Socrates and Law

Based on reading this article, I wanted to reflect upon how the conservation between Socrates and Critos before Socrates was an important conversation on human rights. Socrates was a philosopher who believed in how true knowledge is the understanding that we don't know anything. In order to prove this, he went around many places, where he found people, and proved his point using the socratic method. This method is basically asking questions to find out if they know what they're talking about. Because of this the government accused him of corrupting the children, which is why he was sent to prison and death. I feel that they did this wrongly because of the fact that they not only violated his human rights, but also the fact that they aren't following their own code, which mainly relies on having philosophers in their community, and by going against that they are also violating one's rights by the fact that they aren't allowing him to express what he feels, it's a reason for what Critos came and asked him to escape from the prison. With respect to his human rights, it gives him more of a reason to escape. Additionally, with respect to fairness, it would be fair for him to escape since they owe him for putting him in jail and condemning him to death for the ability to teach. He on the other hand, teaches people of his philosophy, which helps the community. Lastly, with respect for the law, even though it's against him to escape, he should be able to show the law what they are doing wrong in the community in order to show that he wasn't doing anything to harm the community.

Twelve Tables

After reading this article, what I want to say is how these tables make property a substantial topic, which is similar to what Hammurabi's code does. Additionally, another similarity I found between these two is that they inherit the same three punishments: death, fine, or imprisonment. One of the themes I found within this reading was about the organization of society. What I found this relates to Mosaic code is that it talks about what you can and can't do. Something new that is used when I read these tables were that the laws are made in a way that doesn't affect the safety and organization of society, just to try to be in control. Also, something significant I found was how slaves are always used as property in these early codes of law. Also, all free men have the same level in society. There is no differentiation of the punishments or fines like there was in the other two code of laws. Something else I noted was that the only class levels there were at that time were the slaves and free men, which isn't the best way to classify all of the groups, since they should all be treated equal and also the fact that there was not only discrimination with the slaves, but with the women that lived at that time period. What I thought these laws did was to give people the power to do what they want. Lastly, what I wanted to put an emphasis on was how as discussed in class, one of the most significant things learned was how every law takes away one piece of your freedom. This was nothing I ever considered, but this is true and is what makes life for everyone a good thing and a bad thing. What I feel these set of laws do is write and give what the people what they deserve, unlike what Hammurabi's code does.

Hammurabi's Code vs. Mosaic Code

Based on what we learned this week from the article comparing both the laws and rights between these two set of laws, there are a lot of differences as well as similarities even though the time period for these two governments are different. After reading the laws for Hammurabi's code, three themes I was able to come up with were that whenever a crime was committed, there would only be one punishment. Additionally, these laws that were established are more about punishments for each crime. Another theme I managed to come up with was that they are more specific about payments that should be made for each crime. The language found from this document was that they were strict, harsh, and concise. The punishment most often given for the crimes, which considered Hammurabi's code to be extreme was death, even though there were often payments for crimes. For Mosaic code, the three themes I managed to find were how when a law is broken, a judge would determine the punishment. Another theme that I came up with was how it was more about the law and what to do or not to do. The last theme was based only on purity. After reading the document, the major difference I found between two set of laws was that it was less extreme than Hammurabi's code. Despite the fact that it was less harsh it didn't lack the fact that it was direct and serious. For a crime that would be committed, the punishment was death at little times, but most likely was repaying or paying a fine. A phrase that was repeated when I read this 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 both articles, what I found similar between these two readings was the fact that both made an emphasis on adultery, robbery, assault, and respect for your parents and elders.

Hammurabi's Code

Based on reading the article of Hammurabi, what I wanted to reflect was how important the three laws he made first were. Firstly, today, they are similarly used except for the fact that we don't use the death penalty. One of the important things that should be noted is that these first set of laws were significant because of how even though they thought they were bringing justice for the community, they are bringing fear to the people. But what I think they were thinking when they created the laws is to prevent people to commit the actual crimes, in order to create a safe environment for the whole community. What I also feel Hammurabi is is very specific on what the crimes are and how they'll be treated. I was surprised on how he made these laws equally upon all other classes in the society. I feel that this is another thing present day government and laws differed from that time. Today, punishments wouldn't go out equally. There will always be a discrimination by class, where higher class groups won't receive as harsh punishments than the lower class. It makes sense since for most governments they care of having power and the most money. So they know the higher class pay, while lower class struggle on surviving. This doesn't demonstrate the equality we supposedly knew, yet the discrimination we're still willing to make.

The Need of Human Rights

Based on reading the article of the different people over whether human rights are necessary, even though the majority may feel that they aren't necessary and agree with the person contradicting this, I feel that they are wrong, since to me I feel that they are necessary and do exist in a community. During the conversation, I noticed on how they question the fact that if there were such things as human rights, there wouldn't have been as much damage to the world as there is now because of how how no one follows them. But I for a fact know that people follow them, but as we learned early in the year, there are corrupt governments, and they in turn are the people responsible for not following these rights, as well as being responsible for causing others to do it. Today, we have human rights such as Freedom of speech, the right to the pursuit of happiness, the right to life, etc. These rights are what are needed in a community for it to be better. But we are robbed these rights by the government, that as corrupt as it is, doesn't want anyone to tell them. This in turn doesn't give us the right to freedom of speech, the right to be happy in the world, and the right to life since anyone opposed with the government is just condemned. People in the world don't have the chance to bring justice and equality to the places that are needed, to the places where people deserve a better life. Most importantly, What the government seems to be taking away from people is the right to education. Education is the most important thing needed for a person for them to succeed. In many places the government takes that away from them and brings misery into their lives. For example, one thing is how in many countries they are using kids as soldiers. Without education, they're the ones taking away a life and bringing negative things into their lives.

Class Discussion

Based on the class discussion held where the question was "Why did the people write these laws?" I believe they wrote these laws because of how they needed to set order to the crimes that may be committed. Additionally, I think that these laws were established in order to prevent the crimes from happening. What I mean by this is that as people commit crimes and then are sentenced to death, it will influence people to not do it anymore since they don't want to be killed. As much as we may think of the crimes as being harsh, since currently states have banned the death penalty, I thought that at the time it wouldn't be considered harsh since it was a way of bringing respect and justice to the community. Additionally I feel that now, human rights are more developed than they were back then, so if we're violating someone's right to live by death, which an example would be Steve Biko's case when the he faced injustice from the South African government and died, we're taking away an individuals human rights. But if that were to happen in the time of Hammurabi, I assume that no rights would've been violated since if someone commits a crime, the person's punishment is death, and if for example Steve Biko would do that, the government doesn't want anyone to go against them, so they would punish him in any way. Even though these two events may differ because of how people would react, I would find them alike in doing the same thing to whoever would oppose them, which is violate their rights. Even in countries like US, I still feel they do the same to people that believe and stand for what they think is right. For example, if someone were to wear a Che Guevara shirt out in the streets, the government wouldn't want the person to pass out ideas to the community of actually supporting him, since the US consider him a murderer. But there are two view points. The point of view coming from the Guevara follower is that he is a hero for all of Latin America for trying to bringing equality and end the injustice faced from the government from all those countries that don't care for the benefit of the people. But either way that person would be hurt for showing it. The government will just they want to prevent anything form happening, when in reality they are the people provoking it.

Cry Freedom (3 Blogs in 1)

After watching this movie, my reaction was sympathy for what the South Africans were facing, as well as shock and infuriation at what the white South Africans were capable of doing because of the hate and segregation they wanted to demonstrate upon this group of innocent people. After watching this movie, I feel that it's my favorite one that we watched so far in class. To me, human rights are more important than most topics talked about because of the fact that every human deserves to be treated equally. My interest has been learning about justice and human rights not only for the South Africans, but for other races such as Latino/ Hispanic. Even though there may not be segregation anywhere, inequality is still in the world, with the belief that there can be only one dominant race in the world. As many activists have inspired me to stand up for what's right, I have the urge in standing up and bringing equality where it is lacking, and change the way many people think, just like Steve Biko and other influential people did. But most importantly, I think that change should be brought to avoid the suffering of children. The children of any race shouldn't suffer, just as the children attempting to end apartheid suffered, by brutally being shot at. Those children are significant later on in life, since they will represent their race and their culture, and should feel proud about it. They, just as the adults stand up for their human rights, so will the children in bringing freedom and equality no only for themselves, but for an entire minority group, just as Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and Oscar Romero did. Based on watching this movie, what I found most significant in order to help give South Africans a voice was the friendship that shook South Africa and awakened the world. The friendship between Steve Biko and Donald Woods was great, since for one I knew that people in the world that aren't black actually are willing to take a stand, despite the fact that they themselves face the danger of being killed, and also share the same ideas. The fact that there can be people of the opposite race that support one's idea serves as hope that change can happen. I respect Donald Woods because I saw what he had to go through, jeopardizing not only his life, but of his family, but this cause was something that shook him harder than an earthquake, this apartheid was going to be the future, for all black South Africans, and this would've meant many more deaths of innocent people. During the end of the film, when they showed the black activists that died in police custody, I was mad that as much as the deaths were repetitive and dumb, nobody managed to question it and take action for it, since clearly not everyone would've died in such a unintelligent way, knowing that all off these people taking a stand, like Biko were smart by the way they would express themselves and the way they would form ideas in order to protest against what the government was doing. From what I saw, I know the people didn't deserve death by the fact that they used non-violence, causing harm to no one. Today, I still feel that if the people responsible for the deaths of the South African activists are still alive, they should receive punishment for what they deserved. Based on how corrupt the system in the government was, they managed to be innocent, which I didn't think was fair, and also that they have the right to do whatever they please. I would've wanted to know how those white South Africans would feel if at one point all their homes would be destroyed, and if they wanted to protest, they would be shot to death. Everyone is equal. The type of living conditions the black people lived in at the time proved that there wasn't equality in a country that was made up of lies and hate. Based on human rights, there is a difference between that and justice, and I feel the world would be better if people would take that into account, and bring justice to people that need it and deserve it.