Hammurabi was a ruler in Babylon around 40 centuries ago. He ruled for approximately 42 years. During the time he was a ruler, there were about a million citizens in Babylon who were divided into the following three social classes: land owners, free people who didn’t own land, and slaves. To control the people and protect the weak, Hammurabi created a set of laws called Hammurabi’s Code. Hammurabi himself and the citizens believed the god of justice, Shamash sent Hammurabi these laws and that they must obey them. While the idea of creating laws was good, it still had its downsides. These laws weren’t all fair or equal and some of the punishments were too harsh.
Hammurabi’s Code was unjust in many ways. One of the more significant ways was
…show more content…
Law 218 declares, “If a surgeon has operated with a bronze lancet on a free man for a serious injury, and has caused his death, … his hands shall be cut off.” This implies a surgeon cannot make a mistake or it’ll result in a brutal physical punishment that wasn’t necessary. Another specimen of unnecessary and harsh punishments can be found in law 21. Law 21 proclaims, “If a man has broken through the wall [to rob] a house, they shall put him to death and pierce him, or hang him in the hole in the wall which he has made.” Breaking into homes and stealing things is bad, but a different punishment should have been put in place. It isn’t really vital to kill somebody just because they broke into a home. Basically what these laws are saying is you can’t make a mistake or do a minor (in today’s society) crime without being gruesomely physically punished. How is that fair?
As mentioned earlier, some of the laws have different punishments which isn’t fair. Law 196 says, “If a man has knocked out the eye of a free man, his eye shall be knocked out.” However law 199 declares, “If he has knocked out the eye of a slave… he shall pay half his value.” It isn’t fair that one man is getting his eye knocked out for hitting a man, but another man is just having to pay money for hitting a man.
In conclusion, Hammurabi’s Code is unfair in many ways such as: inequality found in punishments, brutal punishments, and different punishments for the same crime. Thankfully they eventually threw out these
Hammurabi’s code is believed to be the first form of written law. It consists of a set of 282 laws written by Hammurabi, the king of Babylon circa 1792 BCE, that established a written social contract amongst the people of Babylonia. It was written on a stone stele that stands more than eight feet tall and weighs over 4 tons (doc A). According to the stele, Hammurabi was instructed to create the code by Shamash, the god of justice (doc B). However, it introduces conflicting ideas about justice that are arguable to this day. Were his rules unethical or his punishments too severe? Hammurabi’s code may be seen as unfair by today’s standards, but in solving matters that involve family, property, and health issues of his time, Hammurabi’s code was just because it utilizes negative reinforcement to implement positive results in society.
The Hammurabi Code of Laws is a set of rules enacted by the Babylonian King whose name was Hammurabi. The Babylonian King created a total of two-hundred eighty-two punishments that the citizens will receive if they do not abide by the laws that were given to them. The king ruled from 1792 BC to 1750 BC. The Hammurabi Code of Laws is very violent in terms of punishments. For example, one of the laws are “If anyone breaks into a house to steal, he will be put to death before that point of entry and be buried there (walled into the house)”. This is a clear example of how violent and inhumane the punishments of the Babylonians were, to us at least. This essay will be explaining a set of laws from the Hammurabi’s Code of Laws.
Hammurabi’s codes were just and sometimes unjust. They would have harsh punishments and sometimes not as harsh punishments. For example, Hammurabi would have harsh punishments like, blinding someone and throwing them in the water, or if someone were to rob some ones house and put a hole through the wall to get in they would whether get killed and pierced or hung in the hole in the wall that they created. Also he would have not as harsh punishments like, giving people money or cutting off their hands. Hammurabi had a lot harsher punishments for woman that did not obey the codes and not as harsh punishments for men that did not obey the laws.
Hammurabi’s code included some gruesome punishments, some that might be believed as unruly, but is still just. Hammurabi’s code was just in many ways pertaining to their time. These laws are not the oldest set, but they were possibly the most strict from the ancient world. The punishments for breaking some laws are different for the multiple classes on the social structure and genders. Also, during his time, Hammurabi was known more as a builder and conqueror than a law-giver. All in all, the laws abiding in Hammurabi’s code are just because of its personal injury and family laws.
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
Around 4,000 years ago Hammurabi’s code was created by Hammurabi the king of Babylonia with the goal of bringing justice to his kingdom. He even claimed that Shamash the god of justice commanded him to make these laws. Then his laws were carved into large stone’s called steles, written in the ancient cuneiform written, and then put up throughout all major communities of Babylonia. However, these ancient laws were not fair for everyone in his kingdom. Hammurabi’s Code was unjust because the laws pertaining to family life, property law, and personal injury were unfair.
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 was a strict, harsh, and unequal way of punishment that focused on current attainable penalties for Mesopotamian society. The society wasn’t religious, they did not have any affiliations with spiritual beings, which is why punishments were needed for the specific moment
People often assume that kings always make laws that are right and just for all people, but if that is looked into, is it really true? Not necessarily, at least in the case of Hammurabi’s Code. Hammurabi was a king in Babylon during 1792 BCE who created 282 laws which were printed on a stele. These later became known as Hammurabi’s Code. Hammurabi’s Code was made by King Hammurabi who wanted ultimately to protect the weak- such as widows and orphans- from the strong, and who wanted fairness throughout his lands. So, was Hammurabi’s Code fair to all people? Hammurabi’s code was unjust because of evidence supported by laws about Personal Injury, Property, and Family.
I think some of these laws reflects no mercy on either part of the victim or the accuser. Some of
Throughout time many civilizations and societies have come and gone. Every one of them was unique in their own way and had a different way of governing themselves. In this paper, I will be focusing on Hammurabi’s Code. Hammurabi’s Code is a series of laws that governed the Babylonian society back, when they were created, in 1780 BCE. The code was wrote by Hammurabi himself, back when he ruled the Empire of Babylon. The text itself explains why the code was created and why Hammurabi was chosen to write the code. The code then lists, in an organized fashion, all the rules that the society is to follow and what the punishments are if the rules are broken. Every rule is very specific about what is to happen if the rule has to be enforced. Hammurabi’s Code gives us an idea of how the justice system worked in the Babylonian society, how men and women in the society were treated, and how the religion was followed.
Do you know who is Hammurabi. Hammurabi was a king of babylonia, he ruled for 42 years. Hammurabi’s codes were a set of laws. The purpose of the code was too keep Mesopotamia safe. Hammurabi’s Code is unjust for two reasons: all the laws almost involve death also if anyone stealed then just take them to jail not kill them.
It’s not everyday that you see a robber being hung, a son’s limbs being cut off, or a set of human beings being drowned in water together. A small city-state that went by the name of Babylon was ruled by a king named Hammurabi around 4,000 years ago. During the 38th year that Hammurabi ruled, he decided to create a set of laws to control his new empire. What influenced his decision on making the 282 laws were the victories at Larsa and Mari. It lead him to think about peace, which soon evolved to be about harsh justice. The laws soon brought up a valuable question in their society. Hammurabi’s Code: Was It Just? If you look into the code you will soon find out that his code was in fact fair for the time. Hammurabi’s Code was just because of
Hammurabi’s code was based on the saying ‘an eye for an eye’. This means that the retribution for the crime would roughly fit the severity of the crime. For example, if someone poked someone’s eye out, someone would poke that someone’s eye out. I think this is fair
Hammurabi's code was based on the saying an eye for an eye'. This means that the retribution for the crime would roughly fit the severity of the crime. For example, if someone poked someone's eye out, someone would poke that someone's eye out. I think this is fair because it doesn't make sense any other way. For instance,