Hammurabi’s Code was made by king of Babylon, Hammurabi in 1792 BCE. He conquered most of southern Mesopotamia and attempted to protect the weak and form law and order. He did these things by writing 282 laws in stone and enforcing the laws to the entire kingdom. There is a big question when It comes to Hammurabi's Code, "Is it just?" My personal response to this question is no. Hammurabi's Code is unjust for a number of reasons, starting with how overly-harsh the punishments were. Next, how many rules there were with such strict and unreasonable punishments, keeping up with following 282 rules can be very pressuring.
First, how un-called for his punishments were. For example, reworded from law 218, when a doctor performed an unsuccessful surgery on a man, he could have got his hands cut off for punishment. This punishment and the majority of the rest in Hammurabi's Code is very unfair and cruel. Also, reworded from law 129, when a wife was caught cheating, she got drowned after being tied to the man she cheated with. Men would not normally be punished if they were unfaithful to their wives however. This rule and most other ones are extremely bias, making the code even more unfair.
…show more content…
It would be one thing if the king gave them maybe a little less than 100 laws with reasonable punishments. Hammurabi, on the other hand, gave all of his people 282 rules, and the punishments weren’t reasonable either. It was probably lots of pressure trying to obey all laws, especially because one mistake could result in major punishment. Also, 282 rules is lots to remember, but even if you did not know something was against the law, you would still get punished for it. So even though everyone needs to know the laws, 282 is still too much to remember for a lot of