Hammurabi’s Code Was It Just? Hammurabi’s code was just because of his personal injury laws. My first piece of evidence that his personal injury laws were just is that he says in doc B that he will protect the weak. He says Hammurabi the protecting king am I.
Hammurabi’s Code DBQ King Hammurabi’s rule began in the city of Babylon. He later then extended his control by taking over Larsa and Mari a large part of Mesopotamia. After expanding his land, Shamash, the god of justice presented him with a code of 232 laws (Doc A). These laws were then influenced throughout the community and were considered a part of the communities culture. I disagree with Hammurabi’s code because most laws were to cruel and targeted certain people.
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.
This is my final reason why Hammurabi’s code is
Hammurabi’s code was erected onto several steles (large pillars of stone) for all his citizens to read and obey. Was Hammurabi’s code just? There are three areas of law where Hammurabi’s code can be shown to be unjust. These are family, property, and personal injury law. Examples of injustice can be found in the area of family law.
Hammurabi’s code gives judgements and consequences for certain crimes. The punishment for a crime depended on one’s social rank. There were essentially three classes; the priests and noble landlords, the freemen, and slaves. Each law illustrated the division in the societies social status. As a particular law read; “If a man has destroyed the eye of another free man, his own eye shall be destroyed.
These examples show that Hammurabi's code was unjust because this law was a very extreme law for just cheating on her husband. Instead what I think what should happen is that the man should just disinherit her instead of drowning her and the man she was cheating with.because what is happening you're just losing people and I don’t think want to join this empire if these laws are so extreme. And if your son hits you and get his chopped that is really extreme punishment but what if the son is just a little boy playing with his father or upset at him.
The Most Dangerous Game In the story “The Most Dangerous Game”by Richard Connell, Zaroff kills people instead of animals. Rainsford believes that the world consists only of predators and prey. Rainsford hears a gun-shot when he was on the ship and then he falls off and travels in the jungle, and soon finds a mansion.
Hammurabi’s code was not just because the personal injury laws did not protect all people equally, property laws were harsh and not protecting people enough, and the Family laws should allow people to be with whoever they want to be with. Looking at the evidence from the Personal Injury Laws states that punishments towards slaves are
King Hammurabi’s codes were unjust because of the evidence found in the 282 laws. The codes that King Hammurabi wrote about were personal injury law, property law and family law. First, there is evidence that the codes were unjust. The first, code was personal injury law.
Each type of code is meant to bring justice to all the parts of society so that there would be fairness to the accused, fairness to the victim and fairness for society. Some of Hammurabi’s codes were fair and others were not fair. The first law is Family Law and it states that If a son has struck his father, his hands shall
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.
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
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).
Laws are always the core of a society and they often indicate a variety of lifestyle decisions made by those people. Hammurabi’s famous set of laws and Moses’ laws could be viewed as two completely distinct documents, yet both set of laws aide historians in revealing insight to the Hebrew and Mesopotamian people. In both societies, enforcing strict consequences that are equivalent to the crime is common. Hammurabi’s well known law states that, “if a man has put out an eye of a free man, they shall put out his eye.” Whereas, in the Hebrew laws, it states, “...if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye...”
