How Hammurabi's Laws Were Fair

540 Words3 Pages
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
Open Document