Hammurabi's Code Is Hammurabi Unjust?

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

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

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.

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

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.

Was Hammurabi’s Code just? Hammurabi was the king of Babylonia, a kingdom in Mesopotamia, nearly 4,000 years ago. For part of his 42 years of rule Hammurabi had many wars, but over time his thoughts of war became thoughts of peace. This was when Hammurabi followed the command of Shamash, (god of justice) and made Hammurabi's code. Hammurabi had his code put all over the land he ruled. Hammurabi's 282 laws in his code were written in cuneiform (a wedge-shaped language) on a stele (a large pillar) Hammurabi’s Code was unjust based on evidence from his laws in family, personal injury, and property.

Imagine being expected to have a sibling, then a man beats on your mother, and the unborn baby dies. Does the man get any jail time? No, he just has to pay 10 shekels of silver. Imagine ridiculous punishments and laws like that from Hammurabi’s code still being used today. Hammurabi’s Code was definitely unjust; the laws are unfair to the accused, the victim, and to the society as a whole.

Like the great Eleanor Roosevelt once said, “Justice can not be for one side alone, but must be for both.” This meant that everyone should have the right to freedom. Hammurabi’s Code was unjust because his laws were overly harsh, as some even involved death. In his (personal injury) laws, value depended on social class which was absolute injustice. Hammurabi ruled for 42 years and lived 40 centuries ago; he wrote the Code in 1754 BCE (the 38th year of his rule) in Babylon on a large, pillar-like stone called a stele. He took power in 1792 BCE and had created 282 laws (Roden & Brady, 2013). Hammurabi’s purpose of writing the Code was to bring peace to Babylon. He wanted to protect the weak and be remembered forever. Even after death, Hammurabi wanted the new kings to obey his laws. So, Hammurabi was bias for himself and made laws to gain more power from the people of Babylonia (Epilogue, Doc B). There were two areas of law where Hammurabi’s Code could be proven to be unjust. These were family laws and personal injury laws.

An example of this is if a man has knocked out the eye of another man, his eye will be knocked out ( doc E, law 196). The code protected victims of floods that caused them to lose their crops and made it possible for them not to fall into debt (doc D, law 48). Over all the code fought secure rights amongst people and things out of their control. A document recording the statistical data that showed crime rates before and after the implementations of the Code would help to better analyze how much crime rates decreased. It is easy to think that some of Hammurabi’s laws were harsh, like having a curse put on you for not following the laws (doc B), being punished by death for adultery (doc C, law 129), or having your hand cut of for striking your father (doc C, law 195). But these laws were used to keep citizens subservient and show

Hammurabi’s code was just to both the accused and the victim, and it was designed to keep the society at the time safe and secure. He was ruling with the kingdom's best interests in mind. His intentions were good, and he was very thorough when creating laws. The gods commanded Hammurabi to base his rulings on these laws, and he was merely following their instructions.

Were these laws just? Was Hammurabi’s code just? Hammurabi’s code was not just because the laws didn’t protect all people equally, the punishments were too harsh, and Hammurabi’s laws may scare away people from his society. Looking at the evidence it states that punishments towards slaves are different than the punishments towards free men and women. Hammurabi’s code was unjust because the laws didn’t protect all people

It’s not everyday that you see a robber being hung, a son’s limbs being cut off, or a set of human beings being drowned in water together. A small city-state that went by the name of Babylon was ruled by a king named Hammurabi around 4,000 years ago. During the 38th year that Hammurabi ruled, he decided to create a set of laws to control his new empire. What influenced his decision on making the 282 laws were the victories at Larsa and Mari. It lead him to think about peace, which soon evolved to be about harsh justice. The laws soon brought up a valuable question in their society. Hammurabi’s Code: Was It Just? If you look into the code you will soon find out that his code was in fact fair for the time. Hammurabi’s Code was just because of

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

If your house was to fall down, should the builder of the house be killed? And if the house was to kill a child, should the builders child be killed? This is one of many of Hammurabi’s laws which are very cruel. Most laws have to do with people being killed or losing body parts. Out of the 282 laws a majority of them put people in much danger. He became a ruler of Babylon around four thousand years ago. He ruled for 42 years. Hammurabi believes the in the laws so much because he received them from the God of Justice. We will be debating if Hammurabi’s laws were “just” which is just another word for fair. So throughout this essay I will be justifying if Hammurabi's laws are fair or not. In the following paragraphs I will be backing up my opinion of Hammurabi’s laws are unfair by looking at some of Hammurabi’s laws.

Hammurabi used his code to protect his people and to keep everything in order. I believe these laws are fair because the laws make sense and each punishment is accurate. Let’s talk about some of the family laws. Law 129, “If a married lady is caught in adultery with another man, they shall bind them and cast them into the water”. Law 195, “If a son has struck his father, his hands shall be cut off”. These punishments may seem a little harsh but are fair. The victim shouldn’t have broke the code when they knew it wasn’t allowed. Adultery is a sin, the lady shouldn’t have committed adultery knowing that it was against the code and would ruin her family. The son in law 195 shouldn’t have disrespected his father. Chopping his hands off is a little cruel but is still fair. The son shouldn’t have struck at his father when it was against the rules. When breaking the rules a punishment must take place.