Declaration of Human Rights Comparison

Based on what I read on the Declaration of Human Rights, it is able to compare to the Mosaic Code and Hammurabi's code. Based on what we learned on Hammurabi's Code and Mosaic, they both compare because of the fact that the laws for Hammurabi's code, whenever a crime was committed, there would only be one punishment. Additionally, these laws that were established are more about punishments for each crime. They are more specific about payments that should be made for each crime. The language found from this law was that they were strict, harsh, and concise. The punishment most often given for the crimes, was death, even though there were often payments for crimes. For Mosaic code, when a law is broken, a judge would determine the punishment. It was more about the law and what to do or not to do. The major difference I found between two set of laws was that it was less extreme than Hammurabi's code. A phrase that was repeated when I read the document was they set these laws in order to "purge the evil." They wanted each punishment to be equal for the person that committed the crime. Eye for eye. Foot for foot. After reading about both sets of laws, what I found similar between these two sets of laws was the fact that both made an emphasis on adultery, robbery, assault, and respect for your parents and elders. When I compare this to the Declaration of Human Rights, I see how the Declaration is created in order to give people equal rights, and prevent from there being any discrimination and inequality. Also, to help ensure that there won't be any thing happening that will harm people. One relationship I see is how they are all established to establish equality, whether the way they seek equality is distinct. Mosaic Code and Hammurabi's code emphasize equality through setting up punishments for many crimes that would be committed in the world. The Declaration emphasizes equality through saying how each individual is equal and how they get the opportunity to anything such as security, education, happiness, and good living conditions. Even though these three documents are apart from many years, the same topics are still used and carried on to try and benefit the people of the community.

Declaration of Rights for Men and Women

Based on what I read from these two articles, I was able to find out of the rights intended to be made and how they have been not followed by sex. The connection I was able to find between these two different set of rights is how they are intended to create and preserve rights of people. What this was implying was life, equality, security, and liberty. However, most of these rights have been violated over time not only to different ethnic groups, but to women as well. As time passed, people have made the law unequal, and women weren't gaining the liberty and security they should have deserved. On the contrary, they were not receiving the right to vote, and they weren't even considered a full human being. just three fifths. But on the other hand, because of what was being done to the women, it acted as an unintentional push for them to fight for what they believed in and create their own Declaration of Rights. Even though the United States have established a Declaration of Rights for Men and Women, I believe the United States are the ones who need it more than any other country. Not only have they violated the rights of both sexes, but they have done it to people of different ethnic backgrounds. I think this country being a diverse country, they must show how people that have been oppressed should be considered human beings, since they were the one's who worked hard in order to help the country benefit. I think this country will do a lot better accepting other people equally, since they don't know the struggle of being treated unfairly. Women have faced the same thing, and others should battle just as women did just to make sure they can be treated equally, and truly appreciated for what they do.

Due Process

After reading the article, I was able to find out about how Magna Carta and the Constitution are able to relate to due process. "Due Process" signifies a fundamental guarantee that all legal proceedings will be fair and an individual will have the opportunity to be heard by the government before their life and liberty are to be violated. Based on reading Magna Carta, some of the examples I found were connected to Due Process was how the law enforces that you have laws made to be unbiased. Also, they give the explanation of how you can't be stripped from your rights, which includes a fair hearing and fixed court systems. This creates a solution for what times were like before this document was created because of the fact that before, any individual had to pay for a trial. The significant thing about how this was created was that Nobel's made it because of hatred for the king, but in the end they didn't use it. However, 500 years later it was applied in law and it was also used to build the constitution of the United States. After reading the article of Hamilton and the Constitution, this relates to Due Process since in Article 1 Section 3, Clause 7, it states that for any crime or impeachment from office, that individual is subject to trial, and a fair judgment, based on what has been committed. Lastly, based on reading the Constitution of the Bill of Rights, I feel  that the bill of rights should be emphasized with the privacy one may have as well as the rights and privilege's one as an individual may have. This cannot be stressed enough because of the fact that even though the US believes in equality and freedom, there are many times in which they have discriminated on lower class groups as well as people of color. In order to have the support of their laws, then they have to abide by it no matter what.

5/11 Discussion Comments

Based on the discussion we had today, one of the things I feel that should've been improved was participation. I know myself and others needed to. I feel that based on the discussion we had last time, there were more variety of people communicating based on the different ideas we were able to come up with and the questions that were posed. One of the other things that could've been done in order to help get the conversation more interesting was more questions being asked. I feel that with questions we may be able to think more of the topic being discussed and share our ideas more effectively in way that we may help one another when there is something one person won't understand. One of the reasons I think some people may not have participated was how the people that discussed more frequently often shared their ideas quicker without giving people the opportunity to share an idea. Another thing I feel was a cause for the lack of participation was the effort of trying to avoid repetition. This is a good thing, but I feel the people who didn't participate had the same ideas to share like the person who constantly talked, but never got the chance to share. Even though during this discussion we may have needed improvement in some areas, I feel that the conversation actually ended up going in the right direction by how people came up with different ideas and questions that related what we had learned from Sharia to modern day religion and how people are distinct by the way they follow it. Overall having conversations like this is the way we'll fully understand the concept since we work together as a whole in order to determine what we think similarly and what we think differently. It can be recommended that we continue to do is for other readings later on.

Sharia

Based on what I read, I was able to find the significance of Sharia and how it plays in society. Sharia is another way to say "The Right Path." It originated from the Quran and is considered the actual word of god by the muslims. The significance of Sharia is how over time, it managed to reinterpreted and adapted to new issues in the world. One of the things that caught my attention is how today, for many religions, there is conflict to whether or not you're part of a religion if you follow only some of the laws. This is because the significance of reinterpreting the Sharia is that it gave people the opportunity to follow the laws they found most suitable for themselves. Based on the question "Are you a part of a religion if you don't follow all of it's rules." I think the answer may vary since for many people, a person can go as far as they think they have to be in order to be a part of religion, which can explain how today there distinct groups of people for each religion. I feel that following or not following all of the laws imposed does show whether or not you're a part of a religion. If people continue to reinterpret sets of laws, it'll come to the point where they will change laws, and ultimately create new religions because of how a person's belief varies in every aspect. If they are going to follow a religion, why not follow it entirely, or else just make a religion to where you feel you're following it 100 percent?  One of the questions asked was "How can law relate to religion." I feel the answer to this can be that both are meant to lead people to the right direction in life and helping them benefit and advance towards life, not only receiving rewards in your human life, but in your afterlife.

Justinian's Code

Based on this article, I was able to find out the significance of Rome becoming a republican style government with their new leader Justinian. What changed history for the Roman empire was when he established Justinian's Code. It wasn't just a regular set of laws, yet major decisions that were meant to govern the Roman society. One of the things that made it unique from other laws is the fact that it was divided into two different types. They were Public laws, laws for government officials, and Private Laws, laws to govern private citizens. What really made me think as distinct and important was how they divided private laws into three sections, Natural Laws, Civil Laws, and Law of Nations. Natural Laws apply to ever thing in the world. Civil Laws applied to people who lived in a single state. Law of Nations are international laws applying to interactions between countries. Even though they are three different set of laws, they can all relate to modern laws today because of the fact that Every country can have Natural Laws, which can be shown by how countries are governed by local, state, and federal laws. But one difference I note is how International Laws can be violated over time, which can make them seem as not being laws. I say this because of the fact that for example, one country may be torturing people, but another country may not tolerate that. I think that because of the different laws a country may have, it can lead into disagreement, which may lead up to war. One of the examples I think this applies to is the relationship the United States might have with Russia and Cuba. The thing that makes them enemies is the fact that the US is against the communist and socialist government from these countries since they feel it poses as a threat to them. On the other hand, Cuba or Russia may feel the same way of the US government. Because of this, I feel that Law can not only help people govern themselves and find a way to follow their beliefs, but also cause conflict among other countries.

History Comparison

Based on what I learned, something I learned that compares to what we have learned in history is how in health class Socrates' theory on knowledge was mentioned. Based on the movie, it was explaining the origin of Aid's and how important and deadly it began to get. Basically, it was used because of the fact that the people working in the lab had exactly no idea what the disease killing millions of people was. He used how people have no true knowledge. Even though they had many leads on what it could've been, they were getting farther each time from where they wanted to be in order to progress.  This can also compare to how Socrates' used the Socratic method, which was a method of teaching by question and answer in order to elicit truths from people. This not only stimulated ideas but illuminates ideas. Through this method was he able to bring many followers, which were mostly young people, and many people opposed to his ideas as a philosopher. Based on watching the movie, I know they weren't being wise enough in order to figure what was killing people worldwide. They would've not been able to get through most of the questions that would've been put upon them had they been in the time of Socrates. After watching most of the movie, I'm able to see how most of the things that go on through the process of trying to solve the problem relates to part of Socrates' method. They use his socratic method, as well as most of his theories on knowledge. Based on what they used, it managed to help in them finally being able to resolve the problem they had no knowledge for a solution. So not only did I learn partial information on Socrates in history, but in health and the example used was a common problem faced in the earth.