Hammurabi’s Code was made by king of Babylon, Hammurabi in 1792 BCE. He conquered most of southern Mesopotamia and attempted to protect the weak and form law and order. He did these things by writing 282 laws in stone and enforcing the laws to the entire kingdom. There is a big question when It comes to Hammurabi's Code, "Is it just?" My personal response to this question is no. Hammurabi's Code is unjust for a number of reasons, starting with how overly-harsh the punishments were. Next, how many rules there were with such strict and unreasonable punishments, keeping up with following 282 rules can be very pressuring.
First, how un-called for his punishments were. For example, reworded from law 218, when a doctor performed an unsuccessful surgery on a man, he could have got his hands cut off for punishment. This punishment and the majority of the rest in Hammurabi's Code is very unfair and cruel. Also, reworded from law 129, when a wife was caught cheating, she got drowned after being tied to the man she cheated with. Men would not normally be punished if they were unfaithful to their wives however. This rule and most other ones are extremely bias, making the code even more unfair.
…show more content…
It would be one thing if the king gave them maybe a little less than 100 laws with reasonable punishments. Hammurabi, on the other hand, gave all of his people 282 rules, and the punishments weren’t reasonable either. It was probably lots of pressure trying to obey all laws, especially because one mistake could result in major punishment. Also, 282 rules is lots to remember, but even if you did not know something was against the law, you would still get punished for it. So even though everyone needs to know the laws, 282 is still too much to remember for a lot of
Do you think cutting someone's hand off because they striked their father is fair? Hummurabi’s code was just because it helps protect the weak. If someone commits a crime it makes sure no one will do it by using harsh punishments. It also helps protect property and property equaled power. Hammurabi code was created in the empire of Babyloina in Mesopotamia.
He also claimed that multiple gods including Shamash gave him the right to rule. The laws were displayed all over the place on humongous stone steeles which is a pillar-like structure. The question now is, was Hammurababi’s code just or unjust? Hammurabi’s code was unjust because not everyone was treated equally, it couldn’t be changed, and it was written from one perspective. To start, Hammurabi’s code was unjust because it treated people of different social classes differently.
These laws were helpful in creating a safe and robust economy which made sense as Hammurabi is known as one if not the most powerful ruler of the Mesopotamian area. Law 21 for example (Doc D) states if a man robs someone's home by breaking through it he should be hung in the hole he made. This may seem cruel or intemperate, but it prevents future thievery among others. A more relatable law is Law 48 (Doc D) stating if a man gets loaned money to farm, and rain flooded the field or specifically harmed crops he does not have to repay the loan borrowed. This is general fairness as it is even reflected today when natural disaster strikes and we are insured of our loss if maintaining the requirements.
Hammurabi’s code was erected onto several steles (large pillars of stone) for all his citizens to read and obey. Was Hammurabi’s code just? There are three areas of law where Hammurabi’s code can be shown to be unjust. These are family, property, and personal injury law. Examples of injustice can be found in the area of family law.
The Code of Hammurabi is a well preserved Babylonian law code of ancient Mesopotamia, during 1754 BC. It is one of the oldest writings of significant length in the world. The words are written in wedge-shaped cuneiform letters that are carved into the stone. Was Hammurabi code just? Was the laws he had made and instructed fair for the people?
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.
We are here to answer the question did Hammurabi rule fairly? I think Hammurabi wasn’t fair because of his family Law, Property Law, and Personal Injury Law. In one section of his code it talks about Family Law, which personally I think was unjust. According to document C in Law 195 it states that if a son strikes his father his hands shall
After reading some of the laws I have determined that Hammurabi’s code is in fact just. I will use family,property, and personal injury law to prove it. Here is why I say Hammurabi's family laws are fair. Law 148 states “If a man has married a wife and a disease has seized her, if he is determined to marry a second wife, he shall marry her.
Hammurabi’s Code was the most significant event to shape our world because of the many laws the code was made up and enforced, so the stability and peace of those laws really made the Hammurabi’s Code special and built a strong foundation for future civilizations and laws. In addition, Hammurabi’s Code also started in 1780 BC. This is significant because Hammurabi’s Code shaped the modern law and built a foundation for them. Hammurabi’s Code was a significant event because of the many laws the code was made up of, and because the code was enforced by civilization. The code is one of the oldest sets of laws in the world.
The Code of Hammurabi was a comprehensive set of laws that are considered by many scholars and historians to be the oldest laws established. They were passed down for four thousand years by King Hammurabi of Babylon. Although the code was created with good intent and humanitarian intent it contained the “eye for an eye” theory of punishment, which is a very barbaric form of the concept of making the punishment fit the crime. This and many other laws within the code tell us humans a lot about the Mesopotamian civilization but one’s that stood out are code numbers 3, 5, and 6. The Code of Hammurabi was a unique set of laws and had many interesting ones, but one that I think that stood out and revealed a lot about Mesopotamian civilization is code number 3, “if anyone bring an accusation of any crime before the elders, and does not prove what he has charged, he shall, if it be a capital offence charged, be put to death.”
Hammurabi’s code was not just because of the following reasons,
But that last thing is that that is what i feel about hammurabi code, But it is fair to just. Hammburabi code is fair. Because the reason why i had chosen this and seen laws are that. It isnt right for somebody that has done something bad and then they dont get in trouble.
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 the ancient Babylonian monarch’s set of laws fair? Hammurabi’s Code was unjust because of its family laws, property laws, and personal injury laws. One way that Hammurabi’s Code is unjust is that it has unfair family laws. According to Law 148, if a wife is diseased, her husband may marry a second wife. The husband has to live in the same house as his first wife, and he has to take care of her.
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). It is unjust because Hammurabi did not consider the consequences that came with the law.