom its crazy same thing if you have as much a freedom as you want with no rules the community and society people live in would not be productive over time.  

Hammurabi's Code and Human Rights

Why was Hammurabi's code written and what is the importance of it?

It was remarkable because it was the oldest set of laws that are known to be in exists and the record of this stone it is a progress in human society because it makes people aware.   Hammurabi was an important contribute to the Babylonia empire.  He created his code to protect the citizens of Babylonians society which also included woman and slaves.  It is a carving on a stone which were written by Hammurabi.  All together there are 282 laws on that stone, and describes the rights of people, personal injury and accusations.  This was important because it showed the meaning of laws and the strict laws that people didn't want to break.  

1) If any one ensnare another, putting a ban upon him, but he can not prove it, then he that ensnared him shall be put to death.

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 who leaped into the river shall take possession of the house that had belonged to his accuser.

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.

To day we had a group dissuasion in class about why were these rules written.  A lot of people said it was to make the Babylonians society and community safer. A lot of these rules have taken the extreme and their wasn't alot of middle grounds to the 282 laws on the stone.  In most of the rules we read before the dissuasion, I noticed that most of them ended with "he shall be put to death" like stealing, and a fire and fore slaves.  It was all in the extreme, but one of them in really agreed was with the stealing, if someone takes your money are precise object they should pay you back but i don't agree on the part on being put to death if can not pay.  That to me sounds to extreme.  Now a days if your friend steals money from you or if you get your wallet stolen doesn't mean if they cant pay you back they have to die.  I believe that these rules were written to make people more aware of their actions, now people can go to jail not as extreme. 

Human Rights

I do believe with J Bentham's document, he said that there is no thing as of human rights but at the same time i kind of disagree too.  Now that the society has grown and that peoples options are very different but I believe it depends on treating others to human kind.  Every one is born with human rights but people choose the way that they want to use them.  For that the rights of an individual being.  Human beings now refer to this as a basic human need.  Like in the movie that we watched a few weeks ago called Cry Freedom, it showed me that even after WWII human rights weren't allowed to many people or the way that they wanted to use them.  I thought after WWII wont people just get their act together?  The government could do anything they wanted, but watching that movie it didn't seem that they even had a good real government to protect the people.  But some how everything they did like banning people was legal, but blacks had to wait to get a card to get out of the slyms.  Many of the brave people that tried to speak out often got beaten and killed at the end of the movie was the list of what the government claimed about how those people died.  But now we know almost all of those were lies.  J Bentham makes a good point of why they aren't real but in many causes they are real its difficult to just a agree with one side.  J Bentham said that in the animal setting that humans rights dont exist and that he didnt think they existed either.  But going back to the movie Cry Freedom the South African government that was under a apartheid they were taking away the human rights of blacks in Africa. But also disagreeing with his argument because when human rights are used well to benefit every one it really works with out an disagreement. 

Cry freedom 3

Now that we finished cry freedom it was amazing and that it is a true story. The ending of the movie called Cry Freedom it was really sad, I really liked that you didnt know if they made it to England or if they were pulled down my the government. The saddest part in the movie for me was the list of black people that were banned and were held my the government and how the government lied about the way they died. Like how do people run into a chair and die and then they lied about it, it really shows how corrupt the government was run. I am really looking Forward to this unit in history even how upsetting and distruptimg it is to understand the series of events that take place, but it is important to understand what the government did.  It is unthinkable of what the white government did the the Africans i think the worst part for me was when the flash back happened and the killing of kids and ruins of their sliam type area.  And that the law of Africa was fine with it, also I find it shocking that the blacks were prominent and the whites were not but the government was runned by whites.  So that the whites were minority in South Africa but at the same time runned the land.
I think that the white government was scared and threaten by Steve Biko because he was fighting for what he believed in. and probably thought he was a threat as a political activist from the white government in South Africa.  And that he became "banned'' and not able to experience the rights of what the basics are for humans.  Biko is a victim and does not blacks to became superior but he believes and was fighting till he died that they should be equal.  But because Biko was a leader, he had to take one for the team, and their was many consequences.  I could clearly see the message that the director was trying to show the polictial agenda in South Africa.  I do not believe that the law in this case is right, and I am glad that this apartheid ended.

Cry Freedom 2

Now that we are almost done with Cry Freedom the movie based on a true story.  I first did not like this movie because I had no idea what was going on, but now that I know whats going on its really good because you have know idea what the terrible government was going to do next.  Donald Woods is banned and has to go to point to point to get it a town out side of South Africa and then fly to England to publish is book about the truth about the government and personal stories.  He leaves without his family to another country and then gets there.  He had to pretend to be a priest to get rides from strangers.  And he needs to call his family to tell them he is safe and that they should come if he doesnt call that means he shouldnt come because he doesnt want them to hurt his family.  We didnt get to finish the movie so its really suspenseful because we had to stop it.  I hope that he made it and that he was able to join his family.  When the government sent the "Steve Biko" shirt on it and had to have poison on it, and it made me mad because its one thing to do to Donald but a whole another thing to do it his family.
Watching this was difficult for me because one of my uncles lived in South Africa during the apartheid and had to stay because they couldn't get out.  Now he tells us stories about his experience living in South Africa during it.  And he only had a chance to get out for education in the Unite States but had to leave his family and friends behind.  Because the government was so corrupt he wasnt able to take that much money so he spent all his money and bought a diamond ring and was the only thing he brought to America and proposed it to my aunt.  I found it difficult to watch it because the black people thought all the white people were bad even though the white people wanted change too.  And was able to compare stories of which he tells me when I see him.

Cry Freedom

Cry Freedom is a story about the apartheid in South Africa.  I found it tough to watch this upsetting movie sometimes, like when the shirts came with bad stuff on it addressed to Woods children sent from the government.  Stephen Biko is a African who doesnt believe that the government in Africa isnt good, he was on house arrest  know as "banned" and later in to the movie Stephen Biko dies from being beat to death but the government said he was on a hunger strike.  A newspaper editor tries to flee the South African police to publish his book to tell the truth, about the terrible government and terrible events that the government did to his family and blacks.
But after Stephen Bike dies the plot of the movie is centered around Donald Woods who was the newspaper editor that was one house arrest.  The brace newspaper editor during the movie was trying to get out of South Africa.  Donald Woods before meeting with Biko said "black racist" and changes his views on the government after having a personal meeting with the leader of the movement.  Donald Woods while being banned by the South African police threats to Prision him on the death that he wanted to publish about the story of Stephen Biko was beat to death.
While watching all the terrible thing that happened in South Africa, about the injustices things that the government did to the people.  I found it terrible that the government was killing other people for what they belief in, its like the Holocaust the Nazis killed the Jews for their religion.  I dont think thats ok because they should believe in what they believe in because there is no point to do something you dont believe in.