News, announcements, and commentary for the students and families of GAMP.
Monday, September 23, 2013
Hammurabi's Code
Was Hammurabi's Code too tough or not tough enough? Use direct lines from the Code you received in class today to comment. Make this a conversation. (100-200 words)
43 comments:
Robert McCormick
said...
Robert McCormick In my eyes, "Hammurabi's Code" was very, very strict and unnecessary. Even though Hammurabi had set out laws that were meant to keep his empire organized and non-chaotic, the level of intensity of the laws was crazy! An example was law number 22 that stated "If a man committed robbery and has been caught, that man shall be put to death." I 100% agree with punishing someone for committing a crime such as murder but I do not agree with putting a man or woman to death because of it! I believe the extent of the consequence had been taken too far. As I read all of the laws, my general opinion about them is how I felt about law number 22. Hammurabi was obviously a wise man (ruling the Babylonian Empire for 42 years.) He had lived by the saying "an eye for an eye" but in my opinion, his version of that saying had been taken too far and the consequences for breaking his code was just uncalled for and very unnecessary.
Judging by the rules we saw in the worksheet, I believe that Hammurabi’s Code was written in favor of some groups of people and written against other groups. For example, rule 143 states, “If a woman was not careful, but was a gadabout, thus neglecting her house (and) humiliating her husband, they shall throw that woman into the water.” What would happen if a man were to neglect and humiliate his wife? Would they throw him into the water as well? Another thing I noticed about these rules is that towards the beginning, a lot of the punishments involved death. One of these rules is rule 22, which states, “If a man committed robbery and has been caught, that man shall be put to death.” Nowadays, if you were to be caught robbing someone, you would spend about 5 to 20 years in jail, but still get to keep your life. Perhaps it is different now where we are because civilization is more stable.
Bobby, I agree that these laws were very strict and would definitely be unnecessary for the world we live in today, but if I recall correctly, Hammurabi's code was written for people who had never really had laws before. This is probably why early rulers had so much control.
I believe Hammurabi’s Code is absolutely too tough. I don’t think a man should be killed whatsoever. I understand if he committed a crime and was put into jail, but in no way possible should his life be taken away. One example is law number three which stated, “If a man came forward with a false testimony in a case, and has not proved the word which he spoke, if that case was a case involving life, that man shall be put to death.” That is going way too far. I also do not believe anyone should be throwing women into the water just because they decided to neglect their houses, which is stated in law number 143. That is why I believe Hammurabi’s Code is too tough.
In my eyes, "Hammurabi's code was very unnecessary in some parts, but reasonable with some others. I completely agree with Bobby with law number 22. A man should not be put to death just because of a robbery. HE should be punished, beaten or fined. I did notice that no crimes were sentenced to jail. This makes me think that there was no jail and that was why Hammurabi was so strict. He didn't have a jail for punishment. On the other hand, law 59 to me was very understandable and reasonable. If you cut down a tree that is not on your property, you pay a fine to the person because it is technically their tree. I fall in between. Law 215 and 218 caught my eye. With 215 if you successfully perform an operation, you get money. With 218, if you fail, you get your hand cut off. I completely disagree with number 218. It could have been too injured to repair. I completely agree with number 215. If you complete it with success, you should be rewarded. This is how I feel on Hammurabi's Code.
Along with some of my other classmates I believe that the Code of Hammurabi is way too harsh. First off people being put to death for the smallest things like robbery is insane. Laws 3, 6, 15, and 22 are examples of being put to death for committing a crime. I understand committing a crime is wrong but everyone should be able to live their life, in jail or out. I think that hurting someone who has committed a crime in any way is just wrong in general. Another example is law 204 where it says, “204: If a man’s slave has struck the cheek of a member of the aristocracy, they shall cut off his ear.” For something like this I think they should’ve just been punished for the day or something simple. These are some examples to why The Laws are too tough.
I feel as if some of Hammurabi's rules were fair but then again I feel that some were very cruel and not needed. In our society today we have consequences for the wrongful actions we commit but the consequences are not as bad as Hammurabi's consequences. Even though I do believe that "an eye for an eye" is a fair way to live by but Hammurabi was a little extreme with this rule. It seemed as if the consequence for almost every wrong doing was being put to death. I found this unruly and against the saying "an eye for an eye" because someone was being put to death for stealing from others.
I also believe that the Code of Hammurabi is very tough and unnecessary. The laws are too harsh on the people. It isn't right to take someone's life away just for a simple crime such as theft. There should be a better punishment then just death. They could learn from their mistakes. The philosophy that Hammurabi relied on," equal retaliation" is not right in my opinion. If someone did something bad to you it does not mean to get revenge or like punish them harshly such as death. Overall, I think the Code of Hammurabi is definitely tough.
I believe that Hammurabi’s Code is too tough. In each law, there was either a major punishment or death. Some laws were alright, but the ones with the cutting off of body parts or death were actually startling to me. I feel sorry for those who had to live under those laws. We’re fortunate that we don’t have those laws today. The rule I think is mostly too much is rule 15: If a man has helped either a male slave or a female slave of the state or a male slave of a private citizen to escape through the city gate, he shall put to death. That’s one the rule that too tough.
So basicly what I'm saying is that Hammurabi's code may be tough to live by because of the death punishments. Because of this code and these laws, his empire fell after 42 years of control. I was really suprised with these laws since today, we don't face death when we break laws, instead we go to like 2 years in prison. Iraqi people would never forget this since the Babylonian Empire was in this location. The Code of Hammurabi are 282 laws that needed to be followed by Hammurabi's people. To do this, Hammurabi divided the Babylonian Empire into city states each with a set of laws. Some of these laws if broken will make the identified person get either one of its body parts cut off or be killed. Sometimes they lose everything they own while some of these laws make them pay them with their money. Some of these laws were hurtful then the ones we have today. Napoleon of France during the Napoleonic Wars made less painful laws like then Hammurabi's laws after he conquered some countries in Europe and Ottoman Empire Land in Africa. None of the punishments were death or anything. So from the differences from Napoleon and Hammurabi, Napolean's laws tried to make the world a better place and Hammurabi's laws were very infair and hurtful.
I think "Hammuraba's Code" was very strict and way to tough. It is good idea to have law to keep people and civilization are in order and organized. Some of the laws are ridiculous and unnecessary. For example, the laws number 22 "If a man committed robbery and has been caught, that man shall put to death". He should not be put to death just because he stole something ,he should be punishment about that. Or law number 145 if the woman leaves her husband and ruins her house, neglecting her husband, this woman shall be cast into the water. I think this law way to harsh and unnecessary.
Hammurabi’s Code was unnecessary and foolish in my opinion. Hammurabi tried to keep his empire under control but instead he created madness and unnecessary laws.Some of his laws were too intense and put people to death because of them. He tried to be a good ruler, but honestly just made himself look like a bad man in my opinion. Law number 143 gave me pause in a way. The law stated, “If a man came forward with a false testimony in a case, and has not proved the word which he spoke, if that case was a case involving life, that man shall be put to death.” This law is outrageous and way too intense in my opinion. I agree with Bobby, Sophia, and Taylor in every way.
I agree and disagree. Some of these rules are too harsh, some are not harsh enough. Rule 22: "If a man committed robbery and has been caught, that man shall be put to death." This is an example of one of the rules that is too harsh in my opinion. If you get caught robbing someone now, you go to jail for a while. Rule 59: "If a man cut down a tree in (another) man's orchard without consent of the owner of the orchard, he shall pay one-half mina of silver." This is an example of what I believe is a fair rule. You should have to pay if you cut down someone else's tree without permission. It just depends on the rule and the person. Some people might think a rule is too harsh, while another might not think that it is harsh enough. The same goes (too harsh, or not harsh enough), for what rule it is. It all depends.
In my opinion, I think the “Code of Hammurabi” is extremely harsh and difficult to live by. He was a very tough and extreme ruler, as you can see by his laws. In my opinion, laws number 3,6, 15, 22, and 143 were crazy and insane. For example, law number 3 states, “If a man came forward with a false testimony in a case, and has not proved the word which he spoke, if that case was a case involving life, that man shall be put to death.” That is going way too far and is awful way to correct the people in his empire.
I also think Hammurabi's law were much too severe. These days we rarely sentence people to death, the crime commited would have to be pretty awful to get the death penalty. Obviously in Hammurabi's time things were much different because many of his laws were punishable by death. It says Hammurabi relied on the philosophy of "an eye for an eye" yet some of his punishments are much harsher than the actual crime committed. I also noticed from rules 202 to 205, social classes determined your punishment. If an aristocrat hits an aristocrat he has to pay a fine, if a slave hits an aristocrat he will have his ear taken off which isn't very fair. I think Hammurabi had a good sense of what was wrong and what was right I just think he set the punishments in the wrong way.
I feel that Hammurabi's Code is a good way to create a civilization but some of the laws there were unnecessary. For example, law number 22, if someone were to commit robbery, they would be put to death. I feel that there are other ways for this type of situation to be handled, such as putting the them to labor for a certain amount of time. And the fact that the man who receives stolen goods from the church also had to be put to death, I felt was unfair because what if he was unaware of the fact that the goods were actually stolen? I also feel that Hammurabi's code was not a system of fair justice because there are examples of inequality between the common man and the slaves. For example, if a commoner were to commit a crime, their hand would be cut off. If someone of a higher status committed the SAME crime, they would just have to pay a small fine.
As I read the Codes of Hammurabi I think his Codes were too hard. For example Code 218 it states "that if a physican performs a major operation and the operation goes wrong", his punishment was to have the physicians hand chopped off. The man is a doctor trying to help a patient but sometimes things go wrong and its not really a crime. This man with no hand would never be able to practice on any other people again. Although there needs to be rules these were brutal punishments, you couldn't even learn a lesson you were just put to death. Even if he thought it was justice he never gave the others who did the wrong thing the chance to do it right the next time because there was no next time. I think his Codes went a little to far.
I believe that at the time the people though the laws where just fair, fair, and reasonable. But in today’s cutler almost everyone would find these laws completely ludicrous! Some silly laws are 6. This states if u steal from a church you will die. 15. Which says if u help a slave you will die. 143 which says if a women has fun she will be thrown into the water. 22. If you steal you die. 3. If a man said a false testimony you will die. Some laws are absurd in our tie but all of that’s just insane.
I think Hammurabi's code was way too harsh. It seems that people weren't even given a chance to explain themselves and most of the consequences were death. For example, the first few laws listed on the paper have the result of death. It was too harsh and too quick a punishment. There are also many displays of how the social classes worked in these laws. If someone of a lower status strikes a higher society member, they will basically be tortured and beaten. If a slave hits a person of higher importance than him, his ear will be cut off. Some of these laws didn't make sense. Like why did the slave have to have his ear cut off if he hit an aristocrat when a normal man would be beaten with a whip? It just doesn't make sense to me.
With some of the people in our class I agree the the Hammurabi's Code of Laws was very strict and unnecessary. Like almost all laws involve death. Law 205 "If a man's slave has struck the cheek of a member of the aristocracy, they shall cut off his ear." that's way too harsh. What if the people accidentally touch the cheek, the person lost an ear. All the law are cruel and evil.
After reading Hammurabi’s Code’s, I made the decision that his codes were way too tough. His way of the law was ‘an eye for an eye’. I thought it was really scary that somebody would be put to death for receiving a stolen item. I am very grateful that I live in this decade because woman was very mistreated by Hammurabi’s Code’s. If a woman didn’t take care of her house, or humiliated her husband, she would be thrown into the water. If a man helped a woman or male slave they would be put to death. I am very lucky that I live in American in today’s time. My mom would probably been thrown in the Delaware for embarrassing my dad. I’m just kidding. I Didn’t like the law rule 205 it was that if the man’s slave had hit the cheek of a rich person the people would cut off it’s ear. Today the police may put you in jail for assault, but most likely you would probably simply lose your job. These are a few reasons why I think the Hammurabi’s Codes were tough.
I think "Hammurabi's Code" was very intense,hostile, and beyond strict.I applaud him for reigning over the Babylonian empire for 42 yrs.but i don't applaud him for being unfair and a savage.For instance law number 205:" If a man's slave has struck the cheek of a member of the aristocracy, they shall cut of his ear". That law is very intense and just for people who were privileged and not a slave; because a aristocracy was a person who was like a government official and very privileged.There is no law pertaining to a consequence for anyone striking or being cruel to a slave. Also why do you have to cut someones ear for that;like come one have some type of empathy or mercy towards another human being. In conclusion i disagree with Hammurabi's tactics and methods that were so misdirected and immoral. I'm glad i didn't live in Babylon when he ruled.
I think that the code of Hammurabi is really tough. It is understandable to get punished for either stealing something or doing something that is not right, but I don't think that the punishment should go to the extent of putting them to death like for law number 22. For law number 143, " If a woman was not careful but was gadabout, thus neglecting her house (and) humiliating her husband, they shall throw that woman into the water." It is ridiculous to have a law like that. It is her and her family's personal problem that they should take care on their own. It should not be a law to throw someone in the water for that. To me, it is unbelievable to have such laws back then compared to the laws we have now.
In my opinion,"Hammurabi's Code" was to strict and unreasonable. The law I find very unfair, which I'm sure most girl do, is rule 143, which states "if a women was not careful, but was a gadabout, thus neglecting her house(and) her husband they shall throw her into the water." This is unfair to women, in my opinion. Would man get any punishment for the same action?
I agree with Antonio that some laws may have been more reasonable than others, however death or near death beatings just for hitting someone with more authority than you or stealing (law 22),should not be the aswer.
One thing we should all notice is that the citizens given these laws, really had no laws before. to them, this might be perfectly normal and to these people, our laws may not be strict enough.
Brian Clark 9-23-13 I think that Hammurabi’s laws were extremely too hard because in most cases if you even do the littlest thing wrong you will be put to death or drowned. For example rule number 15, and 22 if you robbed someone’s house, the church or the state, instead of being thrown in jail you will be put to death. I agree when someone steals something from someone else they should be punished but these laws take punishment to a whole new level. Law number 218 is very harsh to because if a doctor messes up on one operation will have his hand cut off. That in my opinon is very wrong because if he messes up once he will not have a chance to redeem himself for it on the next one because he only has one hand by that time. These reason are why I think the Code of Hammurabi is way to harsh.
I believe Hammurabi's Code is very harsh. People should be punished for committing crimes, but they shouldn't be put to death, or have a body part cut off because of it. For example, rule 3 states, "If a man came forward with false testimony in a case, and has not proved the word which he spoke, if that case was a case involving life, that man shall be put to death." Also, in rule 205 it states, "If a man's slave has struck the cheek of a member of the aristocracy, they shall cut off his ear." This is why I think that Hummurabi's Code was unnecessarily cruel and tough.
In my opinion, it think that Hammurabi Code was very brutal. I believe in having laws to control systems but the way Hammurabi ruled the Babylonian Empire was uncalled for. Being harsh on a society that never had laws before is completely wrong. Communication is the answer. Hammurabi should have had a meeting to explain the rules before taking a persons life and not even giving them a chance. The men and women should not have to be put to death or beaten just because Hammurabi did not accept their doings. Yes, I believe in punishment but not in a way of doing harm to another human. In law number 205, there should have been another way of punishing a men for striking the cheek of a member of the aristocracy. The people did not have a chance to show they can do the right thing because they just were beaten or put to death right after the wrong action. I do agree on punishment for a crime, but ruining a persons life is not the answer.
In my opinion, I think that the "Codes of Hammurabi" were more strict than needed. Hammurabi wanted a equal retaliation, or known as "an eye for an eye", and felt the need to take over things such as divorce, marriage, business partnerships, debt, assault, stealing and lying, As I began to read these laws, I formed an opinion that the consequences may have been taken to an extent uncalled for. For an example, like code #22, it states that 'If a man committed robbery and has been caught, that man shall be put to death'. I am not saying that they should have not been punished for doing such a crime but I don't think that being put to death was a fair punishment and may have been to extreme. Also an example, like #205, it states that 'if a man's slave has struck the cheek of a member of the aristocracy, they shall cut off his ear'. in my opinion, the idea of slavery to me is morally wrong, but I don't think cutting off his ear for hitting another member shouldn't be allowed because the action wasn't that serious. In conclusion, I think that Hammurabi's codes could have been more easygoing and less strict then what they were.
Jackie Avery I thought that Hammurabi's Code was very unnecessary. There was just so much that had to do with death. In my mind killing people off wasn't the best way to "destroy the wicked and the evil" like they say in the excerpt.Some of the laws that they were killing for were very minor. They were things that you could easily go go jail for. One of the laws states, " If man came forward with false testimony in a case,and has not proved the word which he spoke,if that case was a case involving life, that man shall be put to death." This is a death because of false evidence. I get thY giving out false evidence is bad, but not worth to die for. Another thing is that they had no privacy whatsoever. They had to go tothis so called "palace" for everything and what they didn't like,you're killed.
Reading Hammurabi's code was very interesting. It shows strict laws that are in a way very intricate. The punishment that the people endured depended only on the crime they committed. While in society today we seem to have a certain extent of "exception" to our rules, not in any way saying that our legal system of today is not logical or poorly thought, however Hammurabi's code is a bit more strict, and straight forward. Many crimes resulted in death. The rest of the crimes seem to result in life changing circumstances. Such as an ear taken off or a HAND taken off. Other crimes however can result in money for some who were involved in identifying injustice. Whatever way you look at it. Lives were changed, or lost.
I think that most of Hammurabi’s codes were too tough. I believe that the people who committed crimes should have been punished in a different way (not as harsh). In my opinion, law number 204 is very harsh. Law 204 says, “If a commoner has struck the cheek of (another) commoner, he shall pay ten shekels of silver.” I know that you shouldn’t hit anyone else, but I think that you shouldn’t have to pay this much; I think that there should be a different consequence for this. Another harsh law is number 22: “If a man committed robbery and has been caught, that man shall be put to death.” I think that this is harsh because you shouldn’t die because you stole something. I think that you should go to prison for a couple of years. These are some reasons why I think that most of Hammurabi’s codes were harsh.
I think the code of Hammurabi was created to decrease crime in Babylonian. The "Code of Hammurabi was very cruel. Hammurabi wanted equal retaliation an "eye for an eye". They made sure that's exactly what they got. They governed over things such as lying , stealing, assault, debt, business partnerships , marriage and divorce. To me the laws were a little more strict then they needed to be. A lot of these laws include death which I think is a very cruel punishment. They do deserve to be punished for any crime they commit , but I just think it was very harsh on how they handled certain situations. These punishments are very serious like law number 205 "a man's ear shall be cut off if his slave struck the cheek of a member of the aristocracy. The Code of Hammurabi was a very strict way of life and I suggest that the Babylonians prevents commiting any crimes.
In my opinion, I believe that “Hammurabi’s code” is much too strict and unnecessary. I understand that Hammurabi was trying t create a system of law but this was too tough. I see in law 6 that if a man stole property of a church or state, the thief and the man who received the items shall both be put to death. First, what if the man who received the item didn’t know in the first place that it was stolen? He would be put to death anyway even though he is innocent. Second, I notice that there is no prison here. It is mostly the death of people and paying fines with money. Overall, I feel that these punishments were unnecessary and life wasting.
I agree with my classmates when I say that Hammurabi's Code was very strict and harsh. There should be no reason a person has to lose their life unless they have taken someone else's. In Law 3, it's says that if there is a case and a man gives a false testimony involving the life of another person they are going to be killed. Also, in Law 22 it says that if someone who has committed robbery is caught they are to be killed. Both these laws are outrageous because no one should ever lose their life for robbing or giving a false statement. Should they be punished? Yes, but their punishment should not be losing their life.
I would understand why these laws are completely different from the laws that we have today. Things were different back then, but I would agree with mostly everyone else's opinions on how strict the Codes of Hammurabi were. Many of the law's punishments were ultimately death. Now that seems too strict. Perhaps these laws were very serious to scare anyone who would think about defying them, for they they were ever broken, there would be tremendous consequences. Note that death mostly applied to the laws that dealed with lying and stealing. These laws also seemed sexist towards women. The code makes it seem like men were dominant over females. That's exactly how it was in the past. Not only that, but there was certain classes. Slaves were the lowest of course. The higher people had more powerful. All these punishments are just unequal. The people with the highest authority would not even be punished if they were to commit a crime. Today, everything is much more balanced. The laws of today apply to everyone. Everyone is equal unlike before.
I totally agree with Robert and Sophia in many cases. I believe that Hammurabi's code was very unnecessary in many ways. But I also think that the people who the code was supporting or in favor of didn't mind since it was helpful to them. I think that Hammurabi was trying to create laws but the laws that were created were too strict. This is how I feel.
After reading the laws for the Code Of Hammurabi I think that most laws are unnecessary. One law I think that is unnecessary is number 3 that states "If man came forward with false testimony in a case, and has not proved the word which he spoke, if that case was a case involving life, that man shall be put to death". I believe that man should be put to death for certain crimes such as murder. Then I believe it is okay to put man to death for killing an innocent person. Laws are good because they keep civilization organized but they should not be taken to far with certain crimes.
Many people are say the laws are unnecessary. We can all see why, due to the fact that it is created by a king. A king was a form of dictatorship basically. Everything here is based out of karma, except the come backs of Karma is the slightly way way harder ones. No dial Disagreement, but to approach the law more immensely, it is based out of the quoted quote "an eye for an eye". Of course they had to think of a way to prevent violators for the attempt. The scale of penalty is based out of their simple, lack complex, tense monarchs society. The cultural differences also make us think that unnecessary of the law. The law as i can discern, is more harsh on the cultural living. Like committing a chance of freeing a slave. Back then slavery was not a bad thing, Abraham Lincoln wasn't there to play his role. Slavery was a huge part of them. As we can see it was created by one guy, just a simple one guy, who couldn't care less about death toward others. It is important for him to keep the civilians under control. It is positive of me to say it is a neat law, conscious state punishment given civilians less opportunity to wrench things up. As for they would know what would happen if they do wrench things up ( Hardcore Karma). The laws are so strict, but extremely clever and selfish that no one would ever break any laws. That gives a good civilization along with peace.
With most of the people in this class I can agree with, saying that these laws were very strict, and unfair. I can agree with making someone suffer for their actions on their accord, but you must realize that these sufferings included death even. I think laws 3,6, and 22 are definitely the most strict out of all the laws. Number 6 states that "If a man stole the property of church or state, that man shall be put to death; also the one who received the stolen goods from his hand shall be put to death." this means that if a man steals something, even if by accident, from church or state he will be put to death. Also, if a man who grabs the stolen items from the dead mans hands will also be put to death. That's cruel, what if the man who picks up the goods just was getting them to hand them back, I don't get how they deal with that, but it does say that these rules looked the most humane to them, so maybe times were right for them back then to be doing this, to teach discipline. This is why I think these laws can be strict and unfair.
I agree with a lot of the people above saying that it was very cruel, but i also disagree. Some of these laws are very brutal, like 218 for example. To chop a mans hand off because they messed up a surgery? Indeed that is very rough, but i also see these laws as, Hey! don't do that or we will kill you! To me, it appears they make such harsh laws so that people will not commit crime. If you think about it like that, if you do not commit the crimes, you do not have to worry about the laws. I think these laws were set to prevent crimes. So all in all, yes these are quite harsh but i do not think this is the worst thing considering it is an "eye for an eye" type system.
The Code of Hammurabi is the earliest set of laws that have been recorded from the earliest legal system. There are 282 of them, which is small compared to how many laws that we currently have in the American legal system. There is a lot of controversy over the strictness of the laws and to set the tone of the debate, it’s best to know which you value higher; justice or mercy? There are many rules on our worksheet such as 3 and 15 that result in the death penalty. Others result with beating or decapitating as the act of punishment. You have to remember that up until 1936, public hangings were a form of entertainment and far from unheard of. The people were used to seeing other citizens be put to death, so they were used to that way of life. It must not have seemed as harsh to them as it seems to us because they hadn't experienced anything different. Though I feel that Hammurabi’s laws were a bit trigger-happy, I also feel like he was an excellent ruler, circumstance providing. He was the first man to rule over a large assortment of people and with no one to set examples on what was moral and just and what wasn't, he did a good job.
Hammurabi's Code in my opinion was to harsh. If you stole something simple, such as a piece of fruit because you were starving, would you be put to death? that is considered robbery right? something such as this is to little of a crime to be put to death. I agree with Sofia on rule 143. its sexist and its not fair. Men and women should have been treated equally, had the same set of laws established to both genders. Rule 205 is just ridiculous, and scary. What if the slave had to defend themselves and the only way to do that was to strike the man ranked higher than him by society, he has to get his ear cut off? That's inhuman and shows how unfair, as well as harsh Hammurbi's laws were
I think Hammurabi's code was very harsh and unecessary. Under any circumstance no ones life deserved to come to an end. I actually think this was very cruel and wrong. Like #22 , I understand the victim stole but they shouldn't have been killed for that. Did they not have any other consequences to give them. Like these codes/rules are out of this world to me. I just don't get how they had to beat you or kill you for certain things.
43 comments:
Robert McCormick
In my eyes, "Hammurabi's Code" was very, very strict and unnecessary. Even though Hammurabi had set out laws that were meant to keep his empire organized and non-chaotic, the level of intensity of the laws was crazy! An example was law number 22 that stated "If a man committed robbery and has been caught, that man shall be put to death." I 100% agree with punishing someone for committing a crime such as murder but I do not agree with putting a man or woman to death because of it! I believe the extent of the consequence had been taken too far. As I read all of the laws, my general opinion about them is how I felt about law number 22. Hammurabi was obviously a wise man (ruling the Babylonian Empire for 42 years.) He had lived by the saying "an eye for an eye" but in my opinion, his version of that saying had been taken too far and the consequences for breaking his code was just uncalled for and very unnecessary.
Judging by the rules we saw in the worksheet, I believe that Hammurabi’s Code was written in favor of some groups of people and written against other groups. For example, rule 143 states, “If a woman was not careful, but was a gadabout, thus neglecting her house (and) humiliating her husband, they shall throw that woman into the water.” What would happen if a man were to neglect and humiliate his wife? Would they throw him into the water as well? Another thing I noticed about these rules is that towards the beginning, a lot of the punishments involved death. One of these rules is rule 22, which states, “If a man committed robbery and has been caught, that man shall be put to death.” Nowadays, if you were to be caught robbing someone, you would spend about 5 to 20 years in jail, but still get to keep your life. Perhaps it is different now where we are because civilization is more stable.
Bobby, I agree that these laws were very strict and would definitely be unnecessary for the world we live in today, but if I recall correctly, Hammurabi's code was written for people who had never really had laws before. This is probably why early rulers had so much control.
I believe Hammurabi’s Code is absolutely too tough. I don’t think a man should be killed whatsoever. I understand if he committed a crime and was put into jail, but in no way possible should his life be taken away. One example is law number three which stated, “If a man came forward with a false testimony in a case, and has not proved the word which he spoke, if that case was a case involving life, that man shall be put to death.” That is going way too far. I also do not believe anyone should be throwing women into the water just because they decided to neglect their houses, which is stated in law number 143. That is why I believe Hammurabi’s Code is too tough.
In my eyes, "Hammurabi's code was very unnecessary in some parts, but reasonable with some others. I completely agree with Bobby with law number 22. A man should not be put to death just because of a robbery. HE should be punished, beaten or fined.
I did notice that no crimes were sentenced to jail. This makes me think that there was no jail and that was why Hammurabi was so strict. He didn't have a jail for punishment.
On the other hand, law 59 to me was very understandable and reasonable. If you cut down a tree that is not on your property, you pay a fine to the person because it is technically their tree.
I fall in between. Law 215 and 218 caught my eye. With 215 if you successfully perform an operation, you get money. With 218, if you fail, you get your hand cut off. I completely disagree with number 218. It could have been too injured to repair. I completely agree with number 215. If you complete it with success, you should be rewarded.
This is how I feel on Hammurabi's Code.
Along with some of my other classmates I believe that the Code of Hammurabi is way too harsh. First off people being put to death for the smallest things like robbery is insane. Laws 3, 6, 15, and 22 are examples of being put to death for committing a crime. I understand committing a crime is wrong but everyone should be able to live their life, in jail or out. I think that hurting someone who has committed a crime in any way is just wrong in general. Another example is law 204 where it says, “204: If a man’s slave has struck the cheek of a member of the aristocracy, they shall cut off his ear.” For something like this I think they should’ve just been punished for the day or something simple. These are some examples to why The Laws are too tough.
I feel as if some of Hammurabi's rules were fair but then again I feel that some were very cruel and not needed. In our society today we have consequences for the wrongful actions we commit but the consequences are not as bad as Hammurabi's consequences. Even though I do believe that "an eye for an eye" is a fair way to live by but Hammurabi was a little extreme with this rule. It seemed as if the consequence for almost every wrong doing was being put to death. I found this unruly and against the saying "an eye for an eye" because someone was being put to death for stealing from others.
I also believe that the Code of Hammurabi is very tough and unnecessary. The laws are too harsh on the people. It isn't right to take someone's life away just for a simple crime such as theft. There should be a better punishment then just death. They could learn from their mistakes. The philosophy that Hammurabi relied on," equal retaliation" is not right in my opinion. If someone did something bad to you it does not mean to get revenge or like punish them harshly such as death. Overall, I think the Code of Hammurabi is definitely tough.
I believe that Hammurabi’s Code is too tough. In each law, there was either a major punishment or death. Some laws were alright, but the ones with the cutting off of body parts or death were actually startling to me. I feel sorry for those who had to live under those laws. We’re fortunate that we don’t have those laws today. The rule I think is mostly too much is rule 15: If a man has helped either a male slave or a female slave of the state or a male slave of a private citizen to escape through the city gate, he shall put to death. That’s one the rule that too tough.
So basicly what I'm saying is that Hammurabi's code may be tough to live by because of the death punishments. Because of this code and these laws, his empire fell after 42 years of control. I was really suprised with these laws since today, we don't face death when we break laws, instead we go to like 2 years in prison. Iraqi people would never forget this since the Babylonian Empire was in this location. The Code of Hammurabi are 282 laws that needed to be followed by Hammurabi's people. To do this, Hammurabi divided the Babylonian Empire into city states each with a set of laws. Some of these laws if broken will make the identified person get either one of its body parts cut off or be killed. Sometimes they lose everything they own while some of these laws make them pay them with their money. Some of these laws were hurtful then the ones we have today. Napoleon of France during the Napoleonic Wars made less painful laws like then Hammurabi's laws after he conquered some countries in Europe and Ottoman Empire Land in Africa. None of the punishments were death or anything. So from the differences from Napoleon and Hammurabi, Napolean's laws tried to make the world a better place and Hammurabi's laws were very infair and hurtful.
I think "Hammuraba's Code" was very strict and way to tough. It is good idea to have law to keep people and civilization are in order and organized. Some of the laws are ridiculous and unnecessary. For example, the laws number 22 "If a man committed robbery and has been caught, that man shall put to death". He should not be put to death just because he stole something ,he should be punishment about that. Or law number 145 if the woman leaves her husband and ruins her house, neglecting her husband, this woman shall be cast into the water. I think this law way to harsh and unnecessary.
Hammurabi’s Code was unnecessary and foolish in my opinion. Hammurabi tried to keep his empire under control but instead he created madness and unnecessary laws.Some of his laws were too intense and put people to death because of them. He tried to be a good ruler, but honestly just made himself look like a bad man in my opinion. Law number 143 gave me pause in a way. The law stated, “If a man came forward with a false testimony in a case, and has not proved the word which he spoke, if that case was a case involving life, that man shall be put to death.” This law is outrageous and way too intense in my opinion. I agree with Bobby, Sophia, and Taylor in every way.
I agree and disagree. Some of these rules are too harsh, some are not harsh enough. Rule 22: "If a man committed robbery and has been caught, that man shall be put to death." This is an example of one of the rules that is too harsh in my opinion. If you get caught robbing someone now, you go to jail for a while. Rule 59: "If a man cut down a tree in (another) man's orchard without consent of the owner of the orchard, he shall pay one-half mina of silver." This is an example of what I believe is a fair rule. You should have to pay if you cut down someone else's tree without permission. It just depends on the rule and the person. Some people might think a rule is too harsh, while another might not think that it is harsh enough. The same goes (too harsh, or not harsh enough), for what rule it is. It all depends.
In my opinion, I think the “Code of Hammurabi” is extremely harsh and difficult to live by. He was a very tough and extreme ruler, as you can see by his laws. In my opinion, laws number 3,6, 15, 22, and 143 were crazy and insane. For example, law number 3 states, “If a man came forward with a false testimony in a case, and has not proved the word which he spoke, if that case was a case involving life, that man shall be put to death.” That is going way too far and is awful way to correct the people in his empire.
I meant law number 3. I read the wrong line on the paper my bad
I also think Hammurabi's law were much too severe. These days we rarely sentence people to death, the crime commited would have to be pretty awful to get the death penalty. Obviously in Hammurabi's time things were much different because many of his laws were punishable by death. It says Hammurabi relied on the philosophy of "an eye for an eye" yet some of his punishments are much harsher than the actual crime committed. I also noticed from rules 202 to 205, social classes determined your punishment. If an aristocrat hits an aristocrat he has to pay a fine, if a slave hits an aristocrat he will have his ear taken off which isn't very fair. I think Hammurabi had a good sense of what was wrong and what was right I just think he set the punishments in the wrong way.
I feel that Hammurabi's Code is a good way to create a civilization but some of the laws there were unnecessary. For example, law number 22, if someone were to commit robbery, they would be put to death. I feel that there are other ways for this type of situation to be handled, such as putting the them to labor for a certain amount of time. And the fact that the man who receives stolen goods from the church also had to be put to death, I felt was unfair because what if he was unaware of the fact that the goods were actually stolen? I also feel that Hammurabi's code was not a system of fair justice because there are examples of inequality between the common man and the slaves. For example, if a commoner were to commit a crime, their hand would be cut off. If someone of a higher status committed the SAME crime, they would just have to pay a small fine.
Tianna Boccuti
As I read the Codes of Hammurabi I think his Codes were too hard. For example Code 218 it states "that if a physican performs a major operation and the operation goes wrong", his punishment was to have the physicians hand chopped off. The man is a doctor trying to help a patient but sometimes things go wrong and its not really a crime. This man with no hand would never be able to practice on any other people again. Although there needs to be rules these were brutal punishments, you couldn't even learn a lesson you were just put to death. Even if he thought it was justice he never gave the others who did the wrong thing the chance to do it right the next time because there was no next time. I think his Codes went a little to far.
I believe that at the time the people though the laws where just fair, fair, and reasonable. But in today’s cutler almost everyone would find these laws completely ludicrous! Some silly laws are 6. This states if u steal from a church you will die. 15. Which says if u help a slave you will die. 143 which says if a women has fun she will be thrown into the water. 22. If you steal you die. 3. If a man said a false testimony you will die. Some laws are absurd in our tie but all of that’s just insane.
I think Hammurabi's code was way too harsh. It seems that people weren't even given a chance to explain themselves and most of the consequences were death. For example, the first few laws listed on the paper have the result of death. It was too harsh and too quick a punishment.
There are also many displays of how the social classes worked in these laws. If someone of a lower status strikes a higher society member, they will basically be tortured and beaten. If a slave hits a person of higher importance than him, his ear will be cut off. Some of these laws didn't make sense. Like why did the slave have to have his ear cut off if he hit an aristocrat when a normal man would be beaten with a whip? It just doesn't make sense to me.
Alex Carka
With some of the people in our class I agree the the Hammurabi's Code of Laws was very strict and unnecessary. Like almost all laws involve death. Law 205 "If a man's slave has struck the cheek of a member of the aristocracy, they shall cut off his ear." that's way too harsh. What if the people accidentally touch the cheek, the person lost an ear. All the law are cruel and evil.
Olivia Siegel:
After reading Hammurabi’s Code’s, I made the decision that his codes were way too tough. His way of the law was ‘an eye for an eye’. I thought it was really scary that somebody would be put to death for receiving a stolen item. I am very grateful that I live in this decade because woman was very mistreated by Hammurabi’s Code’s. If a woman didn’t take care of her house, or humiliated her husband, she would be thrown into the water. If a man helped a woman or male slave they would be put to death. I am very lucky that I live in American in today’s time. My mom would probably been thrown in the Delaware for embarrassing my dad. I’m just kidding. I Didn’t like the law rule 205 it was that if the man’s slave had hit the cheek of a rich person the people would cut off it’s ear. Today the police may put you in jail for assault, but most likely you would probably simply lose your job. These are a few reasons why I think the Hammurabi’s Codes were tough.
I think "Hammurabi's Code" was very intense,hostile, and beyond strict.I applaud him for reigning over the Babylonian empire for 42 yrs.but i don't applaud him for being unfair and a savage.For instance law number 205:" If a man's slave has struck the cheek of a member of the aristocracy, they shall cut of his ear". That law is very intense and just for people who were privileged and not a slave; because a aristocracy was a person who was like a government official and very privileged.There is no law pertaining to a consequence for anyone striking or being cruel to a slave. Also why do you have to cut someones ear for that;like come one have some type of empathy or mercy towards another human being.
In conclusion i disagree with Hammurabi's tactics and methods that were so misdirected and immoral. I'm glad i didn't live in Babylon when he ruled.
I think that the code of Hammurabi is really tough. It is understandable to get punished for either stealing something or doing something that is not right, but I don't think that the punishment should go to the extent of putting them to death like for law number 22. For law number 143, " If a woman was not careful but was gadabout, thus neglecting her house (and) humiliating her husband, they shall throw that woman into the water." It is ridiculous to have a law like that. It is her and her family's personal problem that they should take care on their own. It should not be a law to throw someone in the water for that. To me, it is unbelievable to have such laws back then compared to the laws we have now.
In my opinion,"Hammurabi's Code" was to strict and unreasonable. The law I find very unfair, which I'm sure most girl do, is rule 143, which states "if a women was not careful, but was a gadabout, thus neglecting her house(and) her husband they shall throw her into the water." This is unfair to women, in my opinion. Would man get any punishment for the same action?
I agree with Antonio that some laws may have been more reasonable than others, however death or near death beatings just for hitting someone with more authority than you or stealing (law 22),should not be the aswer.
One thing we should all notice is that the citizens given these laws, really had no laws before. to them, this might be perfectly normal and to these people, our laws may not be strict enough.
Brian Clark 9-23-13
I think that Hammurabi’s laws were extremely too hard because in most cases if you even do the littlest thing wrong you will be put to death or drowned. For example rule number 15, and 22 if you robbed someone’s house, the church or the state, instead of being thrown in jail you will be put to death. I agree when someone steals something from someone else they should be punished but these laws take punishment to a whole new level. Law number 218 is very harsh to because if a doctor messes up on one operation will have his hand cut off. That in my opinon is very wrong because if he messes up once he will not have a chance to redeem himself for it on the next one because he only has one hand by that time. These reason are why I think the Code of Hammurabi is way to harsh.
I believe Hammurabi's Code is very harsh. People should be punished for committing crimes, but they shouldn't be put to death, or have a body part cut off because of it. For example, rule 3 states, "If a man came forward with false testimony in a case, and has not proved the word which he spoke, if that case was a case involving life, that man shall be put to death." Also, in rule 205 it states, "If a man's slave has struck the cheek of a member of the aristocracy, they shall cut off his ear." This is why I think that Hummurabi's Code was unnecessarily cruel and tough.
In my opinion, it think that Hammurabi Code was very brutal. I believe in having laws to control systems but the way Hammurabi ruled the Babylonian Empire was uncalled for. Being harsh on a society that never had laws before is completely wrong. Communication is the answer. Hammurabi should have had a meeting to explain the rules before taking a persons life and not even giving them a chance. The men and women should not have to be put to death or beaten just because Hammurabi did not accept their doings. Yes, I believe in punishment but not in a way of doing harm to another human. In law number 205, there should have been another way of punishing a men for striking the cheek of a member of the aristocracy. The people did not have a chance to show they can do the right thing because they just were beaten or put to death right after the wrong action. I do agree on punishment for a crime, but ruining a persons life is not the answer.
In my opinion, I think that the "Codes of Hammurabi" were more strict than needed. Hammurabi wanted a equal retaliation, or known as "an eye for an eye", and felt the need to take over things such as divorce, marriage, business partnerships, debt, assault, stealing and lying, As I began to read these laws, I formed an opinion that the consequences may have been taken to an extent uncalled for. For an example, like code #22, it states that 'If a man committed robbery and has been caught, that man shall be put to death'. I am not saying that they should have not been punished for doing such a crime but I don't think that being put to death was a fair punishment and may have been to extreme. Also an example, like #205, it states that 'if a man's slave has struck the cheek of a member of the aristocracy, they shall cut off his ear'. in my opinion, the idea of slavery to me is morally wrong, but I don't think cutting off his ear for hitting another member shouldn't be allowed because the action wasn't that serious. In conclusion, I think that Hammurabi's codes could have been more easygoing and less strict then what they were.
Jackie Avery
I thought that Hammurabi's Code was very unnecessary. There was just so much that had to do with death. In my mind killing people off wasn't the best way to "destroy the wicked and the evil" like they say in the excerpt.Some of the laws that they were killing for were very minor. They were things that you could easily go go jail for. One of the laws states, " If man came forward with false testimony in a case,and has not proved the word which he spoke,if that case was a case involving life, that man shall be put to death." This is a death because of false evidence. I get thY giving out false evidence is bad, but not worth to die for. Another thing is that they had no privacy whatsoever. They had to go tothis so called "palace" for everything and what they didn't like,you're killed.
Reading Hammurabi's code was very interesting. It shows strict laws that are in a way very intricate. The punishment that the people endured depended only on the crime they committed. While in society today we seem to have a certain extent of "exception" to our rules, not in any way saying that our legal system of today is not logical or poorly thought, however Hammurabi's code is a bit more strict, and straight forward. Many crimes resulted in death. The rest of the crimes seem to result in life changing circumstances. Such as an ear taken off or a HAND taken off. Other crimes however can result in money for some who were involved in identifying injustice. Whatever way you look at it. Lives were changed, or lost.
I think that most of Hammurabi’s codes were too tough. I believe that the people who committed crimes should have been punished in a different way (not as harsh). In my opinion, law number 204 is very harsh. Law 204 says, “If a commoner has struck the cheek of (another) commoner, he shall pay ten shekels of silver.” I know that you shouldn’t hit anyone else, but I think that you shouldn’t have to pay this much; I think that there should be a different consequence for this. Another harsh law is number 22: “If a man committed robbery and has been caught, that man shall be put to death.” I think that this is harsh because you shouldn’t die because you stole something. I think that you should go to prison for a couple of years. These are some reasons why I think that most of Hammurabi’s codes were harsh.
I think the code of Hammurabi was created to decrease crime in Babylonian. The "Code of Hammurabi was very cruel. Hammurabi wanted equal retaliation an "eye for an eye". They made sure that's exactly what they got. They governed over things such as lying , stealing, assault, debt, business partnerships , marriage and divorce. To me the laws were a little more strict then they needed to be. A lot of these laws include death which I think is a very cruel punishment. They do deserve to be punished for any crime they commit , but I just think it was very harsh on how they handled certain situations. These punishments are very serious like law number 205 "a man's ear shall be cut off if his slave struck the cheek of a member of the aristocracy. The Code of Hammurabi was a very strict way of life and I suggest that the Babylonians prevents commiting any crimes.
In my opinion, I believe that “Hammurabi’s code” is much too strict and unnecessary. I understand that Hammurabi was trying t create a system of law but this was too tough. I see in law 6 that if a man stole property of a church or state, the thief and the man who received the items shall both be put to death. First, what if the man who received the item didn’t know in the first place that it was stolen? He would be put to death anyway even though he is innocent. Second, I notice that there is no prison here. It is mostly the death of people and paying fines with money. Overall, I feel that these punishments were unnecessary and life wasting.
I agree with my classmates when I say that Hammurabi's Code was very strict and harsh. There should be no reason a person has to lose their life unless they have taken someone else's. In Law 3, it's says that if there is a case and a man gives a false testimony involving the life of another person they are going to be killed. Also, in Law 22 it says that if someone who has committed robbery is caught they are to be killed. Both these laws are outrageous because no one should ever lose their life for robbing or giving a false statement. Should they be punished? Yes, but their punishment should not be losing their life.
I would understand why these laws are completely different from the laws that we have today. Things were different back then, but I would agree with mostly everyone else's opinions on how strict the Codes of Hammurabi were. Many of the law's punishments were ultimately death. Now that seems too strict. Perhaps these laws were very serious to scare anyone who would think about defying them, for they they were ever broken, there would be tremendous consequences. Note that death mostly applied to the laws that dealed with lying and stealing. These laws also seemed sexist towards women. The code makes it seem like men were dominant over females. That's exactly how it was in the past. Not only that, but there was certain classes. Slaves were the lowest of course. The higher people had more powerful. All these punishments are just unequal. The people with the highest authority would not even be punished if they were to commit a crime. Today, everything is much more balanced. The laws of today apply to everyone. Everyone is equal unlike before.
I totally agree with Robert and Sophia in many cases. I believe that Hammurabi's code was very unnecessary in many ways. But I also think that the people who the code was supporting or in favor of didn't mind since it was helpful to them. I think that Hammurabi was trying to create laws but the laws that were created were too strict. This is how I feel.
Vincenzo Congialdi
After reading the laws for the Code Of Hammurabi I think that most laws are unnecessary. One law I think that is unnecessary is number 3 that states "If man came forward with false testimony in a case, and has not proved the word which he spoke, if that case was a case involving life, that man shall be put to death". I believe that man should be put to death for certain crimes such as murder. Then I believe it is okay to put man to death for killing an innocent person. Laws are good because they keep civilization organized but they should not be taken to far with certain crimes.
Many people are say the laws are unnecessary. We can all see why, due to the fact that it is created by a king. A king was a form of dictatorship basically. Everything here is based out of karma, except the come backs of Karma is the slightly way way harder ones. No dial Disagreement, but to approach the law more immensely, it is based out of the quoted quote "an eye for an eye". Of course they had to think of a way to prevent violators for the attempt. The scale of penalty is based out of their simple, lack complex, tense monarchs society. The cultural differences also make us think that unnecessary of the law. The law as i can discern, is more harsh on the cultural living. Like committing a chance of freeing a slave. Back then slavery was not a bad thing, Abraham Lincoln wasn't there to play his role. Slavery was a huge part of them. As we can see it was created by one guy, just a simple one guy, who couldn't care less about death toward others. It is important for him to keep the civilians under control. It is positive of me to say it is a neat law, conscious state punishment given civilians less opportunity to wrench things up. As for they would know what would happen if they do wrench things up ( Hardcore Karma). The laws are so strict, but extremely clever and selfish that no one would ever break any laws. That gives a good civilization along with peace.
With most of the people in this class I can agree with, saying that these laws were very strict, and unfair. I can agree with making someone suffer for their actions on their accord, but you must realize that these sufferings included death even. I think laws 3,6, and 22 are definitely the most strict out of all the laws. Number 6 states that "If a man stole the property of church or state, that man shall be put to death; also the one who received the stolen goods from his hand shall be put to death." this means that if a man steals something, even if by accident, from church or state he will be put to death. Also, if a man who grabs the stolen items from the dead mans hands will also be put to death. That's cruel, what if the man who picks up the goods just was getting them to hand them back, I don't get how they deal with that, but it does say that these rules looked the most humane to them, so maybe times were right for them back then to be doing this, to teach discipline. This is why I think these laws can be strict and unfair.
I agree with a lot of the people above saying that it was very cruel, but i also disagree. Some of these laws are very brutal, like 218 for example. To chop a mans hand off because they messed up a surgery? Indeed that is very rough, but i also see these laws as, Hey! don't do that or we will kill you! To me, it appears they make such harsh laws so that people will not commit crime. If you think about it like that, if you do not commit the crimes, you do not have to worry about the laws. I think these laws were set to prevent crimes. So all in all, yes these are quite harsh but i do not think this is the worst thing considering it is an "eye for an eye" type system.
The Code of Hammurabi is the earliest set of laws that have been recorded from the earliest legal system. There are 282 of them, which is small compared to how many laws that we currently have in the American legal system. There is a lot of controversy over the strictness of the laws and to set the tone of the debate, it’s best to know which you value higher; justice or mercy? There are many rules on our worksheet such as 3 and 15 that result in the death penalty. Others result with beating or decapitating as the act of punishment. You have to remember that up until 1936, public hangings were a form of entertainment and far from unheard of. The people were used to seeing other citizens be put to death, so they were used to that way of life. It must not have seemed as harsh to them as it seems to us because they hadn't experienced anything different. Though I feel that Hammurabi’s laws were a bit trigger-happy, I also feel like he was an excellent ruler, circumstance providing. He was the first man to rule over a large assortment of people and with no one to set examples on what was moral and just and what wasn't, he did a good job.
Hammurabi's Code in my opinion was to harsh. If you stole something simple, such as a piece of fruit because you were starving, would you be put to death? that is considered robbery right? something such as this is to little of a crime to be put to death. I agree with Sofia on rule 143. its sexist and its not fair. Men and women should have been treated equally, had the same set of laws established to both genders. Rule 205 is just ridiculous, and scary. What if the slave had to defend themselves and the only way to do that was to strike the man ranked higher than him by society, he has to get his ear cut off? That's inhuman and shows how unfair, as well as harsh Hammurbi's laws were
I think Hammurabi's code was very harsh and unecessary. Under any circumstance no ones life deserved to come to an end. I actually think this was very cruel and wrong. Like #22 , I understand the victim stole but they shouldn't have been killed for that. Did they not have any other consequences to give them. Like these codes/rules are out of this world to me. I just don't get how they had to beat you or kill you for certain things.
Post a Comment