Hammurabi's Code: Was It Just?

589 Words3 Pages
Hammurabi’s Code: Was it Just? If you travel 7000 miles to a new kingdom but once you get there, you walk into someone getting their fingers chopped off, what are you going to do? Back in the days of King Hammurabi, this is very likely to happen to anyone that broke one of this cruel King’s laws. King Hammurabi became the ruler of Babylon, a small city-state in Mesopotamia, in 1792 BCE. Hammurabi took the place of his father, Sin-Muballit, after he died from health problems. Hammurabi claims to have gotten his 282 laws from the god of justice, Shamash. Were Hammurabi’s Laws Just? That is the question we are going to be talking about throughout this essay. I will explain whether or not I think the laws are just. The definition of the word “just” is fair, therefore I will be explaining if I think the laws are fair or unfair. In my opinion, Hammurabi’s laws were unfair to the citizens of the civilization. The laws were very cruel, unnecessary, and very extra. In the following paragraphs, I will explain my reasoning for my thoughts on Hammurabi’s laws. Based on the information that I have read on…show more content…
Law 209 (Doc E) states that “If a man strikes the daughter of a free man and causes her to lose the fruit of her womb, he shall pay 10 shekels of silver,” but if you look at Law 213 (Doc E), which says that “If he has struck the slave-girl of a free man and causes her to lose the fruit of her womb, he shall pay 2 shekels of silver.” These laws are against the same crime, but there are different punishments for the different social classes, which is not fair. If a man strikes a free woman or a slave, it should be the same punishment. Slaves should not be treated differently than wealthy women because they are slaves. Slaves are people just like the other women, so they should be treated equally. Therefore, Hammurabi’s laws on personal injury are
Open Document