Hammurabi VS Magna Carta “Criminal Law, Human Rights, Justices”

Prof. Stan

Vutha Ponnarith (M/W, 9:30-11:30)

Hammurabi VS Magna Carta “Criminal Law, Human Rights, Justices”

Code 252 “If he kills a man’s slave, he shall pay one third of a mina”

This code meant that Everyone can kill any person that is slavery. Slavery at that time is legal, which were trafficked like animal and no freedom to control their lives, seem their lives have no value and meaning. Focusing on “If he kill a man’s slave,” that mean, if he hates that slave because of somewhat, then he can kill the slave at any time and let this case as an “unintentional killing”? Morally, money can buy happiness even life (human) This code is unjustified in the name of inhumanity as a being, according to University of Minnesota, Human Rights Library, Art. 3, p. 159, “Every one has the right to life, liberty & security of person.”

Charter 38 “In future no official shall place a man on trial upon his own unsupported statement, without producing credible witness to the truth of it” This statement is very clear and sound unbiased, for the word “in future” that mean this law will be maintained permanently forever because of “Discretion” for many cases to those whom accused with a case that illegal or/even committed or not committed a crime. Furthermore, it’s likely the judgment would offer a chance to the accused one reaching evident for debate in order to prove the case, which he/she involved to settle. According to Body of Principles for the Protection of all Persons under any Form of Detention or imprisonment, University of Minnesota, Human Rights Library, Principle 8, p. 215, Human Right & World Politics, by Prof. Stan, “Person in detention shall be subjected to treatment appropriate to their unconvinced status. Accordingly, they shall, whenever possible, be kept separately from imprison person”

Analytic comparing: Code 252 of Mammurabi and Magna Carta, Charter 38 is very completely difference for the judgments, because of updated/developed generation, namely, period by period. Because of as we can see, Hammurabi is not a democratic kingdom, all the decisions were decided by the king who had more powerful, aimed to act any thing to keep his power stable and for the high ranking officers under his control, so dependently for the poors. (Slave was legal even both intention or/and unintentional killing to slavery was no matter just paying money) It is different from Magna Carta, despite some charters are not qualified, but most charters aim to promote peace and democracy. For instance, in Church, monarch would appoint a candidate with the approval of the monks of Canterbury that controlled by Pope. This display “Two ideas are better than one” that will lead the country qualify and happiness.