Around 4,000 years ago, there was a man who became the king of a small city-state called Babylon, his name was Hammurabi. Hammurabi wanted peace in his kingdom, so in his 38th year of ruling he created 282 different laws that were carved on a stele. He called this Hammurabi’s Code Of Laws. When they finished it there was a total of 3,500 lines of writing, that covered both sides of the stele. (BGE) Was Hammurabi's Code of Laws just? Hammurabi’s Code of Laws was not just because of the Family Laws, Property Laws, and Personal Injury Laws. Hammurabi's code in Family Law is not just. In law 129 it says that if a married person commits adultery with another person, they will be tied up and thrown into the water. Also in law 195 it clearly states that "If a son has struck his father, his hands shall be cut off." (Doc C). Hammurabi's family code of law was not just, it is way too harsh to cut off someone's hand or throw them into the water while being tied up, for one mistake. There could be a much simpler way to punish the people who have committed the crime, than physical abuse or even death. …show more content…
Law 21 tells that if someone has broken into a house, they will be put to death, pierced or hung. Also, in law 48 it states that "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." (Doc D). No Hammurabi's Property code of law was not just. They should not have killed, hung or pierced the people who broke into their homes, they should of put them in prison or made them do community work. It is unfair for the creditor to not get paid at all if the farmer loses all of his crops, because it's not the creditor's fault that they had bad weather, they have families, and they need money to be able to pay for things