Some may think that these laws are fair but, the laws are totally unjust because they are not fair to all, the punishment was too harsh, and it's immoral to society as a whole. To start off, Hammurabi's code was unjust because it wasn't fair to all. For example, if a woman was a victim of assault from another person, the punishment of the accuser
Hammurabi claimed that his laws were both just and helpful to a wide range of people, but the majority of the laws don’t support either of his claims. In the instance of many laws, he appears to be very drastic with his consequences. In one of his codes, he says that if a women is caught in adultery with another man, both people must be tied up and thrown into the water (doc C, law 129). The act of binding the two people together and drowning them is a very specific and extreme repercussion for cheating. 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).
Were Hammurabi's Law Codes Just or Unjust? Hammurabi was highly biased, selfish, and violent. He expected no one to have room for error or imperfection. If people did make mistakes it most definitely could cost them their life and or their family, property, or cause personal injury. Hammurabi came to the throne in Baybalon in 1792 BCE.
King Hammurabi created a set of 282 laws, thousands of years ago in a city called Babylonia to give peace. I think Hammurabi’s Code wasn’t just because it hurt the families, it’s punishment for property was to harsh and unfair to other people, and it wasn’t fair to personal injury. First of all, Hammurabi’s Code hurt the family. For example, Document C mentioned in Law 129 that if a women cheated on another man they shall be bined and thrown into the ocean. Also, in Document C it mentioned in Law 195 that if a son struck his father his hands shall be cut of.
Hammurabi’s code was not just because the personal injury laws did not protect all people equally, property laws were harsh and not protecting people enough, and the Family laws should allow people to be with whoever they want to be with. Looking at the evidence from the Personal Injury Laws states that punishments towards slaves are
Some things we know about Hammurabi is that he was a king for 42 years! In addition to that he was a king of a city state in Mesopotamia called, Babylon. Something else about Hammurabi is that he took power in 1792 BCE. Hammurabi also developed a code totaling an astonishing 282 laws. My question I need to answer is, Was Hammurabi’s Code Fair?
These laws should both have the same consequences because all women should be treated equal. These laws on injury show that Hammurabi's code is very unjust. Hammurabi’s code may have been written to protect everyone, but the laws ended up being excessive and harmful. The laws about family, property, and injury are cruelly excessive and are unequal towards different classes.
Funk and Wagnall New World Encyclopedia wrote, “The basis of criminal law is that of equal retaliation, comparable to the Semitic law of ‘an eye for an eye’”(“Hammurabi, Code of” 1). Hammurabi was the first to make the law code meaning he was the first to start the foundation for our law system today. He was the father of law and today his justice code is still apparent today. The code of Hammurabi was designed to protect the weak, which includes: women, children and slaves. Funk and Wagnall wrote, “It seeks to protect the weak and the poor, including women, children, and slaves, against injustice at the hands of the rich and powerful”(Hammurabi, Code of” 1).
King Hammurabi’s codes were unjust because of the evidence found in the 282 laws. The codes that King Hammurabi wrote about were personal injury law, property law and family law. First, there is evidence that the codes were unjust. The first, code was personal injury law.
Was Hammurabi’s code just? Nearly 4,000 years ago, a man named Hammurabi became king of a city state called babylon. Hammurabi made a very important code in 18th century B.C.E. Hammurabi made 282 laws and he made these codes to protect the weak and poor from the strong. There are areas of law where Hammurabi’s code can be shown to be both, just and unjust. These are Family Law, Property Law, and Personal Injury Law.
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.
Was it Just? “Cursed!” is what you'll hear if you decline the written rules of Hammurabi.400 years ago in 1754 Bce. A man named Hammurabi became king of a city called babylonia and made certain rules about family law, property law, and personal injury law and although they were laws, not all laws were fair. To begin with, Hammurabi made a decision to write rules for his land. But were they just?let's answer that.
Hammurabi's code and the modern laws have several similarities and differences. For example, they are both intended to maintain order in society. However, Hammurabi’s code is far more violent than modern law. Also, they have different ways of handling things, different punishments, and different social structure. One way that Hammurabi’s Code and the Modern Laws are different is because Hammurabi’s Code is strictly based on social structure.
Hammurabi’s code gives judgements and consequences for certain crimes. The punishment for a crime depended on one’s social rank. There were essentially three classes; the priests and noble landlords, the freemen, and slaves. Each law illustrated the division in the societies social status. As a particular law read; “If a man has destroyed the eye of another free man, his own eye shall be destroyed.