FAIR OR CRUEL?

Arguments: This segment is 1 or else uses strong evidence and uses evidence to support article arguments

About 1750, the King Hammurabi wrote a law to manage 282 people in Babylon. Historians and scholars, these ancient laws agree that the first law covers every aspect of society. But scholars who do not agree with historians and Hammurabi's law are just or cruel

Wang Hammurabi wrote about his legal list. In this presentation, he stated that the law is fair. His intention is to "implement rules of justice on the land to destroy evil and evil behavior, and not hurt strong weak"

Law 5: If there is a judge, if you make your own fault mistake, at the ruling of the example, he must pay a penalty, dismissal from the judge there

Legal 122: If you provide something to someone else's custody, you should witness transactions or contracts between the parties

Legal 128: If a man has his wife who is not a woman, then unsigned a contract with his wife

Legal 199: If a man breaks my nobleman's eye, or a broken limb aristocrat servant, he will pay half the price

Legal 233: If someone's contractor builds a house, the walls start to collapse, the builder needs to use their own money and effort to ensure security walls.

Legal 229 and 230: 229: If a builder for a man built a house and did not make a sound of his work, he built a house there

In autumn, with the death of its owner, consequently the construction workers will be put to death. 230: If the owner's son was killed, the builder's son will be sentenced to death

I think the law is just cruel. I just can make money as maintenance, slavery can bring a lot of money, but slavery, which may not be so, they can work for the house, so this rule, I think it's fair. I think this rule is very cruel as I should not betray his family to repay debt. He must be alone to another family to work to repay the debt. If someone had an electric charge against another man, if he sinks into the river, the defendant going to the river jumped into the river, his accusation would have to occupy his house not. The river asserts that the defendant is innocent, he said that if he did not get injured, while others owned his house belonging to the plaintiff and fled to the river, but then the person's argument It will be put to death.

I think criticism of the police 's response is absolutely fair. Nonetheless, there is a difference in response, planned for criticism with the president, in addition to being fair, in the middle, this reaction is extreme brutality and savage savage. There is no reason to be cruel to kick him when he fails so far, as a man is becoming like a frustrating man. If you are a country leader sometimes

First of all, I think that everyone is facing the death penalty for those who feel some regret. But for some people, they feel not only sympathy, they think that this is injustice and cruel. They may think that the crime committed is not my obstacle. Even their childhood may be a mental disorder. Therefore, they should not be punished very severely. Another reason is that they do not agree that it infringes the constitution and human rights