Laws of Manu vs Mosaic Code

The Laws of Manu do not have a very strong connection to religion. They relate more to the social issues that faced them in their time. Also the text is a lot more simple than the Mosaic Code. It only states what needs to be said and does not provide any examples. In the Mosaic Code almost every law has an example. Also the Mosaic code has a law for almost everything. It has a law for what you should do if you see your brothers ox walking around free. It also describes the punishment for the laws and crimes described in the Mosaic code. Usually it's just the capital punishment death. In the laws of Manu the punishment fits the crime more. 

Should Socrates Escape?

Would it be right for Socrates to escape Roman custody for his crime of "corrupting the youth"? Let me remind you, Socrates was basically caught guilty of being cocky and spreading new ideas. He did not harm anyone. Socrates could have easily escaped the prison and no one would have really cared but he didn't. In our reading it was debated wether it would be just or right for him to escape prison. In my opinion it would be both. For example it was not just of Socrates's government to incarcerate him over corrupting the youth but they still did it. It was also not right of them to simply execute him either. In the end it was not just or right of socrates to be prosecuted. He definitely should have attempted to escape.

Roman Rights

In the time of the romans the Twelve Tables signified rights in many ways. They were made by people who were treated unfairly and they needed things to evened out. Basically the needed rights so they made something that today resembles in todays eyes rights. This text symbolizes the concept of rights because it puts all men (At this time women were considered property) under equal protection of the law. Today we consider this a crude form of rights. Of course this is no where near to what we have today. But back then this a huge advancement. Before the Twelve Tables were made Romans were being dominated by a monarchy with no regard to human rights. This is an extremely important historical event because this is one of the first instances of where a people unite and create their own laws, laws that benefit them not the king or his survival. 

Why was trade important for the Babylonians?

Trade was very important to the babylonians. First off, being one of the first civilizations there were very few goods being manufactured. Unlike today where all we have to do is go to a local drug store to get what we need to survive. For babylonians, usually one would have to go far out of their way to get the goods they desired. For example, they usually had to grow their own food or trade something valuable for someone else's food. If they didn't manage to grow their own food or trade something for it they would die. They had to trade to survive. This is why trading was so important. Important enough to be put in their laws. The laws would help people return bad or faulty trades that they made and if you wanted to do this you would have to have evidence to prove it. This last part would be for the benefit of the person who offered the trade.

Societal Values in Hammurabi's Code

In Hammurabi's code there are numerous social values. Two big ones are that trade should be fair and honesty and justice are very important. For the latter an example is that one has to have proof that the person they are accusing actually did the crime. This is mentioned a lot showing that this is very important in Hammurabi's society. This is also very important in the 21st century's society. Our judicial system requires that one must have evidence to prevail or go forth in a trial.
Another big value that was mentioned in Hammurabi's code was that trade should be fair and that you should be able to return the things you buy. For example in the code, it mentions that if you buy a slave and it gets sick, you can return it and get your money back. Slaves were one of the most traded and expensive goods in this society and if you were conned into buying an unhealthy slave then you would lose a lot of money. Hammurabi wanted to stop that so he put it in his document showing that this was a very important value to him.

Are rights real?

In history today we discussed rights. Are they real or are they just man made? After reading the passages in our reading I came to the conclusion that rights are one hundred percent man made. In nature there are no rights. Animals do not get to decide whether it is right for one animal to eat another it is just nature. If humans were wild animals nothing could stop one person from harming another. Since we are smarter, one day when someone was getting killed or harmed they thought that it was unfair and wrong. When other people started to agree with him they realized it was their right to not be harmed by other humans. This soon developed one of the most important aspects about us being human today.

Activists in Prison

Another interesting aspect of the film "Cry Freedom" was the long list of activists who died in prison during Apartheid. The whole list seemed very far fetched and fabricated. I mean even one suicide in prison is very questionable, especially if the prisoner has a history protesting against the government. But there were about several dozen accounts of apparent suicide which is one of the highest suicide rates in prisons for most countries.
Another sketchy detail about this list was the way the prisoners died. Most of the deaths, actually all of them seemed way to suspicious. Almost half the deaths were unexplained and left that way. Others were very far fetched. The one that stuck out to me the most was where the police said that someone died falling on a chair. That is just ridiculous. Others said a prisoner fell down seven flights of stairs or falling down the stairs. I think that the officers involved and their employers should have definitely been held responsible for what happened and that there were not enough repercussions.

Cry Freedom

When the South African police raided the black township in "Cry Freedom" I was slightly confused at first. It seemed unnecessary for the police to invade a harmless township. The police did not enter the area for a specific crime, they just entered and arrested whoever they could get their hands on. This seemed very illegal to me. First of all law enforcement can not just enter where they please. Second of all they can not just hit who ever they please with batons. That is cruel and unusual. The whole operation seemed like it had no purpose.
The whole thing seemed like some sort of war scenario where a major power is attempting to wipe out a minor power. This situation seems fairly similar to the one in Syria. The government is hurting it's own people. Granted in Syria more people are killed but there is still injustice.