Upper-class members had to have harsher punishments that someone normal. Hammurabi’s code was guilty until proven innocent, unlike america it is innocent until proven guilty. Hammurabi once stated “to make justice visible in the land, to destroy the wicked person and the evil-doer, that the strong might not injure the weak." Hammurabi also wanted to make it possible that upper-class people won’t be robbed or killed as much as usual, his one of his code’s stated "If a man has destroyed the eye of a man of the gentleman class, they shall destroy his eye .... If he has destroyed the eye of a commoner ...
Based on what I read, according to these two laws, Hammurabi’s Code was too strict. As you can see, Hammurabi had harsh rules, instead of trying to fix things, he gave consequences. Additionally, it made people lose some kind of property. For example in Law 23, if a robbery has been made and the robber isn’t caught, the society has to give back the items. Also, in Law 48, if a man borrows money from another man for crops, and a natural disaster ruins the crops, the man doesn’t have to pay back for a while.
Hammurabi’s code was not just because of the family law, property law, and personal-injury law. The family law, in Hammurabi’s code, was unfair because in the law 195 it states, “ If a son struck his father, his hands shall be cut off.” (Doc C) This is not just because, if someone struck their father in common era, they would probably only get grounded. Things back then were a lot harsher that they are now.
Have you ever thought about laws created more than 3,500 years ago by a man known as Hammurabi? Hammurabi was a king of a kingdom known as Babylonia. He ruled nearly 4000 years ago, and ruled 42 years. During his time, Hammurabi carved 282 laws on a stele, which became Hammurabi’s Code. Now we are faced with a question: Was Hammurabi’s Code fair to everyone?
In Law #21 (Document D), it says “if a man breaks through a wall to rob a house, they will put him to death and pierce him, or hang him in the hole in the wall that he made.” Stealing people’s things and destroying their property is very disrespectful and shouldn’t be done. I’m sure they would get mad if someone does so to their property. Don’t do something to someone that you wouldn’t want done to you. Justice and fairness can also be seen in Law #’s 53 & 54 (Document D), it says “if a man opens a trench for irrigation and floods his neighbor’s field, the man who done so must restore the crops he caused to be lost.”
The first deadly sin implemented into the story is pride. Three rioters become aware of their friend being taken by death. The men claim that they will “slay this traitor Death” (371). Although Chaucer knows death not to be man, he personifies it in this tale into the form of a man. This quote demonstrates the deadly sin of pride because the foolish rioters think they can avenge their friend against an unknown enemy.
Summary Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) theory of social contract, which states that we need moral, legal rules because we want to escape the state of nature which is solitary, poor, brutal, nasty, and short. In this state, a man can kill others, and there are limited resources. This can soon lead to a state of war in which we are constantly disposed to harm others to achieve our goals. So, in this state of war if a person was to possess a beautiful house or property, and had all the comforts, luxuries, and amenities to lead a wonderful life; others could come and harm him and deprive him of his fruit of labor, life, and liberty. Therefore, the state of nature is that of fear, violence, and distrust.
Examples of justice can be found both in family law as well as personal injury law. Our fist law is law 196 in document e. This law says, “If a man has knocked out the eye of a free man, his eye shall be knocked out” When I view this law, I see that justice has been reached. It seems to be a punishment where equality happens. What you do is done back. This simple concept is used in many situations to this day.
in that year he does not have to pay his creditor. "This means the creditor would suffer and the economy would go down. The debtor will be happy and able to say that my storm has been flooded and he has no need to pay. This may be helping the debtor but by causing the creditor to lose money it could cause a chain reaction. Law 23 causes the city mayor or territory governor to lose a large sum of money.
Here are some of the laws Hammurabi created. (“If the son has done some great evil to his father, his father must forgive him the first time. But if he has done something evil twice, his father can throw him out. If a man cuts down a tree on someone else 's land, he will pay for it. If a doctor operates on a patient and the patient dies, the doctor’s hand will be cut off.”)
Most ended with the phrase, “Shall be put to death.” For some things, I could understand that being the consequence. However, things like, telling lies about another person and unauthorized trade should have had a less severe retribution. Hammurabi might have gone a tad bit crazy on the executions. For the most part, though, I feel that the outcomes stand as they should.
In order to decipher whether a violent act is one of terrorism the definition of terrorism must be clear. Most individuals would describe it as “the unlawful use of threat of violence against persons or property to further political or social objectives. ”(Taking Sides). In the case of the massacre Brown and his group of men attacked those who were pro slavery and saw his views as radical.