Do You Think Hammurabi's Code Was Just?

Hammurabi's laws regarding family include many prime examples of how his code protects the weak (doc B). Foremost, a man cannot relinquish his dying wife, but instead must tend to her for as long as she lives (doc C, law 148). Additionally, a father cannot disinherit his son unless the son has committed a crime (doc C, law 168). Both laws are just in that they defend

When it comes to property laws, I think that the laws to Hammurabi’s code was unjust. For example, in Document D Law 21, it states that: “If a man has broken through a wall [to rob] a house, they shall put him to death..., or hang him in the hole...” This law is unjust to the victim because if the accused is hung on the hole, than the victim will have to deal with a dead body hung on to the hole in the wall. This is completely unfair to the accused because although the accused tried to rob a house, he/she would be given a harsh punishment which is not only cruel but unnecessary. Law 23

Drowning, cutting off hands, and hangings were all punishments in Hammurabi’s code. Given to him by Shamash, the god of justice, the code was carved on a stone stele and consisted of 282 laws. The laws were just for Hammurabi’s time period, but they would not be considered just by today’s standards. Compared to people today, Hammurabi and his subjects have a more impulsive mindset; their society is adverse to the works of society today. In that case it is expected that certain components, like laws, will be viewed differently over time.

In different terms this means if a doctor has used a metal tool for a surgery and caused the person's death his hands will get cut off.What if the man was minutes away from dying when the doctor started the surgery?The doctor, who was neITher responsible for the man's death nor capable of saving IT, will now lose his hands due to an unjust law, and think about the society what if this surgeon is the only one for miles and miles wIThout hands he can't perform a surgery which could cause many more people to die.Another unjust law is number 209(DOC E). “If a man strikes the daughter of a free man and causes her to lose her fruIT of the womb, he shall pay ten shekels of silver”.Compared to law 213, “if he has struck a slave girl of a free man and causes her to lose her fruIT of the womb, he shall pay two shekels of silver.This is unjust because IT changes punishment based on social rank so that free people are worth five times that of people who are slaves.Hammurabi’s code of laws was not in any way

For example, “If a man has borrowed money to plant his fields and a storm has flooded his field or carried away the crop… in that year he does not have to pay his creditor.” [Law 48]. The law for this is not harsh at all. All that would happen is the creditor wouldn’t get paid for that time because of the flood. Personally, if I were to that creditor I would want to get paid for that piece of land. But if the storm had come through and flooded his crops and land then I would understand that I wouldn’t be getting paid for that month or whatever it is because the farmer probably wouldn’t have the money to pay

In addition to these laws, Hammurabi’s laws were also gender biased .Laws for women were also unjust, gender biased and based on social classes. Women were not given an individual status according to these laws and also they weren’t allowed to trade and open their own business. Also, they did not have their individual rights. For instance, the law one hundred and twenty eight states that “ If a man take a woman to wife, but have no intercourse with her, this woman is no wife to him”. This law shows that the women were not treated equally and laws were based from the perspective of men and not the women. These laws also shows that how they were unjust to a women and suggest the social condition of them . Another law which states “If the "finger is pointed" at a man's wife about another man, but she is not caught sleeping with the other man, she shall jump into the river for her husband.” This was very wrong as it raised many questions about why only women were required to sacrifice and not men. Also, there was inequality between men and women as only men can choose their wife or perhaps buy her

Hammurabi’s code was fair because of the Family Laws. In law 148, it states “In a marriage if a spouse dies, then the remaining spouse remarries the living spouse the deceased must dwell in the house that they built

Hammurabi’s code was a set of laws made by Hammurabi. They were the first written set of laws. There is a debate about if Hammurabi’s code was just or unjust. I think Hammurabi’s code was just. The codes were just, because it protected the weak, helped people in troubles, and scared people form breaking the codes.

To begin with, the family laws in Hammurabi’s code are usually pretty unfair in the way they handle family disputes. One example of this is shown in Law 195 when the Code states, “If a son has struck his father, his hands shall be cut off”(Document C). This is unfair because it treats the son as lesser than the father since he gets a worse punishment than the original offense. Which shows that this law is an unbalanced punishment for the offense. Another example of an unfair law pertaining to family manners is when law 168 states, “If a man has determined to disinherit his son and has declared before the judge, “‘I cut off my son,’ the judge shall inquire into the son’s past, and, if the son has not committed a grave misdemeanor…, the father shall not disinherit his son”(Document C). This shows how a law can take something that should be decided by an individual, but instead is taken into a decision by the

Hammurabi’s Personal Injury law was unjust because If a man knocked out the eye of a free man, then his eye shall be knocked out. Another reason, If a man strikes the daughter of a free man, and she loses the fruit of her womb, he shall pay 10 shekels of silver. Some people may claim Hammurabi’s code was just but actually it's not just because If a surgeon has operated with a bronze lancet on a free men for a serious injury and caused his death, his hands shall be cut off. This is unjust because the surgeon was suppose to help the free man survive not cut his hands off when he is already dead.

The Code of Hammurabi is one of history’s oldest and best – preserved written law which appeared in Mesopotamia around 1760 BCE. “It consists of customary norms that were collected toward the end of his reign and inscribed on a diorite stela set up in Babylon's temple of Marduk, the god of Babylonia. The 282 chapters include economic provisions (prices, tariffs, trade, and commerce), family law (marriage and divorce), as well as criminal law (assault, theft) and civil law (slavery, debt). Penalties varied according to the status of the offenders and the circumstances of the offenses. ” These laws considered words which sent by the Sun god Shamash to Hammurabi. Therefore, people believed that as long as they obey the laws, then they obey the god’s words.

Hammurabi's code was just, because it protected people and was fair. For most of the 282 laws in hammurabi's code they were in the best interest of helping and protecting the week, sick, poor, and the vast majority of babylonia. The laws were mostly fair to the people because usually the punishment was something of equal or greater harm than which the crime was committed. The only concern of mine is how harsh some laws were, because the punishment was way worse than the crime, but it was in a good cause so if the punishment was not death that the criminal was taught a good lesson, and if it was death the people didn't have to worry about the criminal that was killed because the criminal would be dead.

For example, here are some family laws that are unfair to the people of Babylonia. In law 195, [Doc. C], it states “If a son has struck his father, his hands shall be cut off.” I think that if

Hammurabi code was unjust because of its family laws. In law 168 if a man son arm has to be cut off why does get the son’s hand cut off when you guys don’t get along. When the father and son don’t have a great future the son’s arm get’s cut off. Unjust because it's not the kids fought that his father never spend time and if they didn't have a great past and i don't the hand to get cut off its should be the father because he didn’t spend time with his son. That i know it’s a law and if the son and the father didn’t spend time together and the son’s arm get’s cut off and don’t think that’s unfair to the son for his arm getting cut off and should cut the father arm off sept the son arm getting cut off. That it should be fair for the son to

Hammurabi’s Code has shown to be just and kept up with the promises he made to protect the weak and this can be proven in the property laws. For example, Law 23 says that if someone is robbed and the robber hadn’t been caught, the mayor and the city shall give back what has been stolen from them. The victim has been considered, by the law, to be weak because of what has happened to them, and the city, including the mayor, have protected them by giving back what has been taken from them. Another example of justness is shown in Law 21, which states, “ If a man has broken through the wall (to rob) a house, they shall be put to death and pierce him, or hang him in the hole in the wall which he has made.” To some, this may seem harsh today, and