Hammurabi's Code of Laws Essay

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.

One reason why Hammurabi’s code is unjust is that it doesn’t treat everyone the same. Law 196 states “If a man strikes the daughter of a free man, and causes her to lose the fruit of her womb, he shall pay ten shekels of silver”, while Law 199 states “If he has struck the slave-girl of a free man and causes her to lose the fruit of her womb, he shall pay two shekels of silver. This shows that the code thinks that free people are five times more valuable than slaves. In Document B, he says “that the strong may not injure the weak”. However, in truth, the strong (free men) are injuring the weak(slaves), because if someone wanted to hurt a pregnant women, they would have to pay one-fifth of the money that they would pay if they hurt a free pregnant woman if they hurt a slave-woman.

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 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 was the sixth king in the First Dynasty of Babylon in the 18th century BCE. He became a first king of the empire of Babylonia when he conquest Sumerian and Akkadians. He was the creator of the Code of Hammurabi that known as one of the earliest surviving codes of law in recorded history.

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)

The Law Code of Hammurabi is a native Babylonian text that served as the basic law code of society. The way of life was of the former Babylonians culture is totally different than what we are used to today. The text gives readers a vision of how ancient societies lived in these times. This law code gave society a diverse arrangement for citizens to follow. The social structure isn’t about wealth, they are judged by different standards (such as trial by ordeal). The husband is the dominant role of the house. The family structure is a patriarchal household and the power of the father is absolute. The Law Code of Hammurabi gives readers a clear thought of how unfair the earlier civilization of Babylonians existed through class structures, gender relations, and family structures.

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.

One reason that Hammurabi’s code was just is because of the professional standards laws. Document B says that “if a builder has built a house for a man and it has fallen, then he shall pay make that house firm at his own expense.” This means that a builder must replace any house he builds if that house falls or is destroyed. This shows that Hammurabi’s Code was just because Hammurabi cared about people taking responsibility for their work and being accountable for their mistakes. In addition to this, Hammurabi’s Code also says that “if a gardener does not work in a garden and the garden falls, the gardener shall pay to the neighboring gardens” (Document B). This means that a gardener must pay for any garden that he does not maintain.

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.

Hammurabi ruled the First Babylonian Empire from 1792 to 1750 BCE (class discussion, 08/29/17). Before Hammurabi, law code was understood among citizens, most likely, through oral retellings and interpretation. With the writing of these laws in circa 1780 BCE, citizens could understand what they could and could not do and provided the king with better regulation of the Babylonian people. This regulation was also provided through their belief in divine right, a concept where the king is given the throne through the approval of the gods.

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 made matters worse by acting instead of trying to help the family’s problems. For example, in Law one hundred twenty-nine, if a woman was caught in adultery with another man they will just drown them both. In addition, Law one hundred ninety -five, if a son has struck his father his hands shall be cut off. Based on what i read, Law one hundred twenty-nine is not fair because they do not try to help the family instead they come up with the solution of killing the wife. This shows that in Law one hundred ninety-five the sun will have his hands cut off when they could havejust tried to help the son not be mad at the father or want to hit him. As you can see these laws are not fair and are a bit too jumpy.