How Hammurabi’s Laws Were Fair
Hammurabi was the ruler of one of the first civilization on our planet Earth. This land that Hammurabi ruled was called Mesopotamia that existed in 3500 BCE, Hammurabi ruled in 1792 BCE. Once Hammurabi took power he decided to make some laws and I’m going to tell you why his laws were in fact just. Today in our time the laws you here might not be fair, but remember this was back in 1792 BCE thats a long time ago. I will be 3 different documents the Epilogue of the Code, Family Law, and Personal-Injury Law. In the Epilogue of the Code it said “By the command of Shamash”. Shamash is the god of juciest so Hammurabi got his laws from a god, because Hammurabi got his laws from a god that means the Hammurabi could not have just made up a bunch of laws to benefit
…show more content…
If a surgeon has operated with bronze lancet on the body of a free man for serious injury, and has caused death, his hands shall be cut off.”Laws 215 and 218 from Personal-Injury Law. This may not seem fair at first, but if you think about it then yes it is. The surgeon knows the risk and he won’t do a bad job for if he does then his hands are cut off. This law also protects the weak from being killed in operation, and the laws are about protecting the weak.
Hammurabi’s code I think was in fact just. The laws that Hammurabi got from the gods did protect the weak as stated they would in the Epilogue of the Code. Examples are shown in other paragraphs how the laws did protect the weak. I will say that cutting off a surgeon 's hands is harsh and would not work for to day, but as I said this was back in 1792 BCE. Back then you didn 't need a medical license and they didn 't exist, so you had to cut off their hands if they did a bad job for it was the only way to stop them. I do think Hammurabi’s laws were just, but they won’t work for
Hammurabi’s Code DBQ King Hammurabi’s rule began in the city of Babylon. He later then extended his control by taking over Larsa and Mari a large part of Mesopotamia. After expanding his land, Shamash, the god of justice presented him with a code of 232 laws (Doc A). These laws were then influenced throughout the community and were considered a part of the communities culture. I disagree with Hammurabi’s code because most laws were to cruel and targeted certain people.
Hammurabi’s Code Was It Just? Hammurabi’s code was just because of his personal injury laws. My first piece of evidence that his personal injury laws were just is that he says in doc B that he will protect the weak. He says Hammurabi the protecting king am I.
He wrote laws using the writing system, Cuneiform. Some of these laws were harsh. Maybe too harsh. Were these laws just? Was Hammurabi’s code just?
Each type of code is meant to bring justice to all the parts of society so that there would be fairness to the accused, fairness to the victim and fairness for society. Some of Hammurabi’s codes were fair and others were not fair. The first law is Family Law and it states that If a son has struck his father, his hands shall
The American Legal System The American legal system has been influenced by many historical rulers and laws. Three that have influenced the American legal system the most are Roman laws, moral laws and Hammurabi’s code in my opinion. One legal system that influenced the American legal system are Roman laws. I picked Roman law because it said that law has been defined as the “Art of social control”; a system of rules regulating the conduct of man.
King Hammurabi’s Code was fair because it protected the weak in family,injury,and property problems. Hammurabi’s code was just because it restored property,it protected the weak,and it helped people through bad times. First of all,Hammurabi’s code was just to family laws. For example,law 68 is fair because you have to provide framework to state your point. Also,law 148 which states that you have to take care of your wife before moving on and marrying another wife.
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.
Laws are always the core of a society and they often indicate a variety of lifestyle decisions made by those people. Hammurabi’s famous set of laws and Moses’ laws could be viewed as two completely distinct documents, yet both set of laws aide historians in revealing insight to the Hebrew and Mesopotamian people. In both societies, enforcing strict consequences that are equivalent to the crime is common. Hammurabi’s well known law states that, “if a man has put out an eye of a free man, they shall put out his eye.” Whereas, in the Hebrew laws, it states, “...if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye...”
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?
Hammurabi's code is unjust. Hammurabi did try to do what was right by trying to have a community with justice, but the laws are very unequal and harsh. These laws would not last in today's
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.
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.
Hammurabi’s code was unfair to women. As it states in law 148 document C, if a wife of a man has a disease and her husband is determined to marry a second wife, he will marry her. However, he will not divorce his first wife. She will live in the house they had built together and he will maintain her as long as she lives. This law is unfair to the first wife because if her husband really loved her he would not marry a second wife.
The Code of Hammurabi was written by King Hammurabi and were the first set of laws to ever be created. Hammurabi created 282 laws, that set standards in his empire and in ancient Mesopotamia. Hammurabi made it clear that the laws were not only to equalize society but also establish fairness and also protect the weak from the strong. However, according to the laws, the punishment for men, women, rich, and the poor, were all different; leading that he made the laws unfair. The women of Mesopotamia had a series of laws where it clearly shows they were classified as property.