Hammurabi Dbq Analysis

At the time, it was cruel to give harsh punishments to the accused if he/she cause a minor problem and they don’t do anything to help the victim. The property laws are unnecessary to the accused and even if the accused did something on accident, they still maybe end up killing him/her. The personal injury laws don’t even help because the laws punishments are basically killing the accused or chopping off a body part. In that time, the people thought that these laws were fair, But all in all, this is why the laws in Hammurabi’s code were unjust to not only the victim and the accused, but to society as

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.

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

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 was just because of its personal injury laws. In law 209 it states, “If a man strikes the daughter of a free man and causes her to lose the fruit of her womb, he shall pay 10 shekels of silver.” (Doc E). This law is just because the free man is taking care of his daughter by making sure the man pays for what he caused. In law 213 it states, “If he has struck the slave-girl of a free man and causes her to lose the fruit of her womb,

Thousands of years ago a King Hammurabi wrote a set of 282 laws called Hammurabi’s Code to protect the weak. Hammurabi’s Code was just by it protecting the family. In addition, it protected the property by helping people in need. Finally, it protected personal injury by it giving aid to the injured.

Hammurabi’s code dealing with personal injury laws are fair. In law 199, it declares “If he has knocked out the eye of a slave… he shall pay half his value.” I believe that law is just, because if a man knocks someone's eye out then they should pay half of his value. In law 215, it declares “If a surgeon has operated with a bronze lancet on the body of a free man… and saves the man’s life, he shall receive 10 shekels of silver.” I believe that law 215 is just because he took time and used is knowledge to work on the guy and he saved his life, then he should get something in

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.

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.

But King Hammurabi has decided that if the surgeon has already caused one death, his hands shall be cut off so he cannot cause another death. Think about the best doctors in the world- even they may not have been able to save some patients lives, but their hands are never cut off- they improve their medicines and processes and help more people. Another law that proves Hammurabi’s Code is unjust partially because of laws under Personal Injury is Law 196. Law 196 states,”If a man has knocked out the eye of a free man, his eye shall be knocked out.” This is a one for one situation in which the man will get his eye knocked out if he ever knocks out the eye of a free man. The free man whose eye first got knocked out should receive money for medical bills, not the other man’s eye knocked out. He has no use for the offenders knocked out eye, even though the punishment is fair enough for the act. Alternatively, Law 199,” If he

Hammurabi’s Code shows that when Hammurabi ruled the Empire of Babylon justice was typically just doing what had been done to the victim to the wrong doer. Passages 196 and 197 are perfect examples of this. Passage 196 says if a man destroys another man’s eye,

Hammurabi's code was not just because of his family law. Hammurabi's code could be considered unjust because in document A. it states ´´hammurabi got the laws from shamash ´´ When this is stated we don't know if the god ´´shamash´´ is even real. For all we know hammurabi could have made all those laws up.

Hammurabi’s code demonstrates personal injury, one of those laws is, if the son strikes his father he shall have his hands cut off which is harsh, depending on the scenario. Not only this but Hammurabi is always talking about how he wants to protect the weak from the strong but this