The God Of Justice In The Code Of Hammurabi

At the time, it was cruel to give harsh punishments to the accused if he/she cause a minor problem and they don’t do anything to help the victim. The property laws are unnecessary to the accused and even if the accused did something on accident, they still maybe end up killing him/her. The personal injury laws don’t even help because the laws punishments are basically killing the accused or chopping off a body part. In that time, the people thought that these laws were fair, But all in all, this is why the laws in Hammurabi’s code were unjust to not only the victim and the accused, but to society as

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.

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.

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.

In addition to these laws, Hammurabi’s laws were also gender biased .Laws for women were also unjust, gender biased and based on social classes. Women were not given an individual status according to these laws and also they weren’t allowed to trade and open their own business. Also, they did not have their individual rights. For instance, the law one hundred and twenty eight states that “ If a man take a woman to wife, but have no intercourse with her, this woman is no wife to him”. This law shows that the women were not treated equally and laws were based from the perspective of men and not the women. These laws also shows that how they were unjust to a women and suggest the social condition of them . Another law which states “If the "finger is pointed" at a man's wife about another man, but she is not caught sleeping with the other man, she shall jump into the river for her husband.” This was very wrong as it raised many questions about why only women were required to sacrifice and not men. Also, there was inequality between men and women as only men can choose their wife or perhaps buy her

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

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)

(2) (3). First of all, the biggest different between Hammurabi’s Code and the Sharia Laws are difference in term of geography and the time when they were introduced and applied. The Hammurabi’s Code was applied in around 1760 BC for 46 years by the Babylonian (Iraq in the modern day), when knowledge and intellectuality of people in that period of time still were very limited. Unlike Hammurabi’s Code, even the Sharia Law was created a long time ago but it has still being used quite popularly in the modern day. The Sharia Law has been used in many Islamic countries in the modern life and time when people’s knowledge is extraordinary and unlimited. However, having read these two laws, we have realized that there are many of similarities between Hammurabi’s Code and the Sharia Law, which prove Hammurabi’s Code in a way can be considered as a model of the modern day laws against the fact that the gap of time is over 3000 years (1). One interesting point is that people lived in 3000 years ago share the same view with people nowadays. General violations like stealing, lying, prostitution and murdering are punished harshly. Therefore, even though Hammurabi’s Code did not exactly resemble the modern-day Sharia laws, however it shared the same basis, which was to keep justice and legal rights of everyone in place and both against women harshly (2)

Hammurabi’s code influenced the people of his kingdom greatly, he set valuable legitimate standards that have lasted to this day. Not only did this code set standards but it also includes a modern-day take of court and justice procedures. The Ten Commandment shaped people’s belief not only for Christians, it also shaped morality in all cultures and religions. Because of the two laws/codes, civilizations learnt what was right and what was wrong; the two laws influenced them to do the same. What would happen if one disobeyed the rules? It would count as a sin or be punished, which is also the way legal judiciaries do, however the punishments are not so brutal. Why? Because people have learnt how to be wise with the decisions they make, civilizations have gotten a moral sense because of these laws. In addition to the last point stated, the two laws give a basic and complex legal code that defends the innocent, punishes the guilty, it establishes a right to own and regulate private land, allows for self-defense, enforces the law to treat people with respect etc. All of the laws stated above apply to modern day society and culture, especially in judicial

Ancient societies’ life practices such as Mesopotamia and Egypt are depicted in The Code of Hammurabi translated by Theophile J. Meek and in The Ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead translated by R. Faulkner. The King of Babylon, Hammurabi himself in 1700 BCE, wrote The Code of Hammurabi containing severe two hundred and eighty two law codes that the whole society was to follow. Similarly to law codes, The Egyptian Book of the Dead was used in the New Kingdom that is around 1550 BCE to around 50 BCE, it also served as a platform way of life emphasizing on the afterlife rather than the present as in The Code of Hammurabi. Both The Code of Hammurabi and The Egyptian Book of the Dead display the consequences of living a just or unjust life in ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt. Although, while in The Code of Hammurabi punishments varied concurring to your social status, unlike in Egypt, where the granting of an afterlife was attainable for all. Ultimately, in both civilizations consequences would arise accordingly on how the masses lived their daily lives, but both The Code of Hammurabi and The Egyptian Book of the Dead provides us with insight on how a each respective society was kept in order.

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 unjust because of the family laws listed in the code. In the prologue of Hammurabi’s code Hammurabi states, “That the strong might not injure the weak, in order to protect the widows and orphans,” (Doc A). Law 129 of Hammurabi’s code states if a married woman is caught cheating on her husband with another man, they shall be tied together and thrown into the water (Doc C). This seems highly unfair to the woman because the woman is lower in the social structure of the city, thus making the woman a weaker party. Didn’t Hammurabi say that he would protect the weak? This does not seem like protection to me. Furthermore, there is another law Hammurabi passed that is unfair to the weaker party. Law 195, if a child has hit

According to Document E, excerpts from Hammurambe’s Code, “if a man strikes the daughter of a free man and causes her to lose the fruit of the womb, he shall pay ten shekels of silver...if he has struck a slave-girl and has caused her to lose her fruit of her womb, he shall pay two shekels of silver.” If Hammurambe’s Code was truly meant to spread righteousness over the land; if it were really given by the god of justice, Shamash; if Hammurambe himself stated in Document B, excerpts from the epilogue, “may the law spread righteousness in the land...may the strong protect the weak...” How can there be righteousness in the land if the punishments are less harsh for the slave-girl, who is weaker than the daughter of the free girl? How can Hammurambe justify