What Is The Code Of Hammurabi Like Today

Drowning, cutting off hands, and hangings were all punishments in Hammurabi’s code. Given to him by Shamash, the god of justice, the code was carved on a stone stele and consisted of 282 laws. The laws were just for Hammurabi’s time period, but they would not be considered just by today’s standards. Compared to people today, Hammurabi and his subjects have a more impulsive mindset; their society is adverse to the works of society today. In that case it is expected that certain components, like laws, will be viewed differently over time.

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.

The Code of Hammurabi and the Twelve Tables tend to both be very specific on the punishment that would be given to a citizen depending on their social standing. The Code and Tables regulates

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 secular laws of Babylon were laid down by Hammurabi in “The Code of Hammurabi”, and in the book of Exodus. These laws provided stability and order in those respective societies. As society depended upon them, it is natural to assume that the laws relied upon society as well and reflect the values held by each society, not only in the laws themselves, but also in how they are written, whom they pertain to and how they are executed. While at first glance the law codes appear similar, there are a number of differences that provide key insight to what was held dear in each society. How do differences in these two law codes attest to differences in the two societies which pronounced them, and likewise, what can be learned from their

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.

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

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.

The nature of the cruelty in Hammurabi's Codex is surly according to the culture of people back in that period of time  Criminal Law.

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.

In reading this article, I found to believe that Hammurabi produced these codes so that people can become righteous and he can teach them the right way of living in the world/society. He is the protective King, and was trusted by many of the great gods to protect the land, city, and their homes. I believe codes were put in place so that the society which they live in would be a better and safer place to reside. Hammurabi wants his legacy be remembered as the king who cared for the people and his words to reflect what he was as a person. This code of law is being mandated and the people will know to abide by these rules and regulations.

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.

Hammurabi's code was based on the saying ‘an eye for an eye'. This means that the retribution for the crime would roughly fit the severity of the crime. For example, if someone poked someone's eye out, someone would poke that someone's eye out. I think this is fair because it doesn't make sense any other way. For instance,

I, as well as many others, have total confidence in the death penalty. It is a very beneficial component of our justice system. The death penalty saves lives. It saves lives because it stops those who murder from ever murdering again. It also deters potential murderers from ever committing the crime.

Try to imagine yourself being convicted of a crime you did not commit, and even worse being told you have die for that crime. This nightmare is actually a reality for some inmates on death row today. The death penalty should be abolished because the potential for even one death of an innocent man violates all principles of justice. "Can the justice system ever be 100 percent right? Not likely. Then how can it administer punishment that's 100 percent irreversible" ("Lock Up" 2)?