Hammurabi's Code Of Law

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.

When it comes to property laws, I think that the laws to Hammurabi’s code was unjust. For example, in Document D Law 21, it states that: “If a man has broken through a wall [to rob] a house, they shall put him to death..., or hang him in the hole...” This law is unjust to the victim because if the accused is hung on the hole, than the victim will have to deal with a dead body hung on to the hole in the wall. This is completely unfair to the accused because although the accused tried to rob a house, he/she would be given a harsh punishment which is not only cruel but unnecessary. Law 23

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 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

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.

In regards to the Hammurabi Code of Law, Hammurabi claimed that the gods had picked him to “promote the welfare of the people …to cause justice to prevail in the land, to destroy the wicked and evil, so that the strong might not oppress the weak…” His intention was to hold those under his rule accountable for their actions and inspire “appropriate behaviors”. In fact, according to literature, the code functioned on the principle of “lex talionis” which basically translates as the “law of retaliation”. The idea was that the punishment would fit the crime, at least in theory. Similar to today’s laws, individual judges were allowed discretion and did not always follow the code specifically. Never the less, the code was always utilized as a reference for solution. (Bentley and Zeigler, p. 30)

In 1750 B.C. a new king of babylonia arose by the name of Hammurabi. He continued his reign up until 1792 B.C. but most importantly his reign did not go unforgotten. During his reign he was in charge of giving punishments to the wrongdoings of his citizens. As he conquered other cities and his empire grew he saw the need to unify groups he controlled, he was concerned about keeping order in his kingdom. In order to achieve this goal, he needed one universal set of laws for all the people he conquered thus he created the Hammurabi code.

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.

Hammurabi's code of laws where some of the first laws establish. These laws have gone on to influence other civilians like Greece, Rome, and even laws of today. The laws were based on the theory that says “ an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.” This is shown in most of Hammurabi's laws like for example “ if he breaks another man’s bone, they shall break his bone.” These laws were cruel and unusual but in a

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.

A few of Hammurabi’s laws were just, but overall a majority of them are unjust. How can someone be put to death or charge someone for the littlest crime? None of these laws and punishments would remain in today’s society. Many think Hammurabi’s laws were justified, but they are unfair because the poor and lower class people were treated not the same and punished. Someone higher up only had to pay a small fine, but the poor had to pay more.

The Law Code of Hammurabi was created by the ruler of Babylon, King Hammurabi, around the 18th century BCE (Law Code of Hammurabi, 30). It was written in the cuneiform script of the Akkadian language, which was the universal language of diplomacy at the time (Lecture 2 & 5). The efficiency of cuneiform and the growing use of the international Akkadian language led to the rapid spread of literacy which subsequently led to heightened government regulation (Lecture 5). The law code emerged in the midst of the growing importance of codified laws to maintain structure and regulate order in society. It disclosed the manifold inequalities functioning in Babylonian society at the time. However,

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 was the sixth king of the first Amorite dynasty of Babylon. He supposedly ruled from 1792-1750 BC. During his rule, he wrote a code of law, which was the first to be translated from cuneiform. The code was written on several stone tablets so that all people could see them. It had a prologue, an epilogue, and 282 articles, and included rights for women, even though they didn't have as many rights as men did.