About 4,000 years ago, Hammurabi, the King of Babylon, made 282 laws to gain peace. In my opinion, I think that Hammurabi’s Code wasn’t just because it shows that is hurt family, it made people lose some kind of property, and it depended who you were in order to come up with a consequence for personal injury. First of all, it demonstrated that it hurt family. For instance, in Law 129, if a married lady is caught cheating, she will have her hands tied up and she will be drowned in water. Also, in Law 168, it states that if a son hits his father, his hands shall be cut off. Based on what I read, according to these two laws, Hammurabi’s Code was too strict. As you can see, Hammurabi had harsh rules, instead of trying to fix things, he gave consequences. Additionally, it made people lose some kind of property. For example in Law 23, if a robbery has been made and the robber isn’t caught, the society has to give back the items. Also, in Law 48, if a man borrows money from another man for crops, and a natural disaster ruins the crops, the man doesn’t have to pay back for a while. According to Law 23, it wasn’t fair because the society didn’t steal anything. …show more content…
For instance, in Law 199, if someone’s eye had been knocked out and they were a slave, the person would have to pay half the value of the slave to the owner, if the person was free, the other person’s eye needed to be knocked out, too. In addition, in Law 213, if a man hits a girl, that is a slave, which is pregnant, and she loses the baby, the man will pay two shekels of silver, but if it’s a girl that is free, her father will get paid ten shekels of silver. The reason I think that these two laws aren’t fair is because people on the lower scale didn’t have the same consequences as people on the higher scale. Overall, Hammurabi didn’t protect everyone, mostly being people on the lower social