preview

Hammurabi: Was It Fair?

Decent Essays

With a screeching scream and a squirt of blood, the boy’s hands were cut off. The boy’s hands were cut off because he had hit after he was unhappy with him for not buying him a toy he wanted. The year was 1755 B.C.E, in the kingdom of Babylonia - ruled under the mighty King Hammurabi. If this was a punishment right now, you would think that it would be way too harsh and abnormal. However, this punishment was a real one - in ancient Babylonia. During the 38th year of King Hammurabi’s reign, he made a set of laws that were extremely fair for its time, but very harsh too. Hammurabi claimed that the laws would protect the weak. The question is, was it fair, and did it live up to Hammurabi’s claims? Well, we’re about to find out how it was. It was fair because of its family laws, …show more content…

These laws were called the property laws. 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 whose territory or district the robbery has been committed shall replace him for whatever he has lost.” This law would replace the person who got robbed for whatever he lost. Replacing him for what he lost would prevent the weak from dying, as he/she might have been robbed their living wage. You could say that some devious people would stage an act, but since people had to declare what they lost before a god, if they lied to the god, they probably would get “misfortune” in the future, so they wouldn’t do that again. Law 53, 54 “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.” Replacing the neighbor with what he has lost would allow the government to still have the same amount of food supply, and the other farmer to not go bankrupt. This would also prevent dispute in some ways by stopping the other farmer from complaining about his

Get Access