The comparisons between family law of the Code of Hammurabi and the Magna Carta

The Code of Hammurabi was created in 1780 BC. The Code focus on agriculture, property damage, women’s rights, marriage rights, children’s rights, slave rights, murder, death, and injury. In addition, for Magna Carta was an English charter originally story and created in 1215. As a result, both Hammurabi and Carta produced the law of family in the different concepts. According to family law in the Code of Hammurabi, most articles are focused on marriage couple who have born children or not because in Hammurabi’s Government was interested on child birth in order to produce more soldiers for their nation; therefore, the law set an obligation to all marriage couple to have children; for instance, article 128 stated that if a man take a woman to be wife, but have no intercourse with her, this woman is no wife of him. This article means that if a marriage couple won’t have relationship with each other then they will not have children. If the children were not born, then the rate of solider was declined so, a couple after marriage must have relationship with each other and if not, then it will not consider as a marriage; consequently, a woman or a man can be free and remarry to other people and have children and their children will become a soldier when they are grown up. In addition, Monogamy was the rule in the Code of Hammurabi, but a childless wife might give her husband a maid (who was no wife) to bear him children; for example, article146 stated that if a man take a wife and she give this man a maid-servant as wife and she bear him children, and then this maid assume equality with the wife, but he may keep her as a slave, reckoning her among the maid-servant. This article means that the man can take only one wife even if she have no children for him, but she give him a maid servant to bear him children and even this maid assume to be equal to the wife, but that doesn’t mean this maid can become as a second wife because he may keep her as a slave. The most important in this article 146 is shown about Monogamy as a rule in the code and it is also shown that government really concerned on the child birth. On the other hand, only few clusters such as cluster 3, 6, 7, 8, and 11 in the Magna Carta that stated relate to family situation included inheritance and paying debt, but not interested much on child birth as family law in the Code of Hammurabi because this law is created by the rebellion of the barons to limit the power of the king; therefore, it might not focused much on family situations.

Another different ideas between family law in the Code of Hammurabi and the Magna Carta is that according to article 177 in the Code of Hammurabi has shown that a widow after her husband died, then she must took her’s husband place in family, living in his house, and bringing up the children. Moreover, she is allowed to remarry but only with judicial consent and the judge will examine the estate and hand it over to a widow and her new husband, but both of them could not be able to sell a single utensil of her first husband’s property in the house. In this case of remarried, all her children must shared equally in her dowry and the first’s husband gift fell to his children or to her selection among them, but if she didn’t remarry then she could live in her husband’s house and took a child’s share on the division of his estate when children grown up. This article is kind of set an obligation to a widow to take care of her husband’s properties in order to raise up her children and give those properties to children when they are grown up even she is allowed to remarry, but she could not take her husband’s properties to sell for money in order to enjoy happiness with her new husband. In contrast, a cluster 7 in the Magna Carta has shown that a widow after her husband died, a widow may have her marriage portion and inheritance, but in cluster 8 stated that no widow shall be compelled to marry as long as she want, but must be give security by royal consent. Moreover in cluster 3 and 4, if there were a heird who under age, then the kin could assume as the guardianship of the estate and the guardianship can enjoy all the profits until the heir came of age to get his inheritance.

In conclusion, we can see that the differences between family law in the Code of Hammurabi and the Magna Carta are that the Code of Hammurabi has set up a lot of articles that relate to family law which has also set up an obligation to couple to have children for becoming soldiers of the nation and set an obligation to the couple to respect the rule of Monogamy by having only a wife or husband; moreover, the law also set up an obligation to a widow even she has remarried but must be examine by judicial consent, and she still have the duties to be a wife and mother who taking care of husband’s property in order to raise up the children and give to children when they are grown up. On the other hands, there were few clusters in the Magna Carta that focused on family law, but still some clusters in family law of the Magna Carta has shown the different from the Code of Hammurabi in case of husband death, the widow could avoid from compelling to marry by royal consent, but may have an inheritance. If the inheritance is given to the heir under age, the guardianship should take care of it and get benefits on it until the heir reach the age of getting inheritance. Therefore, both family laws of Hammurabia and Carta even had different explain and thought but they looked good because both have same objective to serve the people and made the country got peaceful and avoid from the conflict by let people lived in happy life.
(Group work by Than Sakseka and Kray Sokkanha)

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 legally, 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 cannot buy happiness even life (human) This code is unjustified in the name of inhumanity as a living 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 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 still stable and for the high ranking officers under his control as well, 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 because of agreement.

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.

Compearative Hammurabi and Magna Carta on contract law

Comparative the Code of Hammurabi and Magna Carta on Contract Law

On the article 60 of Hammurabi says that “if any one give over the field to a gardener, for him to plant it as a garden, if he works on it and care of it for four years, in the fifth year the owner and gardener should divided it, the owner taking his part in charge ” and in Article 5 of Magna Carta law list that “ For so long as a guardian has guardianship of such land, she shall maintain the house , park, fish preserves, ponds, mill, and every thing else pertaining to it , from the revenues of the land itself. When the heir comes of age, .he shall restore the whole land to him, stocked with plough teams and such implements of husbandry as the season demands and the revenue from the land can reasonably bear”

through the article 60 of Hammurabi above we see that this article encourages the worker who works for free or the low level position try not to work for many year because if they work so many years still get the same position and lower pay, they won’t satisfy for daily living standard, the government of Hammurabi may think that all citizens shall have similar level of living standard and tries to prevent poor people from putting pressure from the rich.. If the government tries not to do so the responsibly of the whole society is government itself. So government is so clever about how to propose the law.
Another article of contract law the situation the same thing but the law is different, especially the Article 5 of Magna Carta law. When the guardian has guardianship for the life and when the heir becomes the old age, he shall restore the whole land to him. In this point we see that the government also tries to prevent the poor from the rich by let the owner think that they should not keep the guardian for long time for taking care of such the land, but in contrary the government encourages the poor keeping the lower job and lower pay for so long by not allow him/her to invest in other business or job. On the other hand, the guardian will not try to find out another job because she/he want that kind of land already.

Code Comparison of Contract Law

Comparisons of Contract Law between the
Code of Hummurabi and Magna Carta


According to the article 9 of Hummurabi code stated about losing an article. This law states so clearly about the process how to prove to the court if the property belongs to them or not. If we look at the law processing, it seems so strict and perfect. They will not just judge people base on a principle thing. The court will try to find out the root of story and start to consider about the story and they will punish the thief. If he/she is a thief and they can prove it, he/she will be put to death. They set the strict rule like this in order to control their country in a proper way. They just don’t want people to think about stealing, robbing or other staff that are not moral, that the society hate. To human rights law this law seem so harsh to their people. Just to prove that he’s a thief then put them to death. They didn’t treat their own people in a polite way. Yes, he steals things but it doesn’t mean that he will always be a thief forever. They should give him another chance. They can punish him and then let see if he changes or he’s still the same. But even he doesn’t change, stealing shouldn’t be put in death. Because it’s not a very harsh criminal act that no body can forgive him.

For Magna Carta law in art. 28 and 32 stated about the royal officer who want to take one’s property without permission. If he does that, he must return the property back to the owner within a year and a day. But this didn’t say anything about the punishment, even though there will a punishment for them. Via this law we can see that, people who enacted this law wants people are the same. They treat everyone in the same way. This is mean that even he’s a royal officer, he work in the royal palace, but this doesn’t mean that he’s powerful, so he can take anybody property whenever they can. And he has a reasonable period that he has to return the property to it owner. If we compare this to human rights, this law is enacted along the human rights. Because it seems they have their own rule to control people but not very cruel. They didn’t separate class to people and treat them with a different way.

In my opinion, Magna Carta law is getting along with human right and Magna Carta found a better way to treat their people by punish they according to the level of he/she criminal act. But Hummurabi is very harsh, they treating their people too strict and they didn’t care about their people life. They will put anyone to death if he/she did something wrong but they didn’t bother to give he/she another chance.

Any way, I think that no one wanted to be bad unless they were poor so they should steal. And the thief will be in a good way if they were punished a year and a day such a case in art.28 and 32 of Magna Carta Law.

Code Comparison

TES Loudeth

Comparisons between the
Code of Hummurabi and Magna Carta


According to the article 9 of Hummurabi code stated about losing an article. This law states so clearly about the process how to prove to the court if the property belongs to them or not. If we look at the law processing, it seems so strict and perfect. They will not just judge people base on a principle thing. The court will try to find out the root of story and start to consider about the story and they will punish the thief. If he/she is a thief and they can prove it, he/she will be put to death. They set the strict rule like this in order to control their country in a proper way. They just don’t want people to think about stealing, robbing or other staff that are not moral, that the society hate. To human rights law this law seem so harsh to their people. Just to prove that he’s a thief then put them to death. They didn’t treat their own people in a polite way. Yes, he steals things but it doesn’t mean that he will always be a thief forever. They should give him another chance. They can punish him and then let see if he changes or he’s still the same. But even he doesn’t change, stealing shouldn’t be put in death. Because it’s not a very harsh criminal act that no body can forgive him.

For Magna Carta law in art. 28 and 32 stated about the royal officer who want to take one’s property without permission. If he does that, he must return the property back to the owner within a year and a day. But this didn’t say anything about the punishment, even though there will a punishment for them. Via this law we can see that, people who enacted this law wants people are the same. They treat everyone in the same way. This is mean that even he’s a royal officer, he work in the royal palace, but this doesn’t mean that he’s powerful, so he can take anybody property whenever they can. And he has a reasonable period that he has to return the property to it owner. If we compare this to human rights, this law is enacted along the human rights. Because it seems they have their own rule to control people but not very cruel. They didn’t separate class to people and treat them with a different way.

In my opinion, Magna Carta law is getting along with human right and Magna Carta found a better way to treat their people by punish they according to the level of he/she criminal act. But Hummurabi is very harsh, they treating their people too strict and they didn’t care about their people life. They will put anyone to death if he/she did something wrong but they didn’t bother to give he/she another chance.

Any way, I think that no one wanted to be bad unless they were poor so they should steal. And the thief will be in a good way if they were punished a year and a day such a case in art.28 and 32 of Magna Carta Law.

Essay: Comparative between Agricultural law in Hammurabi Code and Magna Carta

Agricultural law is the law that urges the farmers to responsible for their obligations and rights of individual. This law also guarantees the individuals’ properties and liberties in which they are equal before the law, and no one can not take their rights of. However, what about the agricultural law in Hammurabi and Magna Carta? Do these shape the individual rights, properties and liberties? And what made them different?

Firstly, the agricultural law in Hammurabi is the written laws which stated clearly in each article. These laws focus on the rights and obligations of individual. If any man does not respect the law and pay less obligations or duties to what he had done in the fields or do not so understand about the field, cultivation, he would have lost his properties or possessions in that year and owe debts. For example, in one article the law said “If any one be too lazy to keep his dam in proper condition, and does not to keep it; if then the dam break and all the be flooded, then shall he in whose dam the break occurred be sold for money, and the money shall replace the corn which he has caused to be ruined.” It means that if anyone did not responsible to keep the dam in good condition; and if, it is broken to destroy his neighbor’s crops, then his crop shall be sold and pay to his neighbor. This article is emphasize on his duties keep the dam in proper condition, and it also stress about the rights of his neighbors that could order him to compensate for their loses. Another example is that if any one owes a debt for a loan, and a storm postrates the grain, or the harvest fail, or the grain does not grow for lack of water; in that year he need not give his creditor any grain, he washes his debt-tablet in water and pays no rent for this year.” It says that there is no payment for the debt of a loan for the year he rent because the grain was floated away and his debt was cleaned by the water or storm. Another word is not the tiller’s fault, but it caused by nature. Furthermore, it is a fair and just law creates to preserve social order because the lawmakers thought that the tiller is already poor if he is still charged, he become poorer. Thus, refer to the above statement and example, we would like to say that even though this law did force to capital punishment, but it still made farmer respect because it is a kind of business between the land owner and the tiller. In business it must consist of lost and benefit. So, if any farmer does not respect and not so focus on his duties, he may get nothing and sometime he might loss his possession. In contrast, there is a fair judgment that the law is written like in the case of natural disaster, storm, rain and drought. These kinds of disasters, any debt that would be paid in the contract year would have released through the water or storm.

Secondly, the agricultural law in Magna Carta is created by barons to ensure the rights and liberties of individual and protect the king not use his absolute power to seize any property of a freeman and to maintain that every judgment must be conducted by law and every person must equal. Moreover, the must be bound by law, in which no royal officer use his power to abuse the rights of freeman. For instance, in one article stated that “to any man whom we have deprived or dispossessed of lands, castles, liberties, or rights, without lawful judgment of his equals, we will at once restore these. In cases of dispute the matter shall be resolved by the judgment of the twenty five barons referred to below in the clause for securing the peace. In cases, however, where a man was deprived or dispossessed of something without the lawful judgment of his equals by our father king Henry or our brothers king Richard, and it remains in our hands or is hell by other under our warranty, we shall have respite for the period commonly allowed to Crusaders, unless the lawsuit had been begun, or an enquiry had been made at our order, before we took the cross as a Crusader. On our return from the Crusade, or if we abandon it, we will at once renter justice in full.” It means that this law warranties the right of the people. If any one‘s lands, castles, liberties or rights have been taken without the law confirm then the law must claim for them and return them to the owners’ properties. Hence, this law creates to protect the lands, properties and rights of people and to limit the power of king for any kind of seizing. But in the fact that this law not created to prevent all individuals’ benefits; in contrast, the law created to give benefits to the barons because only barons that hold the big land and properties.

In conclusion, we can draw a comparison that the law in Hammurabi is more proper than the law which was created by barons, Magna Carta because the Hammurabi Code of agriculture is applied to every individual in the whole society, but Magna Carta created to give benefit to a group of people in society, barons. However, these two kinds of laws maintain the ideas of democracy and human rights in that period. For instance, the law in Hammurabi does not force people to respect it, but they must obligate to respect the law, and this law tells people to use their rights in the right way by not harm to the others’ rights. The law in Magna Carta; for example, limit the king’s power and create law to preserve the social justice. Even though, the law benefit to the barons, but it apply to all people, and that people have rights to claim for what they lost without lawful judgment. But we have to remember one of the most remarkable point is that the Hammurabi Code cannot be amended because it written on the rock, and Magna Carta have more chance to amend some clauses deem necesary.

Assigned Group: Moen Savoeun
Vong Dara

The comparative paper between contract law in the Code of Hammurabi and Magna Carta

After i studied the two code of laws, i get more interested in them even the two have some different points. It was about 4000 years ago since the Code of Hammurabi had been created by the king Hammurabi to establish right and obligation for his people at that time. Unlike, Magna Carta that was created because of disagreements between Pope Innocent III, King John and his English barons to exercise the right of the king. Even so there are a lot of differences between the two laws. But i would like to take only some differences to compare.

In the Code of Hammurabi, the laws were carved on the stone for the king thought that it would be easier to his people coming and seeing what was writen on the stone. More than that he thought the stone was always there, and it would be the proof to prevent people who attempt to commit something wrong such as criminal. There will no excuses for an offender to say that he or she did not do something wrong as the stone contained everything on it. In contrast, the law of Magna Carta was created for the reason that Pope Innocent III disagreed with King John and also it people within the country. The king had to renounce certain right, respect certain legal procedures and people must accept the will of the king as it was bound by law. By the way it was the first document to limit the power of the king by law. So i can say that this is the difference of the two laws based on different purpose.

when i looked into the articles of the two laws i also found out something. For example, in the article 117 says that " If any one fail to meet a claim for debt, and sell himself, his wife, his son, and daughter for money or give them away to forced labor: they shall work for three years in the house of the man who bought them. or the proprietor, and in the fourth year they shall be set free." In this case the government doesn't care what will happen between the one who gave away his of her family and the creditor. The thing is that the government only cares to the aspect that slaves at that time didn't pay tax at all, but free men did. It was very different from the Magna Carta in the article 9 that says" Neither we nor our officials will seize any land or rend in payment of a debt, so long as the debtor has moveable goods sufficient to discharge the debt. A debtor's sureties shall not dis trained upon so long as the debtor himself can discharge..................................., unless the debtor can show that he has settled his obligations to them." In this case the law of Magna Carta gives priority to the debtors who can pay back the debt in any way as they can do, but they don't have to sell their family members like the Code of Hammurabi. It can also say that the human right in Magna Carta is better than the time of Hammurabi.

In short, even there are diffences between the two, there are also some good points that they have in common. For example, the purpose of the two play an important roles in protecting their society and people.

Writen by: Keo Cheysothearith

Comparision between Code of Hammurabi and Magna Carta (Criminal)

Prof: Stan Starygin
Students' name: Key Manera & Muy Sophek
(Area of code Criminal)

We are responsible on the area of criminal code, and have read through many articles that are related to criminal on Hammurabi code and code of Magna Carta. So far we found out that Code of Hammurabi was stated very clearly about the crime and punishment than Magna Carta.

Code of Hammurabi was clearly talking about the rules and punishment such as if anyone breaks the rules so that the punishment could be as little as a fine or as big as capital punishment is to dead. Especially for the death penalty was freely awarded for robber, thief that stealing temple and court’s property, for illegal purchase from minor or slave, for selling stolen goods or receiving stolen goods and so on. For example article 8. “ If any one steal cattle or sheep, or an ass, or a pig or a goat, if it belong to a god or to the court, the thief shall pay thirtyfold therefore if they belonged to a freed man of the king he shall pay tenfold; if the thief has nothing with which to pay he shall be put to death “ and article 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 “ and also article 22 “ If any one is committing a robbery and is caught, then he shall be put to death “.

The idea of those three articles is mainly focusing on taking someone’s property. If you do so you will be punish to dead. So from my point of view I think that, if we talking about human rights today, according to modern international law did say that “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person” and " 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.

It's very cruel to punish people to death by just committed a stealing crime it is too much punishment, nobody want to be a thief nor a robber it is just sometimes they are not educated and live in a bad society or it can be because of the hunger so if they don’t steal things to sell to get some money and buy food they would die or other many circumstances. So we better put punishment base on the act of stealing. For example like if we found out that thief is a educated person and with good physical ability instead of working he go to steal thing from people so this kind of act should put him in jail for a period of time and but if those thief who we found out that are very poor and in the case of if they don’t steal they can be die in this case he should be just punish in jail just for several years instead of killing.

In contract, in Magna Carta was not stated clearly about the punishment for those who committed crime of stealing for example like in article 30 “No sheriff, royal official, or other person shall take horses or carts fro transport from any free man, without his consent “ so this article just mean that it doesn’t matter who you are, you cannot take anyone’s property without their consent . It doesn’t state clearly that what punishment will be if those sheriff or royal official take horse or carts for transportation without the consent of free man.
We can see in Magna Carta we cannot know that what the thief will deserve if they commit stealing crime or other crime because it didn’t not stated clearly about the punishment for those who commit stealing crime and other as well.

In conclusion, Hammurabi code is a very cruel code that that abuse the human rights, that every country should not follow, whereas Magna Carta is a code the serve only a group of people and did not state clearly about the punishmen

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 )

Codes Comparision

Prof: Stan Starygin
Students' name: Men Ka & Nay Sitha
Topic: Comparison of Contract law of the Code of Hummarabi and Magna Carta


Dear All,

As we all have seen that the codes of Hummarabi and Magna Carta consists a lot of articles concerning about the contract law, family law, criminal law, heritage law, and trade law. We would like to draw your attention on the topic of the contract law of the two and study together whether the Hummarabi Code or Magna Carta is more precisely and have something on human right which we think it is more sense and better than one another.

Well, some of the articles of contract law in both Hummarabi Code and Magna Carta had clearly stated about the responsibility of individual who agrees to sign the contract and decides to take the way they want to. For example, the article 120, 121 in the Hummarabi Code to which the owner of the house who agree to allow some one deposits the property must take responsible for the loss of the property that is lost in his or her house because he or she is agreed to the owner of the property.

However there are some of articles of the Humarabi Code that are mentioned about the contract law did not decribe, and promote human right, for instance, the article 45 of the code. The code mentioned that " if a man rent his field for tillage for fixed rent, and receives the rent of his fixed, but bad weather come to destroy the harvest, the injury falls up on the tiller of the soil." This whole article, does not have anything to do with human right because the tiller who rent the field do not have right to claim lost sharing because it is not his own fall, but the bad weather and who is going to control the weather. The code, at least, mentioned that the tiller should have right to bargain with the land owner but it put pressure to the tiller causing those who want to rent the field felt afraid to rent if such a case happen.

In contrast, articles of the contract law of Magna Carta were clearly mentioned and concerned on human right. They, at least, mentioned in one or two clauses in the article of the contract law.
For example, article 9 that its first clause states about the right to property even though he ows some one and he was unable to pay on time, he still has right to protect his land, unmovable goods, while he still has chance to earn living and even pays the debt. To this clause, the author was very clear because he understood that if he mentioned about right of the debtor to seize the land, there would be chaotic in the society and it cuased trouble to the government.

Moreover, the article 10 of Magna Carta in the second clause mentioned about the child right to property becasue he had right not to pay debt while he or she was under age. It is the beauty of the article that is more sensible and respect the human right and it would not give burden to the child who knew nothing about the debt that his or her father had borrowed.

On the other hand, the article 11 of the code clearly eradicates the idea of discrimination between race and ethnicity group. It is the beauty of the article becasue they treated equally regardless they are Jews or Christianity. It is the party of the human right becasue every human has equal right regardless who you are and what you are. If you are human beings, you are treated fairly under the human universal right.

In conclusion, we think that the Code of Magna Carta in term of contract law seem to be better than the Hummarabi code because every article of the code had stated at least one or two clauses in the article concerning about the human right, especially, women and children right. Furthermore, most of the code seems to show about the democratic idea while some of them provide right to majority such as the article 12 that tax was going to pay the amount that the majority of the people consent to it but not the king alone who decided how much amount it should be.

Dear Prof Mr. Stan,
Student names: SE John and IM Meng,

July 11, 2007

CODES COMPARISION

We are responsible to write our assignment in the comperision of the Hammurabi code and Magna Carta in regarding or related with our field of family law. As far as we have read thru there were plenty of articles has stated about family law or issues in Hamuurabi code than Magna Carta.

Marriage retained the form of the purchase. It is mean that a man have to bring some amount of value things to her father house in order to get marriage. If she bear him no children,he is able to find second wife until producing children.

Since the main purpose of the Hammurabi code wished to have more manpower, the adultery seem not toke place during Hummurabi Code time. For instance, if a man was captured in war, his wife can go to another house and having the children and she shall be blamless.

We can honestly addressed that women right were seem less practices because of the fact that, when coming to the divorcing, man was optional and the property estate were not equally share among the husband and wife. However, she shall get only property equally as/to that one son.

It was not fair and justice at all, of course, if she had been a bad wife, he shall sent her away, while the husband kept the children and her dowery, or degraded her to the position of a slave in his house, where she could have only food and clothing.

If she was a widow, she could ask for remarry but approval and consent from judicial. With this statement, we could see that the women rights was zero by that time.

In contrast, if we compared women rights in both codes, Hammarabi and Magna Carta we can clearly see that Magna Carta they have empowerment toward women rights. For instance, no widow shall be compelled to marry. If is definitely right of the women. Every citizens are equally before law. She can make her choices and decision regarding marry. She must give security that she will not marry without royal consent.

Marriage is is the long life to live together between husband and wife, if marry by force it will be not long lasting nor happiness.

With Magna Carta code, we would like to illustrate that there were respect Human Rights, Women rights, children rights and women empowerment.

From my point of view, Hammurabi the purposed of the code is want to increase the manpower so that they can protect and defence their crown. As can be seen, on article 134 has stated that that if a man captured in the war and his wife can go to another house and she shall be blameless. Article 135, has stated the same thing that if a man was captured in war and his wife go to another house and bear him children. She also blameless.

Even if Magna Carta has less code than Hummurabi, but there were a lot of interests and benefits for our present day society since Cambodia constitutional law we adopted and rectified the UN charter and convention of declaration of Human Rights in 1993.

In short, Magna Carta code it was the benefit and necessary tools of law for our present situation because of the fact that baron have done certain amount of rigth job in order to avoiding one man or king ruling and exercise the power without moral. This is demonstrated that the Magna Carta is the state of democracy and state of rule of law.

Submission Deadline and Commenting Format

Hi All,

As I see some of you starting to post, this is to remind all of you that the deadline for the posting of comparative papers on the Code of Hammurabi v. Magna Carta is 5 PM (PP time) Wednesday, 12 July, 2007. Papers must at least 1 page in length.

After you have posted, you are expected to read at least one other paper on this blog on which you will be commenting between 6-8PM Thursday, 13 July, 2007. When you comment, please, make sure that you click on the comment sign underneath the message which your comment about.

I will see you all on this blog Thursday night.

Have a good day,

Stan

Hi, everyone I found this is a really helpful site on magna carta, it help you to find the area of law you are in because it has the INDEX. For example if you are in marriage law, so just look through the index and you will see the marriage section, click on it, it will show all article that are related to marriage plus it has the definitions to explain difficulte words as well. So here is the link http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/medieval/magframe.htm

Holt's Book on Magna Carta

Hi Minera,Thank you for recommending Holt's book. It's a great title. The only problem with it is that because of the copyright it doesn't appear in full on the website you suggested. Nonetheless, the parts that are available are very instructive and highly recommended to those of you who might have a change to go through them.Enjoy the rest of the weekend,

Stan