Code Number 147 “Married Law and Human Rights”
Hammurabi was the name of a well-known sixth king during the Babylonian Empire, in the 19th century BC, in which believed that he was chosen by the gods to deliver the law to his people. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hammurabi )
Mesopotamia means (between the Tigris river, a region of Iraq at the present time) Indeed, there are 282 laws, number 13 and 66-99 are missing, which inscribed in Old Babylonian on a kind of stone called stela of black basalt. The laws are served for resolving almost every dispute in the society.
Now we are looking back and analyze together to the laws of Code number 147 for thousand years ago, is “If she has not borne him children, then her mistress may sell her for money” It sounds this law is so complex/bias and how far comparing to our logical laws nowadays? But we’re still not sure how it work during that period of time for his citizen! Anyway, I’ve come up with many views related to this Code 147 that I’ve been doing research to global law particularly apply for Cambodia Law. First, according to United Nations Cambodia Office of the Commisionner for Human Rights, 3rd, August, 2001, on objective of Violence Against Women, Art. 16, p. 100, “Men and Women have the equality in married and responsible in the name of parents.” Despite this article does not meantion to “If women can not borne child because of natural health/disability of borning child” but they are become couple and agree to live with together, love together, why just for a child her husband dismiss her, who know she’s a disability of borning child? In addition for second, related to the Married Law on Art. 30, p. 650 in the same reference book, “A couple have the obligation in loving, respect, take care, help to each other in order to build the happiness in family” that mean before they agreed to get married, they had consent, namely, man cannot allow or mistree can not sell his wife in any situation. If the man/mistress do that, they will be charged with Violence on the Truthfulness Law, this third. Forth, to selling his wife for money is the action against Human Right of “Convention Against Torture and Others Cruel, Inhuman of Degrading Treatment of Punishment” and also they will face to the monopogamy law (Man allowed to have only one wife) that Cambodia constitution has just adopt recently.
Inbrife, there are many Codes of Mammurabi that sound bias for one specific situation and I think that was not independent for offering the true justic for their people during that time comparing to our latest laws have been adopt and they truly work for many cases.
Saturday, June 30, 2007
Code Number 147 “Married Law and Human Rights”
Friday, June 29, 2007
Thank you Manera and Ka for getting us started. Menara's analysis is now open for comments and Ka's idea for support of those of you who might be interested. I also encourage everyone to come up with ideas of their own for topics and post them here.
Posted by Stan Starygin at 8:29 PM
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Hi, All these are some of my idea on Hammurabi Code to share with you all. So please comment me if I have any confusing on these code.
Code # 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.
This code mean that if you charge someone of guilty of a fault or charge someone on wrongdoing about criminal case but if you cannot prove to show any evidence that can put burden on defendant . Therefore he will be put o death. The desirable of code # 3 is trying to promote that you must have enough evidence to say someone is a guilty and this code # 3 is also want to give attention to people that don't falsely charge someone of committing with capital crime because there is punishment for saying someone is guilty without prove, and that punishment is to put you to death.
It we talking about human rights, according to Universal Declaration of Human Rights on article 3 said that "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person" and article 5 said that " No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. " so we can see clearly that the punishment on Hammurabi code is very cruel and inhuman, because just saying someone is guilty is not a really big mistake that have take off his the plaintiff's life if what he said was wrong. Sometimes people did see someone is committing but just he doesn't have enough ability to prove it or to fine evidence so that person just file the complain to the court for help to find justice, but in contract, in Hammurabi code give no right to citizen for security. From my point of view I think that this code will make society disorder, because people will be getting fear of telling someone is committing a crime when they don't have evidence even that was real happed. Imagine if someone is an expert of killing or committed any crime he will never left any evidence unless there is a investigation so normal people wont have such ability to investigated unless the authority of the state.
Code # 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.
This code means that if someone has stolen the goods of a temple or the court that person will be killed, and for someone who has received the stolen thing from the thief shall be put to death too. so it was a very serious to mess up with the temples goods or the couth. because of that time the state was ruled by the king and the king use the power of religious to control the country so the king pay very much attention to the temple goods, because in temple there are lots of expensive goods so people wanted to make sure that it was protected by the king, and also people in that time very respectful to their religious. So the king doesn't want people to lose faith in him. that is why the code #5 was created.
If we talking about Human Rights in this again article "3 and 5" on Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It's very cruel to punish people to death by just committed a stealing crime it is too much punishment, instead of killing it should be just put him to jail. Especially, for the receiver goods from the thief it's too much punishment because the buyer will never know if it's the temple goods or court goods if the seller dress very nice with formal outfit so it's a hard to make decision to think that if the seller is a thief or not.
Posted by Manera at 3:03 AM
Hi Ka et al,
Let me try to address the questions you posed as comprehensively as I can.
First off, yes, you sure are most welcome to make any comments you want to make and start any online discussion you choose to start on this blog. One requirement here is that all comments and discussions initiated must be linked to the material that is currently under study (e.g. tonight is our last session on the Code of Hammurabi and, therefore, everyone should have read the material by now which makes it a good time to start online discussions on this topic; please, try to refrain from initiating discussions on topics which have not been covered in class yet and the content of which your fellow classmates have no reason to know in advance).
Secondly, as you noticed I had posted 3 topics for online discussion. Dates during which discussions on these topics can be held will be announced shortly. I also encourage all of you to look through the syllabus, single out the topics that are of special interest to you and on which you would like to have online discussions on this blog and post them here. If there's significant interest in topics other than the ones I have already posted, I will add them to the list of topics for online discussion.
I hope this clarifies things,
Posted by Stan Starygin at 1:47 AM
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Dear Professor and All,
I do not understand what are we going to do in the blog. Do we just sign in and read all the mails posted by the teacher or do we chat sometime?
I have found a few topics in the blog posted by professor and so do we have to chose one of them or what?
Posted by men ka at 11:59 PM
Monday, June 25, 2007
COURSE TITLE: HUMAN RIGHTS AND WORLD POLITICS
Instructor Stan Starygin
SEMESTER: Summer 2007 Class: Morning +Evening
CREDIT: 3 Units
LENGTH: 48 hours
Some of the objectives of this course are as follows –
• Familiarize the students with the core set of human rights concepts and their historical and substantive development
• Introduce the historical context which resulted in or facilitated the development of human rights in particular countries
• Introduce a balanced outlook upon the development of rights in the Euro-American context and the Southeast Asian context; show the similarities and differences of this development and the influence of politics and religion upon this development
• Focus on a thorough study of select international human rights instruments and the political environments that resulted in their creation
• Focus on the most recent rights-related court decisions in the region (Southeast Asia, particularly Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand)
• Instruct the students on rights-related research methodology, review essay writing and citation standards
• Provide an online environment and facilitate online peer review and connectivity with human rights students and faculty in the region and those who are interested in such in the region
• Bring local and international human rights experts as guest speakers and online reviewers
This course was designed to give students a comprehensive history-liked picture of the development of the core concepts of human rights as we know them today and the political environments which produced them. The material of the course heavily emphasizes the study of the principal legal instruments which undergird human rights internationally. The material of the course was also designed in a way that should provide students with reflections on the implementation of human rights instruments in Southeast Asia (SEA) accentuating the differences of the approach to the implementation of such by the various states of SEA. The latter will be achieved through the study of relevant case-law of select countries and through the online interaction with students and faculty of other countries of SEA. The course will end in a term paper which is the most important component of the instruction and for which students are expected to spend two months on research, writing and finalizing.
Week Topics Hours Materials
(all material for which page numbering is provided below are a part of the reader)
1. Introductory lecture + the Code of Hammurabi 4 1-23
2. The Code of Hammurabi + Magna Carta 4 24-47
3. Magna Carta and development of rights in the Middle Ages 4 131-148; 149-157
4. Buddhism and Human Rights: Mahayana Buddhism and its treatment of rights 4 48-62; 101-115
5. Buddhism and Human Rights: Theravada Buddhism 4 63-99; 118-130
6. Development of Modern (Post World War 2) Human Rights Instruments: Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and its political context 4 158-162
7. Hard law: United Nations (UN) Rights Covenants: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR); ICCPR’s two Optional Protocols 4 163-177;
Optional Protocols: 178-183
8. Hard law: Derogation from the ICCPR: the Siracusa Principles; Limitation Clauses 4 192-193;
Limitation Clauses: 194-202
9. Hard law: United Nations (UN) Rights Covenants: International Covenant on Social, Economic and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) 4 184-191
10. UN Principles on the Treatment of Prisoners; UN Convention Against Torture 4 214-223;
11. Cultural Relativism: the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam; Malaysian case-law: Lina Joy v. Majlis Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan 4 239-242; 243-245
Lina Joy: 294-350
12. Human Rights in Cambodia: The 2007 Report of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR); Human Rights Report of the United States Department of State (USDS) 4 Lectures
METHODS OF TEACHING: Lecture/ guest speakers, Group Discussion, Case studies, Presentation of assignment/ readings/ research
(1) Attendance & Participation (40 %):
Technically, attendance is optional, as there is no specific grade value assigned to it. However, since there is value assigned to participation, this value cannot be attained by a student without participating in real space (class meetings) and virtual space (by contributing to the discussions on the blog dedicated to this course). Students who miss class remain to be responsible for the material discussed in the session they miss and the material assigned to the next session. Therefore, it is strongly recommended that students contact their classmates and visit the blog in case they are unable to attend the class meeting on a particular day.
The high value placed in this course on participation is due to the course design which comprises standard classroom participation coupled with a large online interaction component. Active and consistent participation in both is necessary for obtaining the full value assigned for participation in this course. Necessary instructor and peer assistance will be arranged for those students who require and solicit help with Information Technology (IT). The blog technology selected is uncomplicated and fairly straightforward and calibrated to an average Internet user.
Participation in the classroom context is understood as volunteering to contribute to classroom discussion and offer personal insights into the material under discussion. Participation in the blog context is understood as contributing to the discussions on the topics outlined on the blog (see Tentative Topics at http://hrstudentinteraction.blogspot.com/ http://hrstudentinteraction.blogspot.com/) and reviewing other students’ topic statements and papers (peer review). The latter is by far the most important component of online interaction as per the design of this course.
(2) In-class assignments and short tests (20%):
The amount of short tests will in this course will be calibrated based on necessity, i.e. participation and preparedness of the students for particular topics. In case the level of this preparedness is low, this will merit more tests to ensure the quality of learning.
(3) Term paper (40%):
The development of the term paper will begin in the second month of the course (in a 3-month semester and in the 3-rd month in a 4-month semester). Topics for such will be suggested by the instructor and other students and will appear on the blog dedicated to this course. Students are also encouraged to come up with ideas of their own for topics. The topics chosen will undergo online peer review and subsequent instructor review which will result in their approval or recommendation of different direction for topics. Term papers will be developed gradually being subject to peer, external expert and instructor review every step of the way. Special emphasis is placed on the following of the selected citation standard (The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation, 13th Edition).
Posted by Stan Starygin at 11:57 PM
Hammurabi (Akkadian from Amorite ˤAmmurāpi, "the kinsman is a healer," from ˤAmmu, "paternal kinsman," and Rāpi, "healer"; ca. 1810 BCE – 1750 BCE), was the sixth king of Babylon. He became the first king of the Babylonian Empire, extending Babylon's control over Mesopotamia by winning a series of wars against neighboring kingdoms.
Hammurabi is known for the set of laws called Hammurabi's Code, one of the first written codes of law in recorded history. Owing to his reputation in modern times as an ancient law-giver, Hammurabi's portrait is in many government buildings throughout the world. Although his empire controlled all of Mesopotamia by the time of his death, his successors were unable to maintain his empire.
The Code of Hammurabi (also known as the Codex Hammurabi and Hammurabi's Code), created ca. 1760 BC (middle chronology), is one of the earliest extant sets of laws and one of the best preserved examples of this type of document from ancient Mesopotamia. It was created by Hammurabi. Still earlier collections of laws include the codex of Ur-Nammu, king of Ur (ca. 2050 BC), the Codex of Eshnunna (ca. 1930 BC) and the codex of Lipit-Ishtar of Isin (ca. 1870 BC).
The Code contains an enumeration of crimes and their various punishments as well as settlements for common disputes and guidelines for citizen's conduct. The Code does not provide opportunity for explanation or excuses, though it does imply one's right to present evidence. For a comprehensive summary, see Babylonian law.
The Code was openly displayed for all to see; thus, no man could plead ignorance of the law as an excuse. Few people, however, could read in that era, as literacy was primarily the domain of scribes.
Hammurabi (ca. 1810 BCE – 1750 BCE) believed he was chosen by the gods to deliver the law to his people. In the preface to the law code, he states, "Anu and Bel called by name me, Hammurabi, the exalted prince, who feared God, to bring about the rule of righteousness in the land." In the upper part of the stela, Hammurabi is shown in front of the throne of the sun god Shamash.
The laws, which numbered from 1 to 282 (numbers 13 and 66-99 are missing), are inscribed in Old Babylonian on an eight-foot tall stela of black basalt It was discovered in December 1901 in Susa, Elam, which is now Khuzestan, Iran, where it had been taken as plunder by the Elamite king Shutruk-Nahhunte in the 12th century BC. It is currently on display at the Louvre Museum in Paris.
The code is often pointed to as the first example of the legal concept that some laws are so basic as to be beyond the ability of even a king to change. Because Hammurabi had the laws inscribed in stone, they were immutable. The sayings, "An eye for an eye" or "An arm for an arm" were created based on Hammurabi's Code.
The Code of Hammurabi was one of many sets of laws in the Ancient Near East. Most of these codes, coming from similar cultures and racial groups in a relatively small geographical area, necessarily have passages that resemble each other. The earlier code of Ur-Nammu, of the Ur-III dynasty (21st century BC), the Hittite code of laws (ca. 1300 BC), and Mosaic Law (traditionally ca. 1200 BC under Moses), all contain statutes that bear at least passing resemblance to those in the Code of Hammurabi and other codices from the same geographic area.
Code of Law
was written on a stele, a large stone monument, and placed in a public place so that all could see it, although it is thought that few were literate. A civil code is a systematic compilation of laws designed to comprehensively deal with the core areas of private law. A jurisdiction that has a civil code generally also has a code of civil procedure. In some jurisdictions with a civil code, a number of the core areas of private law that would otherwise typically be codified in a civil code may instead be codified in a commercial code.
The older civil codes such as the French, Egyptian, and Austrian ones are structured under the Institutional System of the Roman jurist Gaius and generally have three large parts:
• Law of Persons (personae)
• Law of Things (res)
• Issues common to both parts (actiones).
The newer codes such as the ones of Germany, Switzerland and Portugal are structured according to the Pandectist System:
• General part
• Law of Obligation
• Law of Real Rights
• Family Law
• Law of Inheritance
The Code contemplates the whole population as falling into three classes: the amelu, the muskinu and the ardu.
The amelu was a patrician, the man of family, whose birth, marriage and death were registered; of ancestral estates and full civil rights. He had aristocratic privileges and responsibilities, and the right to exact retaliation for corporal injuries, but was liable to a heavier punishment for crimes and misdemeanours, higher fees and fines. To this class belonged the king and court, the higher officials, the professions and craftsmen. The term became a mere courtesy title over time, but originally carried with it a certain status. Already in the Code, when status is not concerned, it is used to denote "anyone." There was no property qualification, nor does the term appear to be racial.
It is most difficult to characterize the muskinu exactly. The term came in time to mean "a beggar", and with that meaning has passed through Aramaic and Hebrew into many modern languages; but though the Code does not regard him as necessarily poor, he may have been landless. He was free, but had to accept monetary compensation for corporal injuries, paid smaller fees and fines, even paid less offerings to the gods. He inhabited a separate quarter of the city. There is no reason to regard him as specially connected with the court, as a royal pensioner, nor as forming the bulk of the population. The rarity of any references to him in contemporary documents makes further specification conjectural.
The ardu was a slave, his master's chattel, and formed a very numerous class. He could acquire property and even hold other slaves. His master clothed and fed him, and paid his doctor's fees, but took all compensation paid for injury done to him. His master usually found him a slave-girl as wife (the children were then born slaves), often set him up in a house (with farm or business) and simply took an annual rent of him. Otherwise, he might marry a free woman (the children were then free), who might bring him a dower that his master could not touch, and at his death, one-half of his property passed to his master as his heir. He could acquire his freedom by purchase from his master, or might be freed and dedicated to a temple, or even adopted, when he became an amelu and not a muskinu. Slaves were recruited by purchase abroad, from captives taken in war, or by freemen degraded for debt or crime. A slave often ran away; if caught, the captor was bound to restore him to his master, and the Code fixes a reward of two shekels that the owner must pay the captor. It was about one-tenth of the average value. To detain or harbour, etc., a slave was punishable by death. So was an attempt to get him to leave the city. A slave bore an identification mark, removable only by a surgical operation, and that later consisted of his owner's name tattooed or branded on the arm. On the great estates in Assyria and its subject provinces, there were many serfs, mostly of subject race, settled captives, or quondam slaves; tied to the soil they cultivated, and sold with the estate, yet capable of possessing land and property of their own. There is little trace of serfs in Babylonia, unless the muskinu be really a serf.
Citizens tenants of gods
The god of a city was originally considered the owner of its land, that encircled it with an inner ring of irrigable arable land and an outer fringe of pasture; and the citizens were his tenants. The god and his vice regent, the king, had long ceased to disturb tenancy, and were content with fixed dues in naturalia, stock, money or service.
One of the earliest monuments records the purchase by a king of a large estate for his son, paying a fair market price and adding a handsome honorarium to the many owners, in costly garments, plate, and precious articles of furniture. The Code recognizes complete private ownership of land, but apparently extends the right to hold land to votaries, merchants (and resident aliens?). But all land was sold subject to its fixed charges. The king, however, could free land from these charges by charter, which was a frequent way of rewarding those who deserved well of the state.
It is from these charters that we learn nearly all we know of the obligations lying upon land. The state demanded men for the army and the corvée, as well as dues in kind. A defined area was bound to find a bowman, together with his linked pikeman (who bore the shield for both), and to furnish them with supplies for the campaign. This area was termed a "bow" as early as the 8th century BC, but the practice was much earlier. Later, a horseman was also due from certain areas. A man was only bound to serve so many (six?) times, but the land still had to find a man annually. This service was usually discharged by slaves and serfs, but the amelu (and perhaps the muskinu) also went to war. The "bows" were grouped in tens and hundreds. The corvée was less regular. The letters of Hammurabi often deal with claims to exemption. Religious officials and shepherds in charge of flocks were exempt.
Special liabilities lay upon riparian owners to repair canals, bridges, quays, etc. The state claimed certain proportions of all crops, stock, etc. The king's messengers could commandeer any subject's property, giving a receipt. Further, every city had its own octroi duties, customs, ferry dues, highway and water rates. The king had long ceased to be owner of the land, if he ever was. He had his own royal estates, his private property, and dues from all his subjects. The higher officials had endowments and official residences.
The Code regulates the feudal position of certain classes. They held an estate from the king, consisting of house, garden, field, stock, and a salary, on condition of personal service on the king's errand. They could not delegate the service, on penalty of death. When ordered abroad, they could nominate a capable son to hold the benefice and carry on the duty. If there were no capable son, the state put in a locum tenens, but granted one-third to the wife to maintain herself and children. The fief was otherwise inalienable; it could not be sold, pledged, exchanged, sublet, devised or diminished. Other land was leased from the state. Ancestral estate was strictly tied to the family. If a holder would sell, the family kept the right of redemption, and there seems to have been no time-limit to its exercise.
The temple occupied a most important position. It received from its estates, from tithes and other fixed dues, as well as from the sacrifices (a customary share) and other offerings of the faithful, vast amounts of all sorts of naturalia; besides money and permanent gifts. The larger temples had many officials and servants.
Originally, perhaps, each town clustered round one temple, and each head of a family had a right to minister there and share its receipts. As the city grew, the right to so many days a year at one or other shrine (or its "gate") descended within certain families, and became a kind of property that could be pledged, rented or shared within the family, but not alienated. Despite all these demands, the temples became great granaries and store-houses, as they were also the city archives. The temple had its responsibilities. If a citizen were captured by the enemy and could not ransom himself, the temple of his city must do so. To the temple came the poor farmer to borrow seed, grain, or supplies for harvesters, etc. — advances that he repaid without interest.
The king's power over the temple was not proprietary, but administrative. He might borrow from it, but repaid like other borrowers. The tithe seems to have been considered the rent due to the god for his land. It is not clear that all lands paid tithe; perhaps only such as once had a special connection with the temple.
The Code deals with a class of persons devoted to the service of a god, as vestals or hierodules. The vestals were vowed to chastity, lived together in a great nunnery, were forbidden to enter a tavern, and, together with other votaries, had many privileges.
The Code recognizes many ways of disposing of property: sale, lease, barter, gift, dedication, deposit, loan, or pledge, all of which were matters of contract. "Sale" was the delivery of the purchase (in the case of real estate, symbolized by a staff, a key, or deed of conveyance) in return for the purchase money, receipts being given for both. Credit, if given, was treated as a debt, and secured as a loan by the seller to be repaid by the buyer, for which he gave a bond.
The Code admits no claim unsubstantiated by documents or the oath of witnesses. A buyer had to convince himself of the seller's title. If he bought (or received on deposit) from a minor or a slave without power-of-attorney, he would be executed as a thief. If the goods were stolen and the rightful owner reclaimed them, he had to prove his purchase by producing the seller and the deed of sale, or witnesses to it; otherwise he would be adjudged a thief and die. If he proved his purchase, he had to give up the property but had his remedy against the seller or, if he had died, could reclaim fivefold from his estate.
A man who bought a slave abroad, might find that he had previously been stolen or captured from Babylonia, and he then had to restore him to his former owner without recompense. If he bought property belonging to a feudal holding, or to a ward in chancery, he had to return it and forfeit what he gave for it as well. He could repudiate the purchase of a slave attacked by the bennu sickness within the month (later, a hundred days), and held a newly-purchased female slave three days "on approval". A defect of title, or an undisclosed liability, would invalidate a sale at any time.
Landowners frequently cultivated their land themselves, but might employ a husbandman, or rent it. The husbandman was bound to carry out the proper cultivation, raise an average crop, and leave the field in good tilth. In case the crop failed, the Code fixed a statutory return. Land might be leased at a fixed rent, when the Code enacted that accidental loss fell on the tenant. If let on share-profit, the landlord and tenant shared the loss proportionately to their stipulated share of profit. If the tenant paid his rent and left the land in good tilth, the landlord could not interfere nor forbid subletting.
Waste land was let to reclaim, the tenant being rent-free for three years and paying a stipulated rent in the fourth year. If the tenant neglected to reclaim the land, the Code enacted that he must hand it over in good tilth and fixed a statutory rent. Gardens or plantations were leased in the same ways and under the same conditions; but for date groves, four years' free tenure was allowed.
The metayer system was in vogue, especially on temple lands. The landlord found land, labour, oxen for ploughing and working the watering machines, carting, threshing or other implements, grain seed, rations for the workmen and fodder for the cattle. The tenant, or steward, usually had other land of his own. If he stole the seed, rations or fodder, the Code enacted that his fingers be cut off. If he appropriated or sold the implements, impoverished or sublet the cattle, he was heavily fined, and in default of payment might be condemned to be torn to pieces by the cattle on the field. Rent was as contracted.
Irrigation was indispensable. If the irrigator neglected to repair his dyke, or left his runnel open and caused a flood, he had to make good the damage done to his neighbours' crops, or be sold with his family to pay the cost. The theft of a watering machine, water-bucket or other agricultural implement was heavily fined.
Houses were usually leased for the year, but also for longer terms, rent being paid in advance, half-yearly. The contract generally specified that the house be in good repair, and the tenant was bound to keep it so. The woodwork, including doors and door frames, was removable, and the tenant might bring and take away his own. The Code enacted that if the landlord would re-enter before the term was up, he must remit a fair proportion of the rent. Land was leased for houses or other buildings to be built upon it, the tenant being rent-free for eight or ten years; after which the building came into the landlord's possession.
Despite the multitude of slaves, hired labour was often needed, especially at harvest. This was a matter of contract, and the employer, who usually paid in advance, might demand a collateral against fulfillment of the work. Cattle were hired for ploughing, working the watering-machines, carting, threshing, etc. The Code fixed a statutory wage for sowers, ox-drivers, field-labourers, and hire for oxen, asses, etc.
There were many herds and flocks. The flocks were committed to a shepherd, who gave receipt for them and took them out to pasture. The Code fixed his wage. He was responsible for all care, must restore ox for ox, sheep for sheep, must breed them satisfactorily. Any dishonest use of the flock had to be repaid tenfold, but loss due to disease or wild beasts fell upon the owner. The shepherd made good all loss due to his own neglect. If he let the flock feed on a field of crops, he had to pay damages fourfold; if he turned them into standing crops when they ought to have been folded, he paid twelvefold.
In commercial matters, payment in kind was still common, though the contracts usually stipulate for cash, naming the standard expected -- that of Babylon, Larsa, Assyria, Carchemish, etc. The Code enacted, however, that a debtor must be allowed to pay in produce according to a statutory scale. If a debtor had neither money nor crops, the creditor must not refuse goods.
Debt was secured on the person of the debtor. Distraint on a debtor's grain was forbidden by the Code; not only must the creditor return it, but his illegal action forfeited his claim altogether. An unwarranted seizure for debt was fined, as was the distraint of a working ox.
The debtor being seized for debt could nominate as mancipium, or hostage to work off the debt, his wife, a child, or slave. The creditor could only hold a wife or child three years as mancipium. If the mancipium died a natural death while in the creditor's possession, no claim could lie against the latter; but if he was the cause of death by cruelty, he had to give son for son, or pay for a slave. He could sell a slave-hostage, apart from a slave-girl who had borne her master children; she had to be redeemed by her owner.
The debtor could also pledge his property, and in contracts often pledged a field, house or crop. The Code enacted, however, that the debtor should always take the crop himself and pay the creditor from it. If the crop failed, payment was deferred, and no interest could be charged for that year. If the debtor did not cultivate the field himself, he had to pay for the cultivation, but if the cultivation was already finished, he must harvest it himself and pay his debt from the crop. If the cultivator did not get a crop, this would not cancel his contract.
Pledges were often made where the intrinsic value of the article was equivalent to the amount of the debt; but antichretic pledge was more common, where the profit of the pledge was a set-off against the interest of the debt. The whole property of the debtor might be pledged as collateral for the payment of the debt, without any of it coming into the enjoyment of the creditor. Personal guarantees were often given in Babylon that the debtor would repay, or the guarantor become liable himself.
Trade was very extensive. A common procedure was for a merchant to entrust his goods or money to a travelling agent, who sought a market for his goods. The caravans travelled far beyond the limits of the empire.
The Code insisted that the agent should inventory and give a receipt for all that he received. No claim could be made for anything not so entered. Even if the agent made no profit, he was bound to return double what he had received; if he made poor profit, he had to make up the deficiency; but he was not responsible for loss by robbery or extortion on his travels. On his return, the lending merchant must give him a receipt for what was handed over to him. Any false entry or claim on the agent's part was penalised threefold; on the lending merchant's part, sixfold. In normal cases, profits were divided according to contract, usually equally.
A considerable amount of forwarding (advancing wares to the agent up front) was done by the caravans. The carrier gave a receipt for the consignment, took all responsibility, and exacted a receipt upon delivery. If he defaulted, he paid fivefold. He was usually paid in advance. Deposit, especially warehousing of grain, was charged for at one-sixtieth. The warehouse man took all risks, paid double for all shortage, but no claim could be made unless he had given a properly witnessed receipt.
Water traffic on the Euphrates and canal system was early on, quite considerable. Ships, whose tonnage was estimated by the amount of grain they could carry, were continually hired for the transport of all kinds of goods. The Code fixes the price for shipbuilding, and insists on the builder's giving a year's guarantee of seaworthiness. It also fixes the rate of hire for ship and crew. The captain was responsible for the freight and the ship; he had to replace all loss. Even if he refloated the ship, he had to pay a fine of half its value for sinking it. In the case of collision, the boat under way was responsible for damages to the boat at anchor.
The Code also regulated the liquor traffic — fixing a fair price for beer, and forbidding the connivance of the tavern-keeper (a female) at disorderly conduct or treasonable assembly, under pain of death. She was required to take the offenders to the palace — implying an efficient and accessible police system.
Payment through a banker or by written draft against deposit was frequent. Bonds to pay were treated as negotiable. Interest was rarely charged on advances by the temple or wealthy landowners for pressing needs, but this may have been part of the metayer system. The borrowers may have been tenants. Interest was charged at very high rates for overdue loans of this kind. Merchants (and even temples in some cases) made ordinary business loans, charging from 20% to 30%.
Marriage retained the form of purchase, but was essentially a contract to be man and wife together. The marriage of young people was usually arranged between the relatives — the groom's father providing the bride-price, which with other presents, the suitor ceremonially presented to the bride's father. This bride-price was usually handed over by her father to the bride upon her marriage, and so returned into the bridegroom's possession, along with her dowry, which was her portion as a daughter.
The bride-price varied greatly, according to the status of the parties, but surpassed the price of a slave. The Code enacted that if the father does not, after accepting a man's presents, give him his daughter, he must return the presents doubled. This was done even if his decision was brought about by libel on the part of the suitor's friend, and the Code enacted that the faithless friend should not marry the girl. If a suitor changed his mind, he forfeited the presents.
The dowry might include real estate, but generally consisted of personal effects and household furniture. It remained the wife's for life, descending to her children, if any; otherwise returning to her family, when the husband could deduct the bride-price if it had not been given to her, or return it, if it had.
The marriage ceremony included joining of hands and the utterance of some formula of acceptance on the part of the bridegroom, as "I am the son of nobles, silver and gold shall fill thy lap, thou shalt be my wife, I will be thy husband. Like the fruit of a garden I will give thee offspring." It must be performed by a freeman.
The marriage contract — without which, the Code ruled that the woman was no wife — usually stated the consequences to which each party was liable for repudiating the other. These by no means necessarily agree with the Code. Many conditions might be inserted: as that the wife should act as maidservant to her mother-in-law, or to a first wife.
The married couple formed a unit as to external responsibility, especially for debt. The man was responsible for debts contracted by his wife, even before her marriage, as well as for his own; but he could use her as a mancipium. Hence the Code allowed a proviso to be inscribed in the marriage contract, that the wife should not be seized for her husband's pre-nuptial debts; but enacted that then he was not responsible for her pre-nuptial debts, and, in any case, that both together were responsible for all debts contracted after marriage. A man might make his wife a settlement by deed of gift, which gave her a life interest in part of his property, and he might reserve to her the right to bequeath it to a favourite child; but she could in no case leave it to her family. Although married, she always remained a member of her father's house — she is rarely named wife of A; usually daughter of B, or mother of C.
Divorce was optional with the man, but he had to restore the dowry, and if the wife had borne him children, she had the custody of them. He had then to assign her the income of field, or garden, as well as goods, to maintain herself and children until they grew up. She then shared equally with them in the allowance (and apparently in his estate at his death) and was free to marry again. If she had no children, he returned her the dowry, and paid her a sum equivalent to the bride-price — or a mina of silver, if there had been none. The latter is the forfeit usually named in the contract for his repudiation of her.
If she had been a bad wife, the Code allowed him to send her away, while he kept the children and her dowry; or he could degrade her to the position of a slave in his own house, where she would have food and clothing. She might bring an action against him for cruelty and neglect and, if she proved her case, obtain a judicial separation, taking with her, her dowry. No other punishment fell on the man. If she did not prove her case, but was proved to be a bad wife, she was drowned.
If she were left without maintenance during her husband's involuntary absence, she could cohabit with another man, but must return to her husband if he came back, the children of the second union remaining with their own father. If she had maintenance, a breach of the marriage tie was adultery. Wilful desertion by, or exile of, the husband dissolved the marriage, and if he returned, he had no claim on her property; possibly not on his own.
A widow took her husband's place in the family — living on in his house and bringing up the children. She could only remarry with judicial consent, when the judge was bound to inventory the deceased's estate and hand it over to her and her new husband in trust for the children. They could not alienate a single utensil.
If she did not remarry, she lived on in her husband's house and took a child's share on the division of his estate, when the children had grown up. She still retained her dowry and any settlement deeded to her by her husband. This property came to her children. If she had remarried, all her children shared equally in her dowry, but the first husband's gift fell to his children, or to her selection among them, if so empowered.
Monogamy was the rule, and a childless wife might give her husband a maid (who was no wife) to bear him children, who were then reckoned hers. She remained mistress of her maid, and might degrade her to slavery again for insolence, but could not sell her if she had borne her husband children. If the wife did this, the Code did not allow the husband to take a concubine; but if she would not, he could do so. The concubine was a co-wife, though not of the same rank; the first wife had no power over her.
A concubine was a free woman, was often dowered for marriage, and her children were legitimate. She could only be divorced on the same conditions as a wife. If a wife became a chronic invalid, the husband was bound to maintain her in the home they had made together, unless she preferred to take her dowry and return to her father's house; but he was free to remarry. In all these cases, the children were legitimate and lawful heirs.
There was, of course, no hindrance to a man having children by a slave girl. These children were free in any case, and their mother then could not be sold, though she might be pledged, and she became free upon her master's death. Her children could be legitimized by their father's acknowledgment before witnesses, and were often adopted. They then ranked equally in sharing their father's estate; but if not adopted, the wife's children divided and took first choice.
Vestal virgins were not supposed to have children, yet they could marry and often did. The Code contemplated that such a wife would give a husband a maid, as above.
Free women might marry slaves and still be dowered for the marriage. The children were free, and at the slave's death, the wife took her dowry and half of what she and her husband had acquired in wedlock for self and children; the master taking the other half, as his slave's heir.
A father had control over his children until their marriage. He had a right to their labour, in return for their keep. He might hire them out and receive their wages, pledge them for debt, even sell them outright. Mothers had the same rights in the absence of the father; elder brothers, when both parents were dead. A father had no claim on his married children for support, but they retained the right to inherit on his death.
The daughter was not only in her father's power to be given in marriage, but he might dedicate her to the service of some god as a vestal or a hierodule; or give her as a concubine. She had no choice in these matters, often decided in her childhood. A grown-up daughter might wish to become a votary, perhaps in preference to an uncongenial marriage, and it seems that her father could not refuse her wish.
In all these cases, the father might dower her. If he did not, on his death the brothers were bound to do so, giving her a full child's share if a wife, a concubine or a vestal, but one-third of a child's share if she were a hierodule or a Marduk priestess. The latter had the privilege of exemption from state dues, and absolute disposal of her property. All other daughters had only a life interest in their dowry, which reverted to their family, if childless, or went to their children if they had any. A father might, however, execute a deed granting a daughter power to leave her property to a favourite brother or sister.
A daughter's estate was usually managed for her by her brothers, but if they dissatisfied her, she could appoint a steward. If she married, her husband managed it. The son also appears to have received his share on marriage, but did not always then leave his father's house; he might bring his wife there. This was usual in child marriages.
Adoption was very common, especially where the father (or mother) was childless, or had seen all his children grow up and marry away. The child was then adopted to care for the parents' old age. This was done by contract, that usually specified what the parent had to leave and what maintenance was expected. The real children, if any, were usually consenting parties to an arrangement that cut off their expectations. They even, in some cases, found the estate for the adopted child who was to relieve them of care. If the adopted child failed to carry out the filial duty, the contract was annulled in the law courts. Slaves were often adopted, and if they proved unfilial, were reduced to slavery again.
A craftsman often adopted a son to learn the craft. He profited by the son's labour. If he failed to teach his son the craft, that son could prosecute him and get the contract annulled. This was a form of apprenticeship, and it is not clear that the apprentice had any filial relation.
A man who adopted a son, and afterwards married and had a family of his own, could dissolve the contract, and must give the adopted child one-third of a child's share in goods, but no real estate. That could only descend in his former family. Vestals frequently adopted daughters, usually other vestals, to care for their old age.
Adoption had to be with consent of the real parents, who usually executed a deed making over the child, who thus ceased to have any claim upon them. But vestals, hierodules, certain palace officials and slaves had no rights over their children and could raise no obstacle. Orphans and illegitimate children had no parents to object. If the adopted child discovered his true parents and wanted to return to them, his eye or tongue was torn out. An adopted child was a full heir; the contract might even assign him the position of eldest son. Usually he was residuary legatee.
All legitimate children shared equally in the father's estate at his death, reservation being made of a bride-price for an unmarried son, dower for a daughter, or property deeded to favourite children by the father. There was no birthright attaching to the position of eldest son, but he usually acted as executor, and after considering what each had already received, equalized the shares. He even made grants in excess to the others from his own share. When there were two widows with legitimate issue, both families shared equally in the father's estate, until later times, when the first family took two-thirds. Daughters, in the absence of sons, had sons' rights. Children also shared their own mother's property, but had no share in that of a stepmother.
A father could disinherit a son in early times without restriction, but the Code insisted upon judicial consent, and that only for repeated unfilial conduct. In early times, the son who denied his father had his front hair shorn, a slave-mark put on him, and could be sold as a slave; while if he denied his mother he had his front hair shorn, was driven round the city as an example and expelled from his home, but not degraded to slavery.
Adultery was punished with the death of both parties by drowning; but if the husband was willing to pardon his wife, the king might intervene to pardon the paramour. For incest with his own mother, both were burned to death; with a stepmother, the man was disinherited; with a daughter, the man was exiled; with a daughter-in-law, he was drowned; with a son's fiancee, he was fined. A wife who for her lover's sake procured her husband's death was gibbeted. A betrothed girl, seduced by her prospective father-in-law, took her dowry and returned to her family, and was free to marry as she chose.
In the criminal code, the ruling principle was the lex talionis. Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, limb for limb was the penalty for assault upon an amelu. A sort of symbolic retaliation was the punishment of the offending member, seen in the cutting off the hand that struck a father or stole a trust; in cutting off the breast of a wet nurse who substituted a changeling for the child entrusted to her; in the loss of the tongue that denied father or mother (in the Elamite contracts, the same penalty was inflicted for perjury); in the loss of the eye that pried into forbidden secrets. The loss of the surgeon's hand that caused loss of life or limb; or the brander's hand that obliterated a slave's identification mark, are very similar. The slave who struck a freeman or denied his master, lost an ear, the organ of hearing and symbol of obedience. To bring another into danger of death by false accusation was punished by death. To cause loss of liberty or property by false witness was punished by the same penalty the perjurer sought to bring upon another.
The death penalty was freely awarded for theft, and other crimes regarded as coming under that section: for theft involving entrance of palace or temple treasury, for illegal purchase from minor or slave, for selling stolen goods or receiving the same, for common theft in the open (in default of multiple restoration) or receiving the same, for false claim to goods, for kidnapping, for assisting or harbouring fugitive slaves, for detaining or appropriating same, for brigandage, for fraudulent sale of drink, for disorderly conduct of tavern, for delegation of personal service, for misappropriating the levy, for oppression of feudal holders, for causing death of a householder by bad building. The manner of death is not specified in these cases.
This death penalty was also fixed for such conduct as placed another in danger of death. A specified form of death penalty occurs in the following cases: gibbeting (on the spot where crime was committed) for burglary, later also for encroaching on the king's highway, for getting a slave-brand obliterated, for procuring a husband's death; burning for incest with own mother, for a vestal entering or opening a tavern, for theft at fire (on the spot); drowning for adultery, rape of a betrothed maiden, bigamy, bad conduct as wife, seduction of a daughter-in-law.
A curious extension of the talio is the death of a creditor's son for his father's having caused the death of a debtor's son as mancipium; of a builder's son for his father's causing the death of a house-owner's son by building the house badly; the death of a man's daughter because her father caused the death of another man's daughter.
The contracts naturally do not concern such criminal cases as the above, as a rule, but marriage contracts do specify death by strangling, drowning, precipitation from a tower or pinnacle of the temple, or by the iron sword, for a wife's repudiation of her husband. We are quite without evidence as to the executioner in all these cases.
Exile was inflicted for incest with a daughter; disinheritance for incest with a stepmother, or for repeated unfilial conduct. Sixty strokes of an ox-hide scourge were awarded for a brutal assault on a superior, both being amelu. Branding (perhaps the equivalent of degradation to slavery) was the penalty for slander of a married woman or vestal. Permanent deprivation of office fell upon the corrupt judge. Enslavement befell the extravagant wife and unfilial children. Imprisonment was common, but is not recognized by the Code.
The commonest of all penalties was a fine. This is awarded by the Code for corporal injuries to a muskinu or to a slave (paid to his master); for damages done to property, or for breach of contract. The restoration of goods appropriated, illegally bought, or damaged by neglect, was usually accompanied by a fine, giving it the form of multiple restoration. This might be double, treble, fourfold, fivefold, sixfold, tenfold, twelvefold, even thirtyfold, according to the enormity of the offence.
The Code recognized the importance of intent. A man who killed another in a quarrel must swear he did not do so intentionally, and was then only fined according to the rank of the deceased. The Code does not say what would be the penalty of murder, but death is so often awarded where death is caused, that we can hardly doubt that the murderer was put to death. If the assault only led to injury and was unintentional, the assailant in a quarrel had to pay the doctor's fees. A brander, induced to remove a slave's identification mark, could swear to his ignorance and was free. The owner of an ox that gored a man on the street was only responsible for damages if the ox was known by him to be vicious — even if it caused death. If the mancipium died a natural death under the creditor's hand, the creditor was scot-free. In ordinary cases, responsibility was not demanded for accident or for more than proper care. Poverty excused bigamy on the part of a deserted wife.
On the other hand, carelessness and neglect were severely punished, as in the case of the unskillful physician, if it led to loss of life or limb, his hands were cut off; a slave had to be replaced, the loss of his eye paid for to half his value; a veterinary surgeon who caused the death of an ox or donkey paid quarter value; a builder, whose careless workmanship caused death, lost his life or paid for it by the death of his child, replaced slave or goods, and in any case had to rebuild the house, or make good any damages due to defective building and repair the defect as well. The boat-builder had to make good any defect of construction or damage due to it for a year's warranty.
Throughout the Code, respect is paid to status. Suspicion was not enough. The criminal must be taken in the act, e.g. the adulterer, etc. A man could not be convicted of theft unless the goods were found in his possession.
In the case of a lawsuit, the plaintiff proferred his own plea. There is no trace of professional advocates, but the plea had to be in writing, and the notary doubtless assisted in the drafting of it. The judge saw the plea, called the other parties before him, and sent for the witnesses. If these were not at hand, he might adjourn the case for their subpoena, specifying a time up to six months. Pledges might be entered into to produce the witnesses on a fixed day.
The more important cases, especially those involving life and death, were tried by a bench of judges. With the judges were associated a body of elders who shared in the decision, but whose exact function is not yet clear. Agreements, declarations and non-contentious cases were usually witnessed by one judge and twelve elders.
Parties and witnesses were put on oath. The penalty for false witness was usually what would have been awarded the convicted criminal. In matters beyond the knowledge of men, as the guilt or innocence of an alleged practitioner of magic or a suspected wife, the ordeal by water was used. The accused jumped into the sacred river, and the innocent swam while the guilty drowned. The accused could clear himself by oath where his own knowledge was alone available. The plaintiff could swear to his loss by brigands, as to goods claimed, the price paid for a slave purchased abroad, or the sum due to him. But great stress was laid on the production of written evidence. It was a serious thing to lose a document. The judges might be satisfied of its existence and terms by the affidavit of the witnesses to it, and then issue an order that whenever found it should be given up. Contracts annulled were ordered to be broken. The court might even go a journey to view the property and take with them the sacred symbols whereby oath was made.
The decision given was embodied in writing, sealed and witnessed by the judges, the elders, witnesses, and a scribe. Women might act in all these capacities. The parties swore an oath, embodied in the document, to observe its stipulations. Each took a copy, and one was held by the scribe to be stored in the archives.
Appeal to the king was allowed and is well attested. The judges at Babylon seem to have formed a superior court to those of provincial towns, but a defendant might elect to answer the charge before the local court, and refuse to plead at Babylon.
Finally, it may be noted that many immoral acts, such as the use of false weights, lying, etc., that could not be brought into court, are severely denounced in the Omen Tablets as likely to bring the offender into "the hand of God" as opposed to "the hand of the king."
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Please continue with the selected areas of law within the Code of Hammurabi. As we did it in class with relatively few articles, I expect to hear comprehensive analyses of the selected areas. These analyses must appear in written form, however, there is no requirement for these to be of paper quality.
Those of you who missed the session in question are advised to join the existing substantive groups and contribute to the assignment.
Posted by Stan Starygin at 9:48 PM
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Below is the preliminary list of online discussions that will be held on this forum within the next 3 months. I am open to suggestions as to other human rights-related topics that some -- or all -- of you might be interested in.
1. Differences between the approach to rights in the Code of Hammurabi and Magna Carta
2. Torture and inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment in Police Detention in Southeast Asia (SEA): Case of alleged torture of Mr Metta Saiphan and Mr Anucha Siripornna Ratchasima
3. Universality of human rights; cultural deference and internationalization of human rights: Case of Lina Joy in Malaysia (Joy v Majlis Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan)
Posted by Stan Starygin at 12:56 AM
Thursday, June 14, 2007
This is to welcome everyone of you to this blog which was created to forge interaction between the various students of human rights and faculty.
To become one of the authors of this blog, you will need to email me your google account (it is important you have a google account for this type of work), which will enable me to send you an invitation which you will be able to use to register as one of the blog's authors. Once you have done so you will be able to post original messages on this blog as well as write comments on our students' posts.
I reserve the right to moderate this blog and exclude posts which a. do not pertain to the subject-matter of the blog, b. contain offensive or inappropriate content. Exclusion of posts will be limited to these two content restrictions and no other criteria will be used for moderating this forum.
Welcome again and I am looking forward to working with all of you!
Prof. Stan Starygin
Posted by Stan Starygin at 2:23 AM