Hammurabi's Code Dbq Analysis

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.

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.

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.

The personal injury laws in Hammurabi's code have harsh but suitable consequences. They can be just to all. The personal injury laws are just because they show that injury can lead to people in the society to hurt,or not able to help out around the farm. The personal injury laws show that there are consequences for doing bad, but rewards for doing good. One example from Hammurabi's code is that " If a man has knocked out the eye of a free man his eye should be knocked out" This law is fair to the society because it shows that you can not hurt others,and get away with it. If you hurt others the same thing will happen to you. This shows that Hammurabi wanted his community to be harmless and caring to others.The next code is that " If a surgeon

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.

Nearly 4,000 years ago, a man named Hammurabi became king of babylonia. He ruled for 42 years. During that time, he became the ruler of much of Mesopotamia, which had an estimated population of 1,000,000 people or more. In his 38th year, Hammurabi made a set of 282 laws called a code that he had engraved on a stone stele. He did this to bring order and fairness to all. There has been some debate about the justness of this code. In my opinion, Hammurabi’s code was not just because of it’s family law, property law, and personal injury law.

Hammurabi's Code was it Just?I think Hammurabi's Code was unjust because of the Personal injury law.(Doc E)Law 218 says “If a surgeon has operated with a bronze lancet on a free man for a serious injury, and has caused his death,...his hands shall be cut off”. Even though the man died, he was put under the doctor's care, but if the injury was very serious and the doctor used the lancet, but the patient died because of the injury, why should the doctor be punished. Back then, even if the doctor did kill him he couldn't of really saved the many because they don't have the technology to help him.(Doc B) In this law it says “Hammurabi the protecting king I am…. That the strong might not injure the the weak……”. It says that he ‘shall’ not allow

Hammurabi’s code was unjust for a variety of reasons. First of all, many of the punishments did not fit the crime. For example, in law 21, if a person had broken into someone’s house and was caught, the punishment was to be hung. If this were to happen today, the consequence would be looked upon as wrong because the person should be put on trial instead. Another reason Hammurabi’s code of laws is unjust is because people were often punished for mistakes. In law 218, Hammurabi says “If a surgeon has operated with a bronze lancet on a free man for a serious injury, and has caused his death,... his hands shall be cut off.” This shows that people were punished for mistakes because even if it was not a preventable death, the surgeon will still be

Hammurabi’s has 282 laws carved on a “stee-lee.” Some people found his laws overly harsh, while others have found them to be quite balanced. The question is though, is Hammurabi’s code of laws just? Well, Hammurabi’s code of laws were unjust because of these three reasons, the family law, property law, and personal law. Hammurabi’s law was unjust based on the evidence from these three law topics, the family law, property law, and personal law.

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.

Hammurabi’s Code has shown to be just and kept up with the promises he made to protect the weak and this can be proven in the property laws. For example, Law 23 says that if someone is robbed and the robber hadn’t been caught, the mayor and the city shall give back what has been stolen from them. The victim has been considered, by the law, to be weak because of what has happened to them, and the city, including the mayor, have protected them by giving back what has been taken from them. Another example of justness is shown in Law 21, which states, “ If a man has broken through the wall (to rob) a house, they shall be put to death and pierce him, or hang him in the hole in the wall which he has made.” To some, this may seem harsh today, and