Wednesday, July 11, 2007

Hammurabi and Magna Carta Code Comparation

Dear Professor and all,

We are going to write about a Trade Law which selected from Hammurabi and Magna Carta to make a comparation. However, we're writting not only specific on Trade Law.

Well, during Magna Carta, there is only punishment which they practice is put to death if both of complainance and dependence can't pove an evidence. Through this has shown that a king lead country in peacefully because people afraid to death if they commit something wrong.

So here, there is an article # 9 said: If any one lose an article, and find it in the possession of another: if the person in whose possession the thing is found say "A merchant sold it to me, I paid for it before witneses," and if the owner of the thing say, "I will bring withnesses who know my property," then shall the purchaser bring the merchant who sold it to him, and the witnesses before whom he bought it, and the owner shall bring withnesses who can identify his property. The judge shall exammine their testimony both of the witnesses before whom the price was paid, and of the witnesses who identify the lost article on oath. The merchant is then proved to be a thief and shall be put to death. The owner of the lost article receives his property, and he who bought it receives the moeny he paid from the estate of the merchant.

This article refer to loss, theft and compensation. If an item is lost and turns up in the possession of another person the case would be called become a judge. The judge requires both parties to provide witness and the presence of the merchant who sold the item. If the first owner provides withnesses to prove his case and the second owner finds the merchant, then the merchant is found to be a thief and is put to death. The item is returned to the original owner and the second owner is compensated by the merchant.

In the period the the Hammurabi Code was the rule of law, the Punishment for any crime was the death penalty, which people feared. Modern human rights law states that human beings, including criminals, have the right to life, and the right of a fair trial. A person cannot arbitrarily be put to death. Of course, not every country in the world agree.

Nevertheless, if compare with Magna Carta, human right is respectfully. In this point, i'd like to raise article # 9 said: Neither we nor our officials will seize any land or rent in payment of a debt, so long as the debtor has moveable goods sufficient to discharge the debt. A detor's sureties shall not be disstrained upon so long as the debtor himself can discharge his debt. If, for lack of means, the debtor is unable to discharge his debt, his sureties shall be answerable for it. If they so desire, they may have the debtor's lands and rents until they have received satisfaction for th edebt that they paid for him, unless the debtor can show that he has settled his obligations to them.

This article refers to the non repayment of a debt. The creditor, therefore, has right to first to take moveable property and if the debt is still not settled, the creditor has the right to take the debtors lands and rent in order satisfy the debt, but does not own the land. It is considered compensation. Indeed, the land is still the debtor's property as there is no official or king who can take another's land. This code reflects modern law especially as it relates to fundamental human needs - everyone has the right to shelter, clothes to wear, and food to eat. However, if debtor's land is grabbed, what will be the result? If this point, I applied to the reality in Cambodia, we can see the results: many people made homeless by the granting of land concession. Those people were sent to another place where they often to not have access to electricity and sanitation. This places them in a difficult situation which affects society. They need help from the authorities. Briefly, this article helps to prevent debtor from losing land.

In conclusion, both article in Hammurabi and Magna Carta, does help to each society to have a stable and help to prevent people from a homelessness.

( Students name: Sang morada and Korm sovannarith )

1 comment:

Stan Starygin said...

I suggest you compare the title of your post with its content. The title you declared was trade and throughout the paper you talk about theft, possession and sale of stolen goods and such. These are crimes whereas trade is a legal act of transferring goods for a profit. Two very different things