Was Hammurabi's Code Just?

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.

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

Laws that are related to crime usually end up with a very brutal, violent, and inhumane punishment. An example of these laws that have a brutal, violent, and inhumane consequent is law 22. “If fire breaks out in a house, and someone who comes to help put it out casts his eye about the property of the owner of the house and then steals the property of the master of the house (looting), he shall be thrown in the that self-same fire”. This law means that if a person comes to help extinguish the fire ends up stealing from the burning home, then that same man who came with good intentions of extinguishing the fire will be thrown into that same fire that he/she came to help put out. As you can see, the consequence for looting a house that is on fire is very violent. Another law that has a very brutal, violent, and inhumane consequence is law 109. “If a holy woman opens a tavern door or enters a tavern for a drink, she shall be burned to death.” In this law, it means that if a religious woman drinks alcohol then she will be burned to death for it is seen as a taboo in their religion. This law has a very violent, brutal, and inhumane punishment, as you can see.

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.

A life for a life. King Hammurabi became the ruler of Babylon in 1792. Hammurabi had created 292 laws. He had a total of 3,500 lines of writing, covering both sides of the steele. I am going to be discussing, Is hammurabi's code just? Before we answer the question I will tell you what “just” means. Just simply means “fair”. I believe that hammurabi’s code was just. In this essay, I will be discussing hammurabi’s code being just. I will be giving reasons for hammurabi’s code being just.

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

The Code of Hammurabi is one of history’s oldest and best – preserved written law which appeared in Mesopotamia around 1760 BCE. “It consists of customary norms that were collected toward the end of his reign and inscribed on a diorite stela set up in Babylon's temple of Marduk, the god of Babylonia. The 282 chapters include economic provisions (prices, tariffs, trade, and commerce), family law (marriage and divorce), as well as criminal law (assault, theft) and civil law (slavery, debt). Penalties varied according to the status of the offenders and the circumstances of the offenses. ” These laws considered words which sent by the Sun god Shamash to Hammurabi. Therefore, people believed that as long as they obey the laws, then they obey the god’s words.

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 code of Hammurabi is the most remarkable and complete code of ancient law that we have. The code can be found on a stele, a stone slab usually to commemorate military victories in the ancient world. His code, a collection of 282 laws and standards, stipulated rules for commercial interactions and set fines and punishments to meet the requirements of justice. Most punishments resulting of death or loss of limb if a law was broken. The edicts ranged from family law to professional contracts and administrative law, often outlining different standards of justice for the three classes of Babylonian society. The Hammurabi Code was issued on the three classes of Babylonian Society, property owners, freemen and slaves. It was important as it organized the most civilized empire at that times , and Hammurabi made many copies of it and distributed them in the most important cities of the empire , so it represented a great progress to the human

Hammurabi’s Code shows that when Hammurabi ruled the Empire of Babylon justice was typically just doing what had been done to the victim to the wrong doer. Passages 196 and 197 are perfect examples of this. Passage 196 says if a man destroys another man’s eye,

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.

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.

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 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.