ipl-logo

Hammurabi Dbq Essay

623 Words3 Pages

Was the punishment too harsh for the crime? Many people say that Hammurabi’s laws were too harsh for the crimes committed. I think that his code was just because of Family Law and Property Law. Here is some background information, Hammurabi ruled for 42 year. He ruled in ancient Babylon about 4000 years ago. So I think that Hammurabi's Code was just because of Family Law and Property Law. Hammurabi's Code was just and was supported by Family Law. Reason one, According to law 195 of Hammurabi’s Code states that if a son has struck his father his hand shall be cut off. This is just because you should never rise against authority anyways. Reason two, law 148 states if a man has married a wife and a disease has seized her, he must take care of her until she dies or he can marry a second but the first wife will live in the house. This is just because the man might not want to be married to the other wife so he can marry again, but if he throws her out the woman won't survive. Hammurabi’s Code is just because it is protected by Family Law and this is a different time period than today so things are different. …show more content…

Reason one why his code is just, document D law 21 states if a man has broken into a house to rob he shall be put to death by piercing or hung inside the hole he has created. This law is just because the homeowner should get justice and you shouldn't break into a house. More evidence to Hammurabi’s code is just is laws 53 and 54. This states that if a man has flooded his neighbors crops he shall replace them. This is just because if you damage someone's property you should replace it, it’s the right thing to do and it’s common sense. Anyway’s Hammurabi’s Code is just because of Property Law, Property Law supports the people with land and

Show More
Related
841 Words | 4 Pages

My evidence is the law 's 23, 48, 53, and 54 from document d. Law 23 is : If the robber is not caught, the man who has been robbed shall formally declared whatever he has lost before a god, and the city and the mayor in whose territory or district the robbery has been committed shall replace for him whatever he has lost. This law is fair because nobody is willing to confess to what they did so they will all in a way be paying for the object (through taxes) it teaches the society that you are all one not an individual that controls the entire thing. Law 48 also proves that Hammurabi 's code was just. Law 48 is: If a man has borrowed money to plant his fields and a storm has flooded his field or carried away the crop,... in that year he does not have to pay his creditor. If you were to put the law into perspective such as that you lost all your money but you owed someone thousands of dollars, but how you lost the money couldn’t be controlled by you would you think it was fair if you had to pay the money back to the other person that year?

Read More
1132 Words | 5 Pages

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.

Read More
531 Words | 3 Pages

I believe that Hammurabi’s code was just. I have all of the laws and documents that support my claim as to why I think the code was just. I think that Hammurabi’s code was just because obviously these things had to have happened at least once or they wouldn’t have laws about it. So society needs to learn even if it means having that harsh of a punishment. Having that harsh of a punishment actually helps because society sees that if they do that specific crime, they will get a really bad punishment so that prevents it from happening.

Read More
338 Words | 2 Pages

Hammurabi’s code was it just? Hammurabi code was just because of Family Law, Property Law, Personal Injury Law. family Law in Hammurabi’s code were just. If a married lady was caught in adultery with another man, they shall bind them and cast them into the water.” “If a son has struck his father, his hands shall be cut off” (Doc C).

Read More
403 Words | 2 Pages

Hammurabi’s code is just because of its family law. The family law makes it just because they make it fair for the family to move on after struggles. According to law 195 if a son has struck his own father he shall have his hands cut off so he can 't hit his father anymore. So I think it 's fair because he can 't hit his family members can 't hurt them any more so it 's keeping his family safe.

Read More
270 Words | 2 Pages

In my opinion Hammurabi’s code was not just. I don 't think that Hammurabi 's code was just because it doesn 't give people any time to fix the problems that they made. It gives them no justice. Whether purpose or accident, the harshness level of your punishment will be the same. For instance, if you kill a free man, your

Read More
755 Words | 4 Pages

Hammurabi claimed that his laws were both just and helpful to a wide range of people, but the majority of the laws don’t support either of his claims. In the instance of many laws, he appears to be very drastic with his consequences. In one of his codes, he says that if a women is caught in adultery with another man, both people must be tied up and thrown into the water (doc C, law 129). The act of binding the two people together and drowning them is a very specific and extreme repercussion for cheating. Another example of Hammurabi’s unnecessary harshness, was the law stating that if a man has broken into another’s house he shall be put to death by piercing him or hanging him in the hole which he made in the house (doc D, law 21).

Read More
775 Words | 4 Pages

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.

Read More
701 Words | 3 Pages

Visualize having a king who made 282 laws and if a person did not follow them they would get a really big punishment. That is how it was 4,000 years ago when a king named Hammurabi ruled in Babylon. He ruled Babylon for 42 years. King Hammurabi became king of Babylon in 1754 BCE. Were Hammurabi’s laws and codes fair and just?

Read More
818 Words | 4 Pages

The Code of Hammurabi dates back to BCE - era when “with the belief that Hammurabi received the code from the Sun God Shamesh.” (Hall IV 104) His code was the ethics that the people where to fallow. It was to provide justice for those who where harmed and

Read More
875 Words | 4 Pages

Was Hammurabi’s code just? Nearly 4,000 years ago, a man named Hammurabi became king of a city state called babylon. Hammurabi made a very important code in 18th century B.C.E. Hammurabi made 282 laws and he made these codes to protect the weak and poor from the strong. There are areas of law where Hammurabi’s code can be shown to be both, just and unjust. These are Family Law, Property Law, and Personal Injury Law.

Read More
334 Words | 2 Pages

After close analysis, the law code of Hammurabi was just in the area of property law. In the first place Hammurabi helped to protect peoples property by creating his property laws. A example of how Hammurabi protected his peoples property is law 23, "If the robber is not caught, the man who has been robbed shall formally declare whatever he has lost before a god, and the city and the mayor whose territory or district the robbery has been committed shall replace for him whatever he has lost." This shows that if the robber was not found the community was still to help out by replacing what was stolen.

Read More
489 Words | 2 Pages

Hammurabi's code and the modern laws have several similarities and differences. For example, they are both intended to maintain order in society. However, Hammurabi’s code is far more violent than modern law. Also, they have different ways of handling things, different punishments, and different social structure. One way that Hammurabi’s Code and the Modern Laws are different is because Hammurabi’s Code is strictly based on social structure.

Read More
675 Words | 3 Pages

Hammurabi's code is unjust. Hammurabi did try to do what was right by trying to have a community with justice, but the laws are very unequal and harsh. These laws would not last in today's

Read More
874 Words | 4 Pages

Funk and Wagnall New World Encyclopedia wrote, “The basis of criminal law is that of equal retaliation, comparable to the Semitic law of ‘an eye for an eye’”(“Hammurabi, Code of” 1). Hammurabi was the first to make the law code meaning he was the first to start the foundation for our law system today. He was the father of law and today his justice code is still apparent today. The code of Hammurabi was designed to protect the weak, which includes: women, children and slaves. Funk and Wagnall wrote, “It seeks to protect the weak and the poor, including women, children, and slaves, against injustice at the hands of the rich and powerful”(Hammurabi, Code of” 1).

Read More

More about Hammurabi Dbq Essay

Related Topics

Open Document