The Response

The prisoner’s argument that he cannot provide any more information about himself that could perhaps help to the furtherance of the case if he cannot look at the evidences against him, is very reasonable. Their questioning and detaining of the prisoner bring the judges to examine, their actions as well because of the various considerations such as the political and moral laws which seem to contradict what needs to be done. In the eyes of the law, the prisoner has his rights that need to be respected but there are also a number of issues such as security that need to be greatly considered. Here arises the problem on how the JAG must decide on this situation. To help the JAG decide on the matter, this paper will discuss some philosophies of great thinkers such as Hammurabi, Moses and Cicero in order to enlighten and guide him through a well-meditated and highly informed resolution.
In the code of Hammurabi, suspicion is not enough for one to be punished. The detainee has been imprisoned for four years already without even enough evidence against him. During the hearing, the judges claimed that they have proofs against the prisoner, making him a threat to humanity. However, during their deliberation, the judges had to admit that the claims against the prisoner are not enough to prove him guilty as charged. Looking at the code of Hammurabi, the judges had all the right and reason to question the legal status of the hearing. There was not enough evidence that was produced against the accused but he was still imprisoned for four years. The detainee was stripped of his rights to perform his duties and responsibilities toward his family and to improve his life or even to exercise his craft and skills. He has been imprisoned based only on the testimonies of an unknown source who, on the contrary, can also be considered questionable.
On the issue about the status of the hearing, it could be considered that it was nothing but an