Monday, December 19, 2011
Reviews and News on Tech Products, Software and Downloads
Reviews and News on Tech Products, Software and Downloads: PCWorld is your trusted source for tech product reviews, tech news, how-to's and free downloads
Famous Quotes
বাণী চিরন্তনী
বাংলার মানচিত্র
প্রতিদিনের শেয়ার বাজার
IPO Auto Forms
Tips World
To-Let News
Animated Words
Bangladesh 2 Day
Beautiful Graphics
Glittered Image
Glittered Text
Health Articles
Historical Births
Historical Deaths
Historical Events
Play Sudoku
Technology Blog
Text Flip
World Holidays
বাণী চিরন্তনী
বাংলার মানচিত্র
প্রতিদিনের শেয়ার বাজার
IPO Auto Forms
Tips World
To-Let News
Animated Words
Bangladesh 2 Day
Beautiful Graphics
Glittered Image
Glittered Text
Health Articles
Historical Births
Historical Deaths
Historical Events
Play Sudoku
Technology Blog
Text Flip
World Holidays
Sunday, December 18, 2011
Saturday, December 17, 2011
Saturday, November 5, 2011
The Laws of the Twelve Tables, c.450 B.C.
The Laws of the Twelve Tables, c.450 B.C. The earliest attempt by the Romans to create a code of law was the Laws of the Twelve Tables. A commission of ten men (Decemviri) was appointed (c. 455 B.C.) to draw up a code of law binding on both patrician and plebeian and which consuls would have to enforce. The commission produced enough statutes to fill ten bronze tablets. The plebeians were dissatisfied and so a second commission of ten was therefore appointed (450 B.C.) and two additional tablets were added. What follows are a selection from the Twelve Tables. [Source: Oliver J. Thatcher, ed., The Library of Original Sources (Milwaukee: University Research Extension Co., 1901), Vol. III: The Roman World, pp. 9-11. See also Lex Duodecim Tabularum, by George Long in William Smith, A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, John Murray, London, 1875, pp. 688-690.]
* * *
Table I.
1. If anyone summons a man before the magistrate, he must go. If the man summoned does not go, let the one summoning him call the bystanders to witness and then take him by force.
2. If he shirks or runs away, let the summoner lay hands on him.
6-9. When the litigants settle their case by compromise, let the magistrate announce it. If they do not compromise, let them state each his own side of the case, in the comitium of the forum before noon. Afterwards let them talk it out together, while both are present. After noon, in case either party has failed to appear, let the magistrate pronounce judgment in favor of the one who is present. If both are present the trial may last until sunset but no later.
Table II.
2. He whose witness has failed to appear may summon him by loud calls before his house every third day.
Table III.
1. One who has confessed a debt, or against whom judgment has been pronounced, shall have thirty days to pay it in. After that forcible seizure of his person is allowed. The creditor shall bring him before the magistrate. Unless he pays the amount of the judgment or some one in the presence of the magistrate interferes in his behalf as protector the creditor so shall take him home and fasten him in stocks or fetters. He shall fasten him with not less than fifteen pounds of weight or, if he choose, with more. If the prisoner choose, he may furnish his own food. If he does not, the creditor must give him a pound of meal daily; if he choose he may give him more.
3. Against a foreigner the right in property shall be valid forever.
Table IV.
1. A dreadfully deformed child shall be quickly killed.
2. If a father sell his son three times, the son shall be free from his father.
5. A child born after ten months since the father's death will not be admitted into a legal inheritance.
Table V.
1. Females should remain in guardianship even when they have attained their majority.
Table VI.
1. When one makes a bond and a conveyance of property, as he has made formal declaration so let it be binding.
Table VII.
1. Let them keep the road in order. If they have not paved it, a man may drive his team where he likes.
9. Should a tree on a neighbor's farm be bent crooked by the wind and lean over your farm, you may take legal action for removal of that tree.
10. A man might gather up fruit that was falling down onto another man's farm.
Table VIII.
2. If one has maimed a limb and does not compromise with the injured person, let there be retaliation. If one has broken a bone of a freeman with his hand or with a cudgel, let him pay a penalty of three hundred coins. If he has broken the bone of a slave, let him have one hundred and fifty coins. If one is guilty of insult, the penalty shall be twenty-five coins.
3. If one is slain while committing theft by night, he is rightly slain.
4. If a patron shall have devised any deceit against his client, let him be accursed.
10. Any person who destroys by burning any building or heap of corn deposited alongside a house shall be bound, scourged, and put to death by burning at the stake provided that he has committed the said misdeed with malice aforethought; but if he shall have committed it by accident, that is, by negligence, it is ordained that he repair the damage or, if he be too poor to be competent for such punishment, he shall receive a lighter punishment.
23. A person who had been found guilty of giving false witness shall be hurled down from the Tarpeian Rock.
26. No person shall hold meetings by night in the city.
Table IX.
4. The penalty shall be capital for a judge or arbiter legally appointed who has been found guilty of receiving a bribe for giving a decision.
5. Treason: he who shall have roused up a public enemy or handed over a citizen to a public enemy must suffer capital punishment.
6. Putting to death of any man, whosoever he might be unconvicted is forbidden.
Table X.
1. None is to bury or burn a corpse in the city.
3. The women shall not tear their faces nor wail on account of the funeral.
Table XI.
1. Marriages should not take place between plebeians and patricians.
Table XII.
5. Whatever the people had last ordained should be held as binding by law.
* * *
Table I.
1. If anyone summons a man before the magistrate, he must go. If the man summoned does not go, let the one summoning him call the bystanders to witness and then take him by force.
2. If he shirks or runs away, let the summoner lay hands on him.
6-9. When the litigants settle their case by compromise, let the magistrate announce it. If they do not compromise, let them state each his own side of the case, in the comitium of the forum before noon. Afterwards let them talk it out together, while both are present. After noon, in case either party has failed to appear, let the magistrate pronounce judgment in favor of the one who is present. If both are present the trial may last until sunset but no later.
Table II.
2. He whose witness has failed to appear may summon him by loud calls before his house every third day.
Table III.
1. One who has confessed a debt, or against whom judgment has been pronounced, shall have thirty days to pay it in. After that forcible seizure of his person is allowed. The creditor shall bring him before the magistrate. Unless he pays the amount of the judgment or some one in the presence of the magistrate interferes in his behalf as protector the creditor so shall take him home and fasten him in stocks or fetters. He shall fasten him with not less than fifteen pounds of weight or, if he choose, with more. If the prisoner choose, he may furnish his own food. If he does not, the creditor must give him a pound of meal daily; if he choose he may give him more.
3. Against a foreigner the right in property shall be valid forever.
Table IV.
1. A dreadfully deformed child shall be quickly killed.
2. If a father sell his son three times, the son shall be free from his father.
5. A child born after ten months since the father's death will not be admitted into a legal inheritance.
Table V.
1. Females should remain in guardianship even when they have attained their majority.
Table VI.
1. When one makes a bond and a conveyance of property, as he has made formal declaration so let it be binding.
Table VII.
1. Let them keep the road in order. If they have not paved it, a man may drive his team where he likes.
9. Should a tree on a neighbor's farm be bent crooked by the wind and lean over your farm, you may take legal action for removal of that tree.
10. A man might gather up fruit that was falling down onto another man's farm.
Table VIII.
2. If one has maimed a limb and does not compromise with the injured person, let there be retaliation. If one has broken a bone of a freeman with his hand or with a cudgel, let him pay a penalty of three hundred coins. If he has broken the bone of a slave, let him have one hundred and fifty coins. If one is guilty of insult, the penalty shall be twenty-five coins.
3. If one is slain while committing theft by night, he is rightly slain.
4. If a patron shall have devised any deceit against his client, let him be accursed.
10. Any person who destroys by burning any building or heap of corn deposited alongside a house shall be bound, scourged, and put to death by burning at the stake provided that he has committed the said misdeed with malice aforethought; but if he shall have committed it by accident, that is, by negligence, it is ordained that he repair the damage or, if he be too poor to be competent for such punishment, he shall receive a lighter punishment.
23. A person who had been found guilty of giving false witness shall be hurled down from the Tarpeian Rock.
26. No person shall hold meetings by night in the city.
Table IX.
4. The penalty shall be capital for a judge or arbiter legally appointed who has been found guilty of receiving a bribe for giving a decision.
5. Treason: he who shall have roused up a public enemy or handed over a citizen to a public enemy must suffer capital punishment.
6. Putting to death of any man, whosoever he might be unconvicted is forbidden.
Table X.
1. None is to bury or burn a corpse in the city.
3. The women shall not tear their faces nor wail on account of the funeral.
Table XI.
1. Marriages should not take place between plebeians and patricians.
Table XII.
5. Whatever the people had last ordained should be held as binding by law.
History of english law
History of english law
England and the United States have in a measure been excepted from the otherwise universal concurrence of all the civilized nations of the world in the acceptance of the Code Napoleon, or of the Civil Law of Rome in some shape, as the basis of their jurisprudence. In the great turmoil of the disruption of the Roman Empire by the Teutonic barbarians, what of Britain? The country was then called Britain, as will be remembered, and not England. This is a later appellation. And it was inhabited by a branch of the great Celtic Race, which had peopled all of western Europe - Romanized and civilized by four centuries of Roman occupation. The barbarians broke into Britain too; and ruin and desolation marked where the Anglo-Saxon savages came. Populous cities disappeared, or shrank into miserable villages. Fertile fields became barren wastes; commerce died; the Roman Civilization perished, and for two hundred years and upwards barbarism reigned supreme over Britain. Even the very name of the country was lost for several ages, and when the island emerged again from darkness into the morning twilight of a feeble civilization, and became sufficiently selfconscious to require a new name, it received that of England.
The predatory bands, composed of tribes bearing the various names of Angles, Jutes, Saxons and Frisians, and known to subsequent ages by the composite appellation of the Anglo-Saxons, who swarmed to Britain from the shores of North Germany during the fifth and sixth centuries of the Era (A.D. 483-586), under the leadership of Hengist and Horsa, and other chiefs, first to help the Britons against their northern enemies from Caledonia, the Picts and Scots; and afterwards treacherously to turn upon their allies, and to plunder, massacre, exterminate or expel the unwarlike Britons from their homes, were easily the worst, the most savage, and the most bloodthirsty of all the barbarians who overran and dismembered the Roman Empire. Franks, Goths, Vandals, and even the Huns, must yield the palm of savagery to the Teutonic invaders of Britain. To this effect is the unanimous testimony of all the historians of the time; and their own historians, when they became civilized enough afterwards to have historians, never sought to deny the fact. Sad confirmation is found of the bloody story in the condition of the country when Christianity and civilization were again introduced from Rome as contrasted with the flourishing state of Britain before the withdrawal of the Roman legions and the advent of the invaders from Germany. A recent English writer has given some reasons for believing that, in consequence of the ruin and devastation wrought by these intruders, even the great city of London - for comparatively a great city it was even in the old Roman times - was for a time wholly abandoned and without inhabitants.
But the Anglo-Saxons, with all their savagery, had great possibilities in them. "Non Angli, sed Angeli, si modo Christiani" - "not Angles, but Angels would they be, if they were only Christians" - said Pope Gregory I, of some of them who had been brought to Rome; and forthwith he sent Saint Augustine and some zealous companions in A.D. 596, to convert the people to Christianity, which after many difficulties they succeeded in accomplishing. Further on their seven petty kingdoms, known as the Heptarchy, were united under one sovereignty by King Egbert of Wessex (A.D. 827), and the Kingdom of England began, which lasted for about 240 years (A.D. 827-1066) under a line of Anglo-Saxon monarchs descended from Egbert, who, however, had to contend frequently for their thrones with a cognate race of invaders, the Danes, and occasionally even to yield the sovereignity of the island to them. The Danes were as ruthless as had been the Anglo-Saxons themselves; and they left a lasting impression on the population of England, and on the laws, manners, and customs of the country.
Two great monarchs of the Anglo-Saxon line were eminent as legislators, Alfred the Great (A.D. 871-901) and Edward the Confessor (A.D. 1043-1066) ; and one of these, Alfred, seems to deserve the character which he has generally received from impartial historians of having been one of the most perfect civic personages in all the annals of time. Apparently only nine such personages can be enumerated, and Alfred is not the least illustrious among them. To Alfred has often been attributed the institution of trial by jury. He did not institute it. It had no existence in England for more than two hundred years after his time, when it was introduced by the Normans, who themselves had derived it from the Franks. But he is known to have done much for the jurisprudence of his country. He borrowed much from the Brehon
The Common Law of EnglandThe Laws of Ireland; and no doubt in his visit to Rome in A.D. 855, he had learned something of the Roman Civil Law. Edward the Confessor had spent much of his early life on the Continent of Europe, an exile from his native country; and the Civil Law of Rome was then making rapid strides for its rehabilitation. He obtained the reputation in after times of being the great lawgiver of his country. Whenever during the Norman and Plantagenet periods the people were oppressed or became dissatisfied with existing conditions, their dissatisfaction always found expression in a demand for the restoration of the laws of the sainted Edward. It is not quite apparent what these laws were for which they clamored; and it seems to have been no more than the popular fancy to attribute to him and to the great Alfred the enactment of much legislation which did not exist in their day, and so to attribute it merely as a ground for its introduction. But whatever either Alfred or Edward did for the improvement of the Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence, they had but two sources from which to draw inspiration, the Civil Law of Rome and the Brehon Law of Ireland; and upon both they seem to have liberally drawn. The Common Law of England, as they had it in the days of Coke and Blackstone, had but little existence in the AngloSaxon period of English history.
But when in A.D. 1066, the Anglo-Saxons in their turn were treated to a taste of the cup of bitterness which they themselves had proffered to the Britons six hundred years before, and William of Normandy, with his hungry horde of buccaneers, descended in large part from the old Scandinavian pirates and freebooters of the North Seas, invaded and subjugated England, the Conqueror found the Feudal System, then at its zenith on the Continent of Europe, a ready instrument for the consolidation of his conquest; and he established a military despotism, which for a time was the most oppressive and the most tyrannical in Europe. He confiscated nearly all the land, despoiled and impoverished the previous Anglo-Saxon proprietors, and parcelled out their holdings among his own followers upon a purely military tenure for services rendered and thereafter to be rendered. The principal beneficiaries of the spoil subdivided the land among their own retainers upon a similar military tenure. The Anglo-Saxons, like the Helots of Lacedaemon, were reduced to a state of serfdom or villeinage, as it was called, between which and abject slavery there was but little practical difference. They were fixed to the soil, and could not leave it without the permission of their feudal masters, for whom they were required to toil and till the land. The Feudal System in its most aggravated form was firmly fixed upon England. It was the beginning of an entirely new social system, and necessarily therefore of a new jurisprudence; and from this time, is to be dated the beginning of the Common Law of England.
It may well be assumed that William of Normandy did not greatly concern himself with matters of jurisprudence further than as it was necessary to consolidate his conquest. Nor did his immediate successors, William Rufus, Henry I, Stephen of Blois, and the Empress Queen Matilda, expend any effort on the improvement of English Law. The Anglo-Saxons had a system of county courts which seem to have fairly well served the purpose of the administration of justice. William established an aula regia, or royal court, with a chief justiciary, as he was called, to represent the king; and out of this aula regia, in course of time, grew the Courts of King's Bench, Common Pleas, and Exchequer, well known to the later history of English Law. But the system of law administered by the aula reqia and the chief justiciary was crude and uncertain. In fact, there was little worthy of the name of a legal system. The rude usages of Feudalism constituted nearly all the law that there was. The only law which the Norman barons knew, or for which they cared, was the law of war and the transfer of real estate under the Feudal System, The langualge of the courts was, and thereafter for several centuries remained the Norman French, a fact which of itself shows how little the Anglo-Saxon population was regarded in the matter of the administration of justice. This population was generally relegated to the county courts. So far as there was commerce in London and a few other cities, it was left to regulate itself as best it could by the usages and customs of those cities, and by petty tribunals of their own established therein.
England and the United States have in a measure been excepted from the otherwise universal concurrence of all the civilized nations of the world in the acceptance of the Code Napoleon, or of the Civil Law of Rome in some shape, as the basis of their jurisprudence. In the great turmoil of the disruption of the Roman Empire by the Teutonic barbarians, what of Britain? The country was then called Britain, as will be remembered, and not England. This is a later appellation. And it was inhabited by a branch of the great Celtic Race, which had peopled all of western Europe - Romanized and civilized by four centuries of Roman occupation. The barbarians broke into Britain too; and ruin and desolation marked where the Anglo-Saxon savages came. Populous cities disappeared, or shrank into miserable villages. Fertile fields became barren wastes; commerce died; the Roman Civilization perished, and for two hundred years and upwards barbarism reigned supreme over Britain. Even the very name of the country was lost for several ages, and when the island emerged again from darkness into the morning twilight of a feeble civilization, and became sufficiently selfconscious to require a new name, it received that of England.
The predatory bands, composed of tribes bearing the various names of Angles, Jutes, Saxons and Frisians, and known to subsequent ages by the composite appellation of the Anglo-Saxons, who swarmed to Britain from the shores of North Germany during the fifth and sixth centuries of the Era (A.D. 483-586), under the leadership of Hengist and Horsa, and other chiefs, first to help the Britons against their northern enemies from Caledonia, the Picts and Scots; and afterwards treacherously to turn upon their allies, and to plunder, massacre, exterminate or expel the unwarlike Britons from their homes, were easily the worst, the most savage, and the most bloodthirsty of all the barbarians who overran and dismembered the Roman Empire. Franks, Goths, Vandals, and even the Huns, must yield the palm of savagery to the Teutonic invaders of Britain. To this effect is the unanimous testimony of all the historians of the time; and their own historians, when they became civilized enough afterwards to have historians, never sought to deny the fact. Sad confirmation is found of the bloody story in the condition of the country when Christianity and civilization were again introduced from Rome as contrasted with the flourishing state of Britain before the withdrawal of the Roman legions and the advent of the invaders from Germany. A recent English writer has given some reasons for believing that, in consequence of the ruin and devastation wrought by these intruders, even the great city of London - for comparatively a great city it was even in the old Roman times - was for a time wholly abandoned and without inhabitants.
But the Anglo-Saxons, with all their savagery, had great possibilities in them. "Non Angli, sed Angeli, si modo Christiani" - "not Angles, but Angels would they be, if they were only Christians" - said Pope Gregory I, of some of them who had been brought to Rome; and forthwith he sent Saint Augustine and some zealous companions in A.D. 596, to convert the people to Christianity, which after many difficulties they succeeded in accomplishing. Further on their seven petty kingdoms, known as the Heptarchy, were united under one sovereignty by King Egbert of Wessex (A.D. 827), and the Kingdom of England began, which lasted for about 240 years (A.D. 827-1066) under a line of Anglo-Saxon monarchs descended from Egbert, who, however, had to contend frequently for their thrones with a cognate race of invaders, the Danes, and occasionally even to yield the sovereignity of the island to them. The Danes were as ruthless as had been the Anglo-Saxons themselves; and they left a lasting impression on the population of England, and on the laws, manners, and customs of the country.
Two great monarchs of the Anglo-Saxon line were eminent as legislators, Alfred the Great (A.D. 871-901) and Edward the Confessor (A.D. 1043-1066) ; and one of these, Alfred, seems to deserve the character which he has generally received from impartial historians of having been one of the most perfect civic personages in all the annals of time. Apparently only nine such personages can be enumerated, and Alfred is not the least illustrious among them. To Alfred has often been attributed the institution of trial by jury. He did not institute it. It had no existence in England for more than two hundred years after his time, when it was introduced by the Normans, who themselves had derived it from the Franks. But he is known to have done much for the jurisprudence of his country. He borrowed much from the Brehon
The Common Law of EnglandThe Laws of Ireland; and no doubt in his visit to Rome in A.D. 855, he had learned something of the Roman Civil Law. Edward the Confessor had spent much of his early life on the Continent of Europe, an exile from his native country; and the Civil Law of Rome was then making rapid strides for its rehabilitation. He obtained the reputation in after times of being the great lawgiver of his country. Whenever during the Norman and Plantagenet periods the people were oppressed or became dissatisfied with existing conditions, their dissatisfaction always found expression in a demand for the restoration of the laws of the sainted Edward. It is not quite apparent what these laws were for which they clamored; and it seems to have been no more than the popular fancy to attribute to him and to the great Alfred the enactment of much legislation which did not exist in their day, and so to attribute it merely as a ground for its introduction. But whatever either Alfred or Edward did for the improvement of the Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence, they had but two sources from which to draw inspiration, the Civil Law of Rome and the Brehon Law of Ireland; and upon both they seem to have liberally drawn. The Common Law of England, as they had it in the days of Coke and Blackstone, had but little existence in the AngloSaxon period of English history.
But when in A.D. 1066, the Anglo-Saxons in their turn were treated to a taste of the cup of bitterness which they themselves had proffered to the Britons six hundred years before, and William of Normandy, with his hungry horde of buccaneers, descended in large part from the old Scandinavian pirates and freebooters of the North Seas, invaded and subjugated England, the Conqueror found the Feudal System, then at its zenith on the Continent of Europe, a ready instrument for the consolidation of his conquest; and he established a military despotism, which for a time was the most oppressive and the most tyrannical in Europe. He confiscated nearly all the land, despoiled and impoverished the previous Anglo-Saxon proprietors, and parcelled out their holdings among his own followers upon a purely military tenure for services rendered and thereafter to be rendered. The principal beneficiaries of the spoil subdivided the land among their own retainers upon a similar military tenure. The Anglo-Saxons, like the Helots of Lacedaemon, were reduced to a state of serfdom or villeinage, as it was called, between which and abject slavery there was but little practical difference. They were fixed to the soil, and could not leave it without the permission of their feudal masters, for whom they were required to toil and till the land. The Feudal System in its most aggravated form was firmly fixed upon England. It was the beginning of an entirely new social system, and necessarily therefore of a new jurisprudence; and from this time, is to be dated the beginning of the Common Law of England.
It may well be assumed that William of Normandy did not greatly concern himself with matters of jurisprudence further than as it was necessary to consolidate his conquest. Nor did his immediate successors, William Rufus, Henry I, Stephen of Blois, and the Empress Queen Matilda, expend any effort on the improvement of English Law. The Anglo-Saxons had a system of county courts which seem to have fairly well served the purpose of the administration of justice. William established an aula regia, or royal court, with a chief justiciary, as he was called, to represent the king; and out of this aula regia, in course of time, grew the Courts of King's Bench, Common Pleas, and Exchequer, well known to the later history of English Law. But the system of law administered by the aula reqia and the chief justiciary was crude and uncertain. In fact, there was little worthy of the name of a legal system. The rude usages of Feudalism constituted nearly all the law that there was. The only law which the Norman barons knew, or for which they cared, was the law of war and the transfer of real estate under the Feudal System, The langualge of the courts was, and thereafter for several centuries remained the Norman French, a fact which of itself shows how little the Anglo-Saxon population was regarded in the matter of the administration of justice. This population was generally relegated to the county courts. So far as there was commerce in London and a few other cities, it was left to regulate itself as best it could by the usages and customs of those cities, and by petty tribunals of their own established therein.
The history of law
The history of law is the history of our race, and the embodiment of its experience. It is the most unerring monument of its wisdom and of its frequent want of wisdom. The best thought of a people is to be found in its legislation; its daily life is best mirrored in its usages and customs, which constitute the law of its ordinary transactions.
There never has existed, and it is entirely safe to say that there never will exist, on this planet any organization of human society, any tribe or nation however rude, any aggregation of men however savage, that has not been more or less controlled by some recognized form of law. Whether we accept the fashionable, but in this regard wholly unsupported and irrational theory of evolution that would develop civilization from barbarism, barbarism from savagery, and the existence of savage men from a simian ancestry, or whether we adopt the more reasonable theory, sustained by the uniform tenor of all history, that barbarism and savagery are merely lapses from a primordial civilization, we find man at all times and under all circumstances, so far as we are informed by the records which he has left, living in society and regulating his conduct and transacting his affairs in subordination to some rules of law, more or less fixed, and recognized by him to be binding upon him, even though he has oftentimes been in rebellion against some of their provisions.
The recognition of the existence of law outside of himself, and yet binding upon him, is inherent in man's nature, and is a necessity of his being. And this is as much as to say that the very existence of human society is dependent upon law imposed by some superior power. While from our present standpoint the ultimate finite existence is that of the individual, and all true philosophy recognizes that society exists for the individual, and not the individual for society, yet it is also true that the individual is intended to exist in society, and that he must in many things subordinate his own will to that of society, and inasmuch as society can not exist without law, it is a necessary deduction of reason that the existence of law is coeval with that of the human race.
For, if the origin of law were to be sought in compact, a similar compact would suffice to abrogate it; and if it depended on the force of the majority, the wrongfulness of disobedience to its behests would depend entirely upon its discovery and manifestation to the world.
Suppose two shipwrecked men thrown upon a desert island, far removed from all human society, far removed from all its agencies and instrumentalities for the prevention and punishment of crime, and one in wantonness kills the other, is the act any less a crime, because it may never be discovered, because it may never be reached by the avenging arm of justice, because the social compact has never been in force in that remote region of the earth. Our conscience and our common sense rebel against the inference of any distinction between such a crime and that of the ordinary murderer within the pale of civilization.
There never has existed, and it is entirely safe to say that there never will exist, on this planet any organization of human society, any tribe or nation however rude, any aggregation of men however savage, that has not been more or less controlled by some recognized form of law. Whether we accept the fashionable, but in this regard wholly unsupported and irrational theory of evolution that would develop civilization from barbarism, barbarism from savagery, and the existence of savage men from a simian ancestry, or whether we adopt the more reasonable theory, sustained by the uniform tenor of all history, that barbarism and savagery are merely lapses from a primordial civilization, we find man at all times and under all circumstances, so far as we are informed by the records which he has left, living in society and regulating his conduct and transacting his affairs in subordination to some rules of law, more or less fixed, and recognized by him to be binding upon him, even though he has oftentimes been in rebellion against some of their provisions.
The recognition of the existence of law outside of himself, and yet binding upon him, is inherent in man's nature, and is a necessity of his being. And this is as much as to say that the very existence of human society is dependent upon law imposed by some superior power. While from our present standpoint the ultimate finite existence is that of the individual, and all true philosophy recognizes that society exists for the individual, and not the individual for society, yet it is also true that the individual is intended to exist in society, and that he must in many things subordinate his own will to that of society, and inasmuch as society can not exist without law, it is a necessary deduction of reason that the existence of law is coeval with that of the human race.
For, if the origin of law were to be sought in compact, a similar compact would suffice to abrogate it; and if it depended on the force of the majority, the wrongfulness of disobedience to its behests would depend entirely upon its discovery and manifestation to the world.
Suppose two shipwrecked men thrown upon a desert island, far removed from all human society, far removed from all its agencies and instrumentalities for the prevention and punishment of crime, and one in wantonness kills the other, is the act any less a crime, because it may never be discovered, because it may never be reached by the avenging arm of justice, because the social compact has never been in force in that remote region of the earth. Our conscience and our common sense rebel against the inference of any distinction between such a crime and that of the ordinary murderer within the pale of civilization.
Ancient world
Ancient world
Ancient Egyptian law, dating as far back as 3000 BC, had a civil code that was probably broken into twelve books. It was based on the concept of Ma'at, characterised by tradition, rhetorical speech, social equality and impartiality.[1] By the 22nd century BC, Ur-Nammu, an ancient Sumerian ruler, formulated the first law code, consisting of casuistic statements ("if... then..."). Around 1760 BC, King Hammurabi further developed Babylonian law, by codifying and inscribing it in stone. Hammurabi placed several copies of his law code throughout the kingdom of Babylon as stelae, for the entire public to see; this became known as the Codex Hammurabi. The most intact copy of these stelae was discovered in the 19th century by British Assyriologists, and has since been fully transliterated and translated into various languages, including English, German and French. The Torah from the Old Testament is probably the oldest body of law still relevant for modern legal systems, dating back to 1280 BC.[citation needed] It takes the form of moral imperatives, like the Ten Commandments and the Noahide Laws, as recommendations for a good society. Ancient Athens, the small Greek city-state, was the first society based on broad inclusion of the citizenry, excluding women and the slave class. Athens had no legal science, and Ancient Greek has no word for "law" as an abstract concept,[2] retaining instead the distinction between divine law (thémis), human decree (nomos) and custom (díkē).[3] Yet Ancient Greek law contained major constitutional innovations in the development of democracy.
Ancient Egyptian law, dating as far back as 3000 BC, had a civil code that was probably broken into twelve books. It was based on the concept of Ma'at, characterised by tradition, rhetorical speech, social equality and impartiality.[1] By the 22nd century BC, Ur-Nammu, an ancient Sumerian ruler, formulated the first law code, consisting of casuistic statements ("if... then..."). Around 1760 BC, King Hammurabi further developed Babylonian law, by codifying and inscribing it in stone. Hammurabi placed several copies of his law code throughout the kingdom of Babylon as stelae, for the entire public to see; this became known as the Codex Hammurabi. The most intact copy of these stelae was discovered in the 19th century by British Assyriologists, and has since been fully transliterated and translated into various languages, including English, German and French. The Torah from the Old Testament is probably the oldest body of law still relevant for modern legal systems, dating back to 1280 BC.[citation needed] It takes the form of moral imperatives, like the Ten Commandments and the Noahide Laws, as recommendations for a good society. Ancient Athens, the small Greek city-state, was the first society based on broad inclusion of the citizenry, excluding women and the slave class. Athens had no legal science, and Ancient Greek has no word for "law" as an abstract concept,[2] retaining instead the distinction between divine law (thémis), human decree (nomos) and custom (díkē).[3] Yet Ancient Greek law contained major constitutional innovations in the development of democracy.
Legal history
Legal history
King Hammurabi is revealed the code of laws by Shamash, god of justice
Legal history or the history of law is the study of how law has evolved and why it changed. Legal history is closely connected to the development of civilizations and is set in the wider context of social history. Among certain jurists and historians of legal process it has been seen as the recording of the evolution of laws and the technical explanation of how these laws have evolved with the view of better understanding the origins of various legal concepts, some consider it a branch of intellectual history. Twentieth century historians have viewed legal history in a more contextualized manner more in line with the thinking of social historians. They have looked at legal institutions as complex systems of rules, players and symbols and have seen these elements interact with society to change, adapt, resist or promote certain aspects of civil society. Such legal historians have tended to analyze case histories from the parameters of social science inquiry, using statistical methods, analyzing class distinctions among litigants, petitioners and other players in various legal processes. By analyzing case outcomes, transaction costs, number of settled cases they have begun an analysis of legal institutions, practices, procedures and briefs that give us a more complex picture of law and society than the study of jurisprudence, case law and civil codes can achieve.
King Hammurabi is revealed the code of laws by Shamash, god of justice
Legal history or the history of law is the study of how law has evolved and why it changed. Legal history is closely connected to the development of civilizations and is set in the wider context of social history. Among certain jurists and historians of legal process it has been seen as the recording of the evolution of laws and the technical explanation of how these laws have evolved with the view of better understanding the origins of various legal concepts, some consider it a branch of intellectual history. Twentieth century historians have viewed legal history in a more contextualized manner more in line with the thinking of social historians. They have looked at legal institutions as complex systems of rules, players and symbols and have seen these elements interact with society to change, adapt, resist or promote certain aspects of civil society. Such legal historians have tended to analyze case histories from the parameters of social science inquiry, using statistical methods, analyzing class distinctions among litigants, petitioners and other players in various legal processes. By analyzing case outcomes, transaction costs, number of settled cases they have begun an analysis of legal institutions, practices, procedures and briefs that give us a more complex picture of law and society than the study of jurisprudence, case law and civil codes can achieve.
Friday, November 4, 2011
MORE Tips to help you in a DUI Investigation
MORE Tips to help you in a DUI Investigation
Don’t let an officer shine a flashlight in your face. We often see the word, “nystagmus,” in DUI Investigation reports. Nystagmus, allegedly, has something to do with the way your eyes react to light and can help determine whether or not you are under the influence. This is what officers are looking for when they shine the flashlight in your eyes. Do not allow an officer to perform this test on you. You have the right to refuse this test. Any Las Vegas criminal attorney will advise you against participation in this type of test. The test is subjective, and not reliable. You have the right to refuse it, and you should.
Take a blood test. In the state of Nevada, you are required to take a chemical test. A chemical test is either a blood, urine or breath test at the police station (note: this is NOT the same breath test done at the car.). If you refuse a chemical test in the state of Nevada, your license can by suspended for a minimum of 1 year and you can spend up to 48 hours in jail. It is better to take a blood test than any other form of chemical testing, so that should be your first preference.
Don’t take a handheld breath test (unless it’s a chemical test). Most breath tests done in the field are preliminary alcohol screening tests, and do not satisfy the chemical screening requirement. The chemical breath test is done at the police station. The machine used in the field is a hand held machine about the size of a book that you blow into and then the officer administering the test instantly reads the results. You should tell the an officer in the field, “I want to cooperate and will take a blood test, but I do not want to take a breath test.” You have the right to refuse a field test as long as you submit to a test done at the police station. There is no consequence for refusing to take the test. If the officer forces you to take the test, ask that your objection be noted in the report, and then submit to taking it. This allows a Las Vegas criminal attorney to defend you, in the event that you require it.
Don’t consent to a search. At the point you are arrested, you no longer have the right to refuse a search. During the time prior to an arrest, you have the right to refuse a search of your belongings, your property and your person. You should exercise that right. It is difficult to fully control what an officer might find in your vehicle. You have the right to refuse a search, and you should.
If you are arrested, after a chemical screen at the police station, you should act quickly to keep any and all evidence that may help defend you in your case.
Write everything down and keep receipts. Write down everything that happened. Keep a list of witnesses and locations. You may forget some important details like the weather conditions, the time of day, the type of road, what had you eaten, who was with you. If you were in the company of friends, have them write down their account and keep their receipts as well.
Call a lawyer. Many people are arrested for a DUI because they have not acted in a way that preserved their rights. At some point, you or your friends may need the help of a Las Vegas Criminal Attorney or a DUI attorney Las Vegas to assist you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)