1. If anyone brings an accusation of any crime before the elders, and does not prove what he has charged, he shall, if it be a superior lawfulness-breaking charged, be put to death.
2. If a judge tries a case, reaches a decision, and presents his judgment in writing; if later error shall calculate in his decision, and it be through his own fault, then he shall pay twelve times the fine set by him in the case, and he shall be publicly removed from the judges bench, and neer again shall he sit there to render judgment.
kickoff , my interpretation of the first law is that if mortal brings an accusation against some other person, the person who is being accused would have to leap into river to reconcile if hes guilty or not. If the accused sinks, the accuser would be adequate to(p) to possession of the accused house. If the river proves the accused to be sincere the accuser will be put to death.
The accused would be able to take possession of the accuser house. In my opinion I count on this law is abominable. The reason I regain this law is bad is because I think a river can determine whether someone is innocent or not. Also, I feel that the law was not a logical law. No, I dont think this law could be used today. The reason this law wouldnt work today is because it isnt based on facts. These geezerhood you just cant determine someones innocence having them leap into a river.
Second, my interpretation of the second law is that if someone accuses somebody in front of their elders and cannot prove the accusation , The accuser will be put to death if it was a capital offense. I...If you want to get a full essay, order it on our website: Ordercustompaper.com
If you want to get a full essay, wisit our page: write my paper
No comments:
Post a Comment