Hammurabi's Codes Were Just And Sometimes Unjust

Hammurabi’s code is believed to be the first form of written law. It consists of a set of 282 laws written by Hammurabi, the king of Babylon circa 1792 BCE, that established a written social contract amongst the people of Babylonia. It was written on a stone stele that stands more than eight feet tall and weighs over 4 tons (doc A). According to the stele, Hammurabi was instructed to create the code by Shamash, the god of justice (doc B). However, it introduces conflicting ideas about justice that are arguable to this day. Were his rules unethical or his punishments too severe? Hammurabi’s code may be seen as unfair by today’s standards, but in solving matters that involve family, property, and health issues of his time, Hammurabi’s code was just because it utilizes negative reinforcement to implement positive results in society.

When it comes to property laws, I think that the laws to Hammurabi’s code was unjust. For example, in Document D Law 21, it states that: “If a man has broken through a wall [to rob] a house, they shall put him to death..., or hang him in the hole...” This law is unjust to the victim because if the accused is hung on the hole, than the victim will have to deal with a dead body hung on to the hole in the wall. This is completely unfair to the accused because although the accused tried to rob a house, he/she would be given a harsh punishment which is not only cruel but unnecessary. Law 23

Drowning, cutting off hands, and hangings were all punishments in Hammurabi’s code. Given to him by Shamash, the god of justice, the code was carved on a stone stele and consisted of 282 laws. The laws were just for Hammurabi’s time period, but they would not be considered just by today’s standards. Compared to people today, Hammurabi and his subjects have a more impulsive mindset; their society is adverse to the works of society today. In that case it is expected that certain components, like laws, will be viewed differently over time.

The Hammurabi Code of Laws is a set of rules enacted by the Babylonian King whose name was Hammurabi. The Babylonian King created a total of two-hundred eighty-two punishments that the citizens will receive if they do not abide by the laws that were given to them. The king ruled from 1792 BC to 1750 BC. The Hammurabi Code of Laws is very violent in terms of punishments. For example, one of the laws are “If anyone breaks into a house to steal, he will be put to death before that point of entry and be buried there (walled into the house)”. This is a clear example of how violent and inhumane the punishments of the Babylonians were, to us at least. This essay will be explaining a set of laws from the Hammurabi’s Code of Laws.

Hammurabi’s code included some gruesome punishments, some that might be believed as unruly, but is still just. Hammurabi’s code was just in many ways pertaining to their time. These laws are not the oldest set, but they were possibly the most strict from the ancient world. The punishments for breaking some laws are different for the multiple classes on the social structure and genders. Also, during his time, Hammurabi was known more as a builder and conqueror than a law-giver. All in all, the laws abiding in Hammurabi’s code are just because of its personal injury and family laws.

In addition to these laws, Hammurabi’s laws were also gender biased .Laws for women were also unjust, gender biased and based on social classes. Women were not given an individual status according to these laws and also they weren’t allowed to trade and open their own business. Also, they did not have their individual rights. For instance, the law one hundred and twenty eight states that “ If a man take a woman to wife, but have no intercourse with her, this woman is no wife to him”. This law shows that the women were not treated equally and laws were based from the perspective of men and not the women. These laws also shows that how they were unjust to a women and suggest the social condition of them . Another law which states “If the "finger is pointed" at a man's wife about another man, but she is not caught sleeping with the other man, she shall jump into the river for her husband.” This was very wrong as it raised many questions about why only women were required to sacrifice and not men. Also, there was inequality between men and women as only men can choose their wife or perhaps buy her

A life for a life. King Hammurabi became the ruler of Babylon in 1792. Hammurabi had created 292 laws. He had a total of 3,500 lines of writing, covering both sides of the steele. I am going to be discussing, Is hammurabi's code just? Before we answer the question I will tell you what “just” means. Just simply means “fair”. I believe that hammurabi’s code was just. In this essay, I will be discussing hammurabi’s code being just. I will be giving reasons for hammurabi’s code being just.

Hammurabi’s code was a set of laws made by Hammurabi. They were the first written set of laws. There is a debate about if Hammurabi’s code was just or unjust. I think Hammurabi’s code was just. The codes were just, because it protected the weak, helped people in troubles, and scared people form breaking the codes.

To begin with, the family laws in Hammurabi’s code are usually pretty unfair in the way they handle family disputes. One example of this is shown in Law 195 when the Code states, “If a son has struck his father, his hands shall be cut off”(Document C). This is unfair because it treats the son as lesser than the father since he gets a worse punishment than the original offense. Which shows that this law is an unbalanced punishment for the offense. Another example of an unfair law pertaining to family manners is when law 168 states, “If a man has determined to disinherit his son and has declared before the judge, “‘I cut off my son,’ the judge shall inquire into the son’s past, and, if the son has not committed a grave misdemeanor…, the father shall not disinherit his son”(Document C). This shows how a law can take something that should be decided by an individual, but instead is taken into a decision by the

How would people feel if they had to follow the laws of Hammurabi’s code? Hammurabi was the king of Babylonia. Hammurabi started being king around 3500 BCE, and Hammurabi made 282 laws. Hammurabi’s Code was unjust based on the evidence from the codes Personal law, Property law, and Family law. Was Hammurabi’s code just?

In regards to the Hammurabi Code of Law, Hammurabi claimed that the gods had picked him to “promote the welfare of the people …to cause justice to prevail in the land, to destroy the wicked and evil, so that the strong might not oppress the weak…” His intention was to hold those under his rule accountable for their actions and inspire “appropriate behaviors”. In fact, according to literature, the code functioned on the principle of “lex talionis” which basically translates as the “law of retaliation”. The idea was that the punishment would fit the crime, at least in theory. Similar to today’s laws, individual judges were allowed discretion and did not always follow the code specifically. Never the less, the code was always utilized as a reference for solution. (Bentley and Zeigler, p. 30)

The Code of Hammurabi was a strict, harsh, and unequal way of punishment that focused on current attainable penalties for Mesopotamian society. The society wasn’t religious, they did not have any affiliations with spiritual beings, which is why punishments were needed for the specific moment

Hammurabi's code was just, because it protected people and was fair. For most of the 282 laws in hammurabi's code they were in the best interest of helping and protecting the week, sick, poor, and the vast majority of babylonia. The laws were mostly fair to the people because usually the punishment was something of equal or greater harm than which the crime was committed. The only concern of mine is how harsh some laws were, because the punishment was way worse than the crime, but it was in a good cause so if the punishment was not death that the criminal was taught a good lesson, and if it was death the people didn't have to worry about the criminal that was killed because the criminal would be dead.

Hammurabi’s code was unjust because of the family laws listed in the code. In the prologue of Hammurabi’s code Hammurabi states, “That the strong might not injure the weak, in order to protect the widows and orphans,” (Doc A). Law 129 of Hammurabi’s code states if a married woman is caught cheating on her husband with another man, they shall be tied together and thrown into the water (Doc C). This seems highly unfair to the woman because the woman is lower in the social structure of the city, thus making the woman a weaker party. Didn’t Hammurabi say that he would protect the weak? This does not seem like protection to me. Furthermore, there is another law Hammurabi passed that is unfair to the weaker party. Law 195, if a child has hit

Hammurabi was a Babylonian king who saw society had no system for punishment. He than decided to form set laws or codes known as Hammurabi’s laws. Most these laws I feel are in what today as seen as cruel punishment. Some of these laws included food conventions, relationship with servants, and religious laws. I feel this laws bad for it was to cruel for what they were. An example of this is code 195 which states” If a son struck his father, they shall cut of his hand”, this is one were I feel doesn’t be derived for the punishment doesn’t fit crime in a moral or more humane way. Hammurabi doesn’t these laws as cruel in his eyes when he first established them, for laws vary with the social condition of the criminal and his victim. Its different from a current law for it is not tied in with social class. These laws I see as a beginning tool to