Hammurabi Code Was It Just Essay

Soniyah Boun

Ms. Kruse

World History Honors

Period 4

9/28/17

Hammurabi’s Code: Was it Just?

Today’s current justice system requires police departments, court trials, and lawyers to determine right from wrong, but back in early history things were much more different. Straying away from legal court cases there was the first actual uniform set of laws to keep civilians in check called Hammurabi’s code. Four hundred centuries ago most of Mesopotamia (which was the first civilization) was under the rule of King Hammurabi who at first only had power over a limited part of the city in Babylon which was a city-state at the time. After him and his troops had battled over land, he had finally won over land from Mari in the northern part of Mesopotamia

An example of this is Law 48 in Hammurabi’s code, where the law continues to explain how if somehow a flood has destroyed a farmer’s crops and that farmer had borrowed money from a creditor to make those crops, he does not have to pay that creditor back for that year. “Excerpts from Hammurabi’s Code, circa 1754 BCE” Document D. The creditor is part of the society as the whole community is trying to establish a stable economic system which is mainly made from crops. For the whole process in which follows the creditor getting their money back and to the creditor, it seems unfair to have the creditor face the consequence of something they could not have prevented or done to have their money returned to them. Although in some ways it may seem fair to the victim since they too could not have prevented the incident, but that does not mean that the creditor should not get paid. If there was a flood or storm that had effected the whole kingdom, then the creditor would too have other damages to pay for or repair and they might be unable to do that because they are low on money. The creditor too is a victim of the storm but does not benefit from the law, which could also tie into the third reason why Hammurabi’s Code was not just. That reason being because in

Hammurabi supposedly made the laws to defend the ‘weak’ from the strong. An example of this could be Law 213 in Hammurabi’s code. “If he has struck the slave-girl of a free man and causes her to lose the fruit of her womb, he shall pay 2 shekels of silver.” “Excerpts from Hammurabi’s Code, circa 1754 BCE” Document E. When using the phrasing “the fruit of her womb” Hammurabi means the unborn baby of a pregnant woman. If the female loses her baby which counts as a human life, the accused pays only two shekels of silver. When a free man’s daughter loses her baby because of violence inflicted upon her by a male, that man must pay only ten shekels of silver. In both scenarios, a mother loses a baby and the murderer of the baby just pays materialistic currency to stay out of trouble because apparently, that is the value of a life back in early history. Another bias and unfair thing about this law is the fact that while in law 218 a man pays only two shekels of silver for the death of the baby while in law 215, a man is to pay ten shekels of silver for the baby. Just because the victim in law 218 is a slave, the value of her unborn child decreases because she is not the daughter of a free man. Life in early history was hard and it was hard to earn money so it could be argued that maybe two shekels was a bit pricey at the time but that would still not