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
Hammurabi’s code could have been just in many different ways depending on the situation, but Hammurabi’s code also killed many innocent people! When Hammurabi made the laws, they were placed in the middle of the town, so the people knew about the laws and the consequences if they broke the laws. In Hammurabi’s words, he said: “ Hammurabi, the protecting king am I. … That the strong might not injure the weak, in order to protect the widows and orphans.” (Doc. B). He promised to protect the weak and Hammurabi did not keep his promise. Although he meant well, Some of the laws were unjust and unnecessary. Here is why Hammurabi’s code is unjust to the property laws and the personal injury law.
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.
Mesopotamia, “the Land between Rivers,” was one of the greatest and the oldest ancient civilizations of the world. This civilization flourished around 3000 B.C. on the piece of fertile land, now known as Iraq, between the rivers Euphrates and Tigris. Before 1792 B.C., the city-states of ancient Mesopotamia were not united and constantly clashed in turmoil and warfare. In 1792 B.C., King Hammurabi conquered and merged the neighboring city states of ancient Mesopotamia, creating a Babylonian empire and becoming the sixth king of its capitol city, Babylon. During his reign, Hammurabi established law and order and funded irrigation, defense, and religious projects. He personally took care of and governed the administration. In
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.
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 is one of history’s oldest and best – preserved written law which appeared in Mesopotamia around 1760 BCE. “It consists of customary norms that were collected toward the end of his reign and inscribed on a diorite stela set up in Babylon's temple of Marduk, the god of Babylonia. The 282 chapters include economic provisions (prices, tariffs, trade, and commerce), family law (marriage and divorce), as well as criminal law (assault, theft) and civil law (slavery, debt). Penalties varied according to the status of the offenders and the circumstances of the offenses. ” These laws considered words which sent by the Sun god Shamash to Hammurabi. Therefore, people believed that as long as they obey the laws, then they obey the god’s words.
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
B) Hammurabi was warning people to follow all of his laws so that they wouldn't end up with harsh punishments. Hammurabi punished the society by destroying their most valuable possessions so that they would gain knowledge and never violate one of his laws once again. Hammurabi wanted the society to learn their lesson by receiving a curse upon their family, land, and troops. Hammurabi meant no harm to the innocent Mesopotamians. Like any law, people are meant to follow it. At school, work, communities, etc. there are rules and when somebody decides to violate them they find themself in many situations. In this case, when a man from the society didn’t follow one of Hammurabi’s laws, he would find himself in many consequences such as losing his most valuable possessions. “The carving at the top of the stele shows Hammurabi standing before Shamash, the god of justice, who is seated on his throne, Shamash is instructing Hammurabi on the law. Below the two figures is the Prologue, in which Hammurabi lists the names of the gods, saying that they have given him the right to rule. The Prologue, like the rest
On one hand, we have women’s rights and property laws. Women we treated quite well under the Code, for their care was often guaranteed and if a woman was punished for adultery, the man who facilitated the crime to her would be punished, too. Your property was extremely secure, since, whether it be the death of the thief or compensation for damaged crops, you would always receive justice if your property was somehow vandalized. On the other hand, we have the extreme punishments that the Code stipulated, such as the chopping off of hands, the drowning of adulterers, and the hanging or “piercing” of thieves. While the Code had its pros and cons, it’s safe to say that it was very effective in bringing order and justice to the people of
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!
The governing legal, moral and religious codes of ancient civilizations were written and enforced by a minority that exercised power and authority over the majority. This minority consisted of priests, rulers and elites with established power and influence in society. In these codes of early civilizations, there was an overarching emphasis on maintenance of structure and order in society. Simply put, while these codes reflect the conditions, needs and values of the times in which they were formulated, they also unveil the authors’ agendas to preserve their power by maintaining the status quo. Therefore, these codes acknowledge and uphold the prevailing social, gender and racial inequalities as natural conditions of human existence and reveal the manifold biases present in early civilizations.
Four thousand years ago, in the state of Babylonia, ruled a king named Hammurabi, Hammurabi made a set of two hundred eighty two laws name Hammurabi’s code, to protect the weak, but were they really just? Through my prospective these laws were not fair because they did not try to help the family solve its problems, instead it acted based on what happened, Hammurabi’s code destroyed/ruined personal property, and it encouraged personal injury.