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