Twelve Tables

During Friday’s class we were given a list of human rights named the Twelve Tables.  The Twelve Tables were formed at the foundation of Ancient Roman Law.  They used the laws to enforce peace and justice within their cities.   Most of the laws set in are used to create a image of a perfect moral citizen.  Usually though, the laws would fall in favor of a wealthy male, leaving behind women, children, and ones who live in poverty below.   I thought the Twelve Tables, even though they helped form modern law today, were not very helpful.  A lot of the laws stated have circumstances that can be false.  Also, it displays that the government should know more about your personal life within your family.  

Socrates

Socrates believed that all knowledge is not knowing anything.  Being a philosopher, he traveled around Athens asking multiple questions to the smartest people others could recommend.  Always after about 10 minutes of asking questions, the "smart" person he was sent to would either contradict themselves or loose the answer.  This made the "smart" people angry and usually those smart people had themselves some power.  It ended with Socrates being charged with corruption of youth and being arrested and sentenced to death.  Before he was sent to be executed, one of his followers attempted to get Socrates to escape.  Socrates declined because he stated that he didn't want to be above law and was killed.   In class today, we were grouped off to discuss whether Socrates had better reasons to stay within the prison and let law rule out or to escape.  The answer was to be decided between four topics.  Human Rights, Justice, Fairness, and Respect for the Law.  

Human Rights:  

We decided based on the theme of Human Rights, Socrates should have escaped the prison because putting a human to death as a punishment goes against the basic idea of Human Rights.

Fairness:

Under the topic of fairness, we decided that Socrates would have seen it unfair to be able to escape a punishment that had so many other victims for false conceptions like he experienced.

Justice:

Justice was not completely thought of in this situation because Socrates was accused of something that was a misconception.  Because of this, in the theme of Justice Socrates should have escaped.

Respect for the Law: 

Socrates stated to his follower that he did not want to be above the Law because the Law had provided so many benefits for the society.  He had no interest in corrupting that so staying was the right choice.

Out of the four themes, half fall towards him to should have left while the other half leans towards proving why he should stay.  I think it was a very true and courageous thing to stay and i'm sure after the commitment, the accusers of him thought twice of what they did.  

Pre-Law and Human Rights

This and last week we started our next unit on law and human rights.  We watched Cry Freedom, a movie about the apartheid in south africa and a south african editor attempting to publish a book about a locally famous activist against apartheid, Steve Biko.  This movie was a interesting way to start off the unit because I hadn't ever known about the apartheid and how long it had happened.  After finishing the movie and participating in some in class discussions, questions started coming into my head.  What do human rights mean to me?  How does it effect me, and the people like me?  When I first thought about the effect human rights has, I underestimated it.  Human rights does play a huge role in society today and for future generations.  But in my idea for Human rights and law to work it either can exist and thrive or not exist at all.  Thats a contradicting statement, but I think it is true.  Human rights can be put into play, setting examples for everyone to live a ideal fairness, or it can just not exist and the separation that battles with human rights today wouldn't exist.  I believe the issues with human rights start when its half way in between existing and not existing.  For example, if men all get the right to vote, but women don't, that in half way because not every human has a free right.  Human rights should be rights given to every human no matter who they are.  Why should it be called Human rights if not every human can get them?  If that isn't achieved or possible, then there shouldn't be and Human rights at all and people should be free to do anything they want because then they would be equal.

The Code of Hammurabi

Today in class we had a discussion about The Code of Hammurabi.  The major points we talked about during the discussion were why was it made, was it a effective idea, and how does the code connect to modern day human right laws.  Before the Hammurabi Code, fugitives if caught would be brought to justice and not usually get a fair trial.  Crime rates were higher up because punishments weren't known to the actions being done.  The reason why it was created was to have not only a more organized punishment system, but also to create a fear to the Babylonian civilization in order to seize power and peace.  It was an effective idea because not only did they list punishments, but insurance that if something happened to an innocent moral person, the government/power would provide them with benefits.  So not only did it show people that doing something bad like killing someone, stealing, or lying would get you in serious trouble (usually death) and staying true and moral would get you benefits when in your time of need.  The code that really interested me was #24, where it states, "If a life was lost, the city and governor shall pay one mina of silver to his people."  In modern times the silver mina would equal $110.10 in US dollars.  Its interesting that for every death, the family would get 100 dollars for the loss and it creates a connection between the everyday people and the city and governor.  One of my only main flaws with the code is that it doesn't list any codes if someone within the government or power does wrong, which makes the social class fall in favor for the high class.  I think that this is not like modern human rights laws because Hammurabi's code is too in detail in most of the codes.  Also, modern day rights label every single social class, race, and gender as having the same rights.  I think that overall Hammurabi's code would cause a rebellion especially in modern times 

Apartheid Research

Before starting Cry Freedom, I didn't know too much about the Apartheid system.  I honestly didn't know too much about South Africa besides that it was colonized by the British.  Deciding to prompt myself with some information, I began my research on the Apartheid system.  Apartheid was a racial segregation system constructed by the the South American Government.  It was developed after World War II in 1948, and was abolished in 1994.  All non-white government representers were kicked out, and not long after that all non-white citizens were stripped of their citizens.  Because they no longer were allowed to be citizens in the cities, they were sent to live in tribally based homelands that were self-governed.  Schools, work places, public services, and even benches became segregated and all inferior to those of white people.    Because of this segregation, the country was split up into multiple states based on the Apartheid system that was being enforced.  The acts of the Apartheid system sounds very alike to the Jim Crow laws.  What is stunning to me is to look upon the Jim Crow laws and know it happened a long time ago and that racial injustice is not more but then to realize that something just like it ended  only three years before I was born. I'm truly interested in this topic and discovering more reasons that it could have connected with Jim Crow.