Hammurabi Dbq

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.

This law seems, as well, too harsh. The son should get a punishment but getting your hands cut off for hitting his father would lead to son being scared. In conclusion, Hammurabi 's code is unjust. The evidence shows that the Personal Injury Laws didn’t protect all people equally, the Property Laws punishments were too harsh, and the Family Laws can cause someone 's death.

Hammurabi’s code interfered with others lives, prevented protection of the weak and created fear among the people. To begin with, Hammurabi’s code of law was unjust because it interfered with others lives. A mesopotamian man was allowed to disown his son whenever he pleased. Also, If the son hits his father, his hands will be cut off (Document C). It is unjust because Hammurabi did not consider the consequences that came with the law.

I believe the U.S. knew what they were creating when they formed these laws. Laws appear to serve the whites, wealthy, and well-educated folks instead of everyone. Furthermore, prosecutors know when they charge minors as adults it is only going to generate more recidivism and more serious offenses. Hence, preventing children from receiving student loans, jobs, and business license. So yes, the system does treat juvenile too much as adults because once convicted it causes huge barriers for them in the long run.

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 ...

The third code is family law. In law 195 it says, “If a son has struck his father, his hands shall be cut off.” The son should be punished however, cutting off his hands is very extreme. There is no age listed in this law and what if it was a child? In law 129 it also shows that the laws were unjust.

His code of laws is unjust because of the needless, abusive punishments. In addition, Hammurabi did not

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.

The society in this book seemed to be the type that followed the rules or if you didn’t the worst things were going to happen to you. Everybody makes mistake and they try to learn and move on from them but killing someone intentionally would stick with that person forever and they would never be the same. Therefore, some people debate on whether he was completely out of place for killing Beatty or did the best thing for society. Although Montag killed Beatty, many people debate over whether it was the right thing to do or not.

By the look at the last answer, I am sure you could gather what I would respond here in this one. However, I would change imposing punishment or sentencing. While I understand and respect that felony law states that incarceration is mandatory, what if there were other ways to punish that person? This may sound harsh, but bring back physical punishment. A man robs a store with a gun, remove a finger or two, not in a humane way either.

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.

Spare the rod and spoil the kingdom. Hammurabi became king of Babylon in 1792 BCE. He conquered numerous surrounding city-states. Hammurabi is most famous for creating 282 laws. Hammurabi’s Code: Was it just?

Hammurabi once said, “The first duty of government is to protect the powerless from the powerful.” The weaker a person is, the stronger need of government protection is needed. Hammurabi became king of Babylon in 1792 BCE, he conquered most of southern Mesopotamia and attempted to protect the weak and form law and order. He did this by writing 282 laws in stone and enforcing the laws to the entire kingdom. Hammurabi's code was unjust.

Cutting off a son’s hands if they strike their father - that may seem harsh to us nowadays, but in Hammurabi’s time, this rules united the whole entire empire and maintained order throughout the kingdom. Hammurabi was a powerful ruler of the kingdom of Babylon. He ruled for 42 years and ruled over most of Mesopotamia. Hammurabi became the ruler in 1792 BCE and made many great advancements including: a postal system, an irrigation maintenance system, and most importantly, a code of laws. Hammurabi had a strict code of laws that every citizen of Babylon had to follow.

Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act History The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 was signed into law by President Barack Obama, January 29, 2009. The purpose and goal of the Lilly Ledbetter Act is to amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This Ledbetter Act states that the 180-day statue of limitations for filing an equal-pay lawsuit regarding pay discrimination resets with each new paycheck affected by that discriminatory action. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilly_Ledbetter_Fair__Pay_Act_of_2009)