Explain Two Reasons Why Hammurabi's Code Was Abolished Dbq

515 Words3 Pages
Was a fair punishment used for doing bad things? In 1800 BCE, Hammurabi’s code became the first set of laws. When there are laws, there are people who break them, this leads to punishment.That raises the question, were his laws just? I believe Hammurabi’s code was unjust, specifically in these three areas: no second chances, future kings could not change the law, and physical punishment was allowed and practiced.

The first reason why the code is prejudiced is because there were no second chances. If a person has made a flaw in their task that is severe, they will immediately face punishment. This action is used in Document E, Law 218. It states that, “If a surgeon has operated with a bronze lancet on a free man for a serious injury, and has caused his death,... his hands shall be cut off. People are not given another chance to repent for their act, instead they are punished. This is not fair considering he lost both his limbs for his entire life. It can be difficult to live a life and find a job if the person is disabled. In Document C, Law 195 says “If a son has struck his father, His hands shall be cut off. Hammurabi’s law only worries about the weak people, but not the people who are weakened.
…show more content…
In Document B, the last few paragraphs state that no heir to the throne can change the laws. If he does, he shall be cursed by the gods along with all people who are in acquaintance with him. For future reasons kings may need to change the law, according to the well being of their people. Kings cannot change the code if it means they are willing to sacrifice their loved ones. Hammurabi’s consequence of hurting the people they love goes too
Open Document