Hammurabi Code Is Unfair Essay

Three of the documents provided show that Hammurabi’s Code was, in fact, just. The first is Document A, which shows that the god of justice, Shamash, gave the people these laws. If the god of justice gave them these laws then the laws must be just. Document C also shows that these laws are just by protecting the weak. For example, in Law 168: “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 sons past, and, if the son has not committed a grave misdemeanor… the father shall not disinherit his son.” After making this law a man cannot disinherit his son without having a valid reason that is recognized before a judge. This helped to keep the son safe because in the year of 1754 BCE the son would inherit the land and money of the family

Hammurabi's code was not just because of his family law. Hammurabi's code could be considered unjust because in document A. it states ´´hammurabi got the laws from shamash ´´ When this is stated we don't know if the god ´´shamash´´ is even real. For all we know hammurabi could have made all those laws up.

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.

Hammurabi’s Code Hammurabi’s Code was created by Hammurabi. I think that Hammurabi’s Code was too brutal and unfair because in almost every rule there is death, unfair laws and much more horrifying deaths, and laws. Some of these documents and laws are truly unfair, and some don’t make any sense. In my opinion, these laws are very terrifying as we talk about these laws. Hammurabi’s Code pococurante about women.

Hammurabi’s unjust and just code Hammurabi’s codes were not just, they were unfair. Code Epilogue, says “If he destroys the law which I have given may great gods and earth curse upon his family.” Which means he is saying if the new ruler does not use his rules he will curse basically everyone in his life. This quote demonstrates that Hammurabi’s codes were unjust because as the new king he shall be able to make his own rules, his family does not have anything to do with it so why punish them.

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 the laws were unfair,and very strict. For example ,law number 6 states that if anyone steals the property of a temple he shall be put to death,and the one who receives the stolen item from him shall be put to death. This law is unjust because both of who stole it shall be put to death,and also the one who receives it,and if the one who receives it gives it to someone else. Another example is law number 48,this law says that if a man borrows money to plant his fields,and a storm has flooded his field he doesn't have to give back the money. This law is unjust because it is not the man's fault that the storm happened, so he has to give back the money. The final example is law number 260,this

Imagine being expected to have a sibling, then a man beats on your mother, and the unborn baby dies. Does the man get any jail time? No, he just has to pay 10 shekels of silver. Imagine ridiculous punishments and laws like that from Hammurabi’s code still being used today. Hammurabi’s Code was definitely unjust; the laws are unfair to the accused, the victim, and to the society as a whole.

Hammurabi’s Code was unjust regarding its laws dealing with family. If a son strikes his father, the son's hands will be cut off. (Document C, law 195) The son needs his hands to work, and basically live. Also when the father grows old he will have to support the son, instead of the son supporting him. This also affects society, which will have to support the son when

The codes created by Hammurabi were without moral because they were too cruel, they did not look at both sides, and the laws were written by Hammurabi himself, with no input from the citizens of Babylon. The codes were too harsh for the crimes committed, and lots of violence could have been avoided. The culprit may have just made a slight mistake, but yet they are heavily punished. One law is if a son strikes his father, his hands would be cut off (Doc C).

Hammurabi’s code could have been just in many different ways depending on the situation, but Hammurabi’s code also killed many innocent people! When Hammurabi made the laws, they were placed in the middle of the town, so the people knew about the laws and the consequences if they broke the laws. In Hammurabi’s words, he said: “ Hammurabi, the protecting king am I. … That the strong might not injure the weak, in order to protect the widows and orphans.” (Doc. B). He promised to protect the weak and Hammurabi did not keep his promise. Although he meant well, Some of the laws were unjust and unnecessary. Here is why Hammurabi’s code is unjust to the property laws and the personal injury law.

Hammurabi’s Personal Injury law was unjust because If a man knocked out the eye of a free man, then his eye shall be knocked out. Another reason, If a man strikes the daughter of a free man, and she loses the fruit of her womb, he shall pay 10 shekels of silver. Some people may claim Hammurabi’s code was just but actually it's not just because If a surgeon has operated with a bronze lancet on a free men for a serious injury and caused his death, his hands shall be cut off. This is unjust because the surgeon was suppose to help the free man survive not cut his hands off when he is already dead.

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

The “Code of Hammurabi” is considered to be one of the most valuable finds of human existence. In fact its very existence created the basis for the justice system we have come to rely on today. The creation of “the Code” was a tremendous achievement for not only Babylonian society but for the entire Mesopotamian region as King Hammurabi was ruler over all of that area. Its conception can be considered to be the first culmination of the laws of different regions into a single, logical text. Hammurabi wanted to be an efficient ruler and realized that this could be achieved through the use of a common set of laws which applied to all territories and all citizens who fell under his rule. This paper will discuss the Hammurabi Code and the

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.