Hammurabi Code Dbq Essay

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.

One reason why Hammurabi’s code is unjust is that it doesn’t treat everyone the same. Law 196 states “If a man strikes the daughter of a free man, and causes her to lose the fruit of her womb, he shall pay ten shekels of silver”, while Law 199 states “If he has struck the slave-girl of a free man and causes her to lose the fruit of her womb, he shall pay two shekels of silver. This shows that the code thinks that free people are five times more valuable than slaves. In Document B, he says “that the strong may not injure the weak”. However, in truth, the strong (free men) are injuring the weak(slaves), because if someone wanted to hurt a pregnant women, they would have to pay one-fifth of the money that they would pay if they hurt a free pregnant woman if they hurt a slave-woman.

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

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

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

How would people feel if they had to follow the laws of Hammurabi’s code? Hammurabi was the king of Babylonia. Hammurabi started being king around 3500 BCE, and Hammurabi made 282 laws. Hammurabi’s Code was unjust based on the evidence from the codes Personal law, Property law, and Family law. Was Hammurabi’s code just?

Hammurabi was the sixth king in the First Dynasty of Babylon in the 18th century BCE. He became a first king of the empire of Babylonia when he conquest Sumerian and Akkadians. He was the creator of the Code of Hammurabi that known as one of the earliest surviving codes of law in recorded history.

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 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

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.

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.

Also, in Law 195, it says if a son hits a father, his hands would be cut off. Basically, these laws were fair, but strict. As you can see, Hammurabi’s Code helped protect many families. Moreover, Hammurabi’s Code protected personal property. For instance, in Document D, Law 48 states “if a man has borrowed money to plant his fields, and a storm has flooded his fields or carried them away,

Hammurabi’s code was unjust because of the family laws listed in the code. In the prologue of Hammurabi’s code Hammurabi states, “That the strong might not injure the weak, in order to protect the widows and orphans,” (Doc A). Law 129 of Hammurabi’s code states if a married woman is caught cheating on her husband with another man, they shall be tied together and thrown into the water (Doc C). This seems highly unfair to the woman because the woman is lower in the social structure of the city, thus making the woman a weaker party. Didn’t Hammurabi say that he would protect the weak? This does not seem like protection to me. Furthermore, there is another law Hammurabi passed that is unfair to the weaker party. Law 195, if a child has hit

Three of the documents provided show that Hammurabi’s Code was, in fact, just. The first is Document A, which shows that the god of justice, Shamash, gave the people these laws. If the god of justice gave them these laws then the laws must be just. Document C also shows that these laws are just by protecting the weak. For example, in Law 168: “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 sons past, and, if the son has not committed a grave misdemeanor… the father shall not disinherit his son.” After making this law a man cannot disinherit his son without having a valid reason that is recognized before a judge. This helped to keep the son safe because in the year of 1754 BCE the son would inherit the land and money of the family