Hammurabi’s code: was it just? 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. Why the family law is not
In Law 195 it states, “If a son has struck his father, his hands shall be cut off.” 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. Most of Hammurabi’s laws are not just to the people or society of Babylon.
That is not the case because Hammurabi’s code was more negative towards everyone than positive. 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).
In my opinion, the judicial system is slavery just in a different form because the U.S. is making money off of them, stripping them of their humanity, and giving them no type of hope for the future. 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.
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 ... he shall pay one mina of silver.
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. Another reason is “If a married lady is caught [in adultery] with another man, they shall bind them and cast them into water.” This is also a very harsh punishment.
Another example of Hammurabi’s unnecessary harshness, was the law stating that if a man has broken into another’s house he shall be put to death by piercing him or hanging him in the hole which he made in the house (doc D, law 21). 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. Montag did was he thought was right according to him because Montag thought that he was protecting himself and Faber, killing him to give society a chance to change, and because Beatty did not want to live anymore.
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.