Imagine a young man and his father fighting. The father his yelling and the son hand shoots up and strikes his father. Next thing you know the young man’s hands are bound and he is dragged to the king. There he had his land down on a table. A soldier comes up with a sword, and with a quick swish of his blade the young man’s hands are cut off. Hammurabi was a ruler of Babylonia four thousand years ago. He ruled for 42 years and 30 of those years he only was in control of the city of Babylon. After quarrels with two neighboring places, which were Larsa in the south and Mari in the north. He had victories over the two and spread his empire over the two places and his land grew. During his rule, Hammurabi realized that he would need to change some things. (Doc. A) He created huge stone pillars that were covered with 282 laws. He placed the pillars around his city for everyone to see. The laws were based off of the belief that he needed to protect the weak from the strong. (Doc. B) In his own words “That the strong might not …show more content…
(Doc. C) I saw the law was very unfair because he was possibly protecting the strong not the week.The laws that I saw and believed were unfair were laws #129, #148, and Law #195. While when I try really hard I can see how possibly some of theses laws were seen fair, but not Law #195. The law states that “If a son strikes his father, his hands shall be cut off.” Though I can see that if the son was purposely trying to injure his father, but what if he wasn’t? There is a strong possibility that the son could be using defence against his father. Also, Hammurabi's law never talks about how the son got to state his side of the story.The son could have a great explanation on why. What if he was hurting someone? What if he was going to hit someone else and it was his only way of stopping him. The law does not give the son a chance to give his side of the story and must comply or he could end up with more severe