Hammurabi’s Code: For Better or For Worse?
It has been said that history is bound to repeat itself, some might say it is because the human mind thinks alike in more ways than one. This is proven in many ways including the properties and function processes of a variety of communities. Take a look at today’s society, people are ranked on social class based upon their source of income and how they are presented. They are continuously told the rule book for life by those who hold high authority and we feed off of money. We are willing to throw away our principles we vowed to stand by to earn another dime to our salary. 4,000 years ago these same problems arose in some of the earliest civilizations known to man. In Mesopotamia civilians had to deal
…show more content…
In Document A it states, “Below the Prologue, closer to the base are the 282 laws, organized by theme, including family life, agriculture, theft and professional standards. There are a total of 3,500 lines of writing…” These 282 laws are what the god in charge deemed what was right and wrong. An example of one of the unjust, government controlled laws is in Document D as Law 23: “If the robber is not caught, the man who has been robbed shall formally declare whatever he has lost before a god, and the city and the mayor in whose territory or district the robbery has been committed shall replace for him whatever he has lost.” If someone is robbed why should the people have to pay everything back? These people most likely could not provide for themselves as it was. The attention that could be used to catching the robber is turned to the city to restore what had been …show more content…
In Document B it is claimed “That the strong might not injure the weak, in order to protect the widows and orphans…Let no destruction befall my monument… let my name ever repeated;let the oppressed, who has a case at law, come and stand before this my image as king of righteousness;...” Hammurabi is explaining that the laws were set up so that the weak were not hurt by the strong, but he contradicts himself because he is the strong one who is hurting the weak. The punishments that are executed do not match properly to the wrong deed that has been done. For example in Document C in Law 129: “If a married lady is caught ⦗in adultery⦘ with another man, they shall bind them and cast them into the water.” If a married lady cheats on her husband she is tied up and thrown in the water to drown. However in Law 148, “If a man has married a wife and a disease has seized her, if he is determined to marry a second wife, he shall marry her. He shall not divorce the wife whom the disease has seized. She shall dwell in the house they have built together and he shall maintain her as long as she lives.” A woman will be helplessly thrown in the river to drown if caught in adultery, but if a married man has decided that his first wife is not considered a deemable spouse anymore, he can move on to a second wife and still keep the first wife under his possession. This does not fit the criteria of making
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
In law 129 it states, “If a married lady is caught (in adultery) with another man, they shall bind them and cast them into the water.” (Doc C). This law will be just because in their time this punishment was fair and people shouldn’t disobey the law if they know the consequences. Law 148 states, “If a man has married a wife and a disease has seized her, if he is determined to marry a second wife, he shall marry her. He shall not divorce the wife whom the disease has seized. She shall dwell in the house they have built together, and he shall maintain her as long as she lives.” (Doc C). This was just because he was still married to her so she should have someone to take care of her. Also, Hammurabi states that “the strong might not injure the weak” so he needs to protect and take care of her (Doc B). When people still abided by these rules they were just so these laws were very much
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
In the law 21, it states “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.” In law 21 I believe that it is fair because robbing is wrong and if you rob someone you should get punished. In law 53,54: it states, “If a man has opened his trench for irrigation and the waters have flooded his neighbor's field, the man must restore the crop he has caused to be lost.” I believe that this law is fair because if someone messes up other people's things they should pay them back with what they messed up.
Hammurabi’s code protected the weak. In law 148, it says that if man’s wife becomes ill, he can marry a new wife, but has to take care of the ill wife too. This protects the ill wife from being abandoned. In law 168, it says that if a man wants to disinherit his son it must go before a judge, and if a judge says that he can’t disinherit his son than he can’t disinherit him. This law protects the son. Hammurabi’s code
The “Code of Hammurabi” is considered to be one of the most valuable finds of human existence. In fact its very existence created the basis for the justice system we have come to rely on today. The creation of “the Code” was a tremendous achievement for not only Babylonian society but for the entire Mesopotamian region as King Hammurabi was ruler over all of that area. Its conception can be considered to be the first culmination of the laws of different regions into a single, logical text. Hammurabi wanted to be an efficient ruler and realized that this could be achieved through the use of a common set of laws which applied to all territories and all citizens who fell under his rule. This paper will discuss the Hammurabi Code and the
The secular laws of Babylon were laid down by Hammurabi in “The Code of Hammurabi”, and in the book of Exodus. These laws provided stability and order in those respective societies. As society depended upon them, it is natural to assume that the laws relied upon society as well and reflect the values held by each society, not only in the laws themselves, but also in how they are written, whom they pertain to and how they are executed. While at first glance the law codes appear similar, there are a number of differences that provide key insight to what was held dear in each society. How do differences in these two law codes attest to differences in the two societies which pronounced them, and likewise, what can be learned from their
Hammurabi’s code influenced the people of his kingdom greatly, he set valuable legitimate standards that have lasted to this day. Not only did this code set standards but it also includes a modern-day take of court and justice procedures. The Ten Commandment shaped people’s belief not only for Christians, it also shaped morality in all cultures and religions. Because of the two laws/codes, civilizations learnt what was right and what was wrong; the two laws influenced them to do the same. What would happen if one disobeyed the rules? It would count as a sin or be punished, which is also the way legal judiciaries do, however the punishments are not so brutal. Why? Because people have learnt how to be wise with the decisions they make, civilizations have gotten a moral sense because of these laws. In addition to the last point stated, the two laws give a basic and complex legal code that defends the innocent, punishes the guilty, it establishes a right to own and regulate private land, allows for self-defense, enforces the law to treat people with respect etc. All of the laws stated above apply to modern day society and culture, especially in judicial
In 1750 B.C. a new king of babylonia arose by the name of Hammurabi. He continued his reign up until 1792 B.C. but most importantly his reign did not go unforgotten. During his reign he was in charge of giving punishments to the wrongdoings of his citizens. As he conquered other cities and his empire grew he saw the need to unify groups he controlled, he was concerned about keeping order in his kingdom. In order to achieve this goal, he needed one universal set of laws for all the people he conquered thus he created the Hammurabi code.
In reading this article, I found to believe that Hammurabi produced these codes so that people can become righteous and he can teach them the right way of living in the world/society. He is the protective King, and was trusted by many of the great gods to protect the land, city, and their homes. I believe codes were put in place so that the society which they live in would be a better and safer place to reside. Hammurabi wants his legacy be remembered as the king who cared for the people and his words to reflect what he was as a person. This code of law is being mandated and the people will know to abide by these rules and regulations.
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.
The nature of the cruelty in Hammurabi's Codex is surly according to the culture of people back in that period of time Criminal Law.
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.
How would you like to be a woman in Mesopotamia when Hammurabi ruled? Back then it was really unfair for women. Hammurabi’s Code was unfair and too harsh for women. The laws that are in the documents are a too harsh, mostly for women. Two of the laws in document E are way too easy for men( Laws 209, 213 ). In the article, “Hammurabi’s Code: Was It Just?” the text states, “Nearly 4,000 years ago, a man named Hammurabi became king of a city-state called Babylon.” Hammurabi ruled for forty-two years. The article says, “ For the first 30 of these years, Hammurabi’s control was limited mostly to Babylon.” Hammurabi soon took power in 1792 BCE. He would eventually rule over an estimated population of one million. Most of Hammurabi’s laws were way too harsh, mainly for women. I am glad things are not the same for women today!
If a son hits his father, his hands shall be cut off. If anyone commits robbery and is caught, he shall be put to death. Hammurabi’s Laws were harsh and put people in much danger. The laws made people very aware of what would happen if they committed any type of crime. Hammurabi lived in the kingdom of Babylon and Ruled there for 42 years. He wrote a set of 282 laws on a large pillar-like stone. A God, by the name of Shamash, gave Hammurabi the right to write these laws. In this Essay I will discuss the question, Was Hammurabis Code Just? You may be wondering what “just” means and it is simply another word for fair. So, I will be determining if Hammurabi’s code was fair or unfair. In my opinion Hammurabi’s code