Was Hammurabi’s Code Just? (By Sofia Bradburn)
Illustrate in your mind living during the 1750’s B.C.E and living in Babylon. The king and ruler, Hammurabi had multiple laws to rule this society, to make sure the widows and orphans were safe and that the weak were protected from the strong. Hammurabi ruled Babylon for about 32 years. He wrote laws using the writing system, Cuneiform. Some of these laws were harsh. Maybe too harsh. Were these laws just? Was Hammurabi’s code just? 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
…show more content…
In document C, Law 129 talks about how if a married lady is caught cheating on her husband, she and the man she was cheating with, get tied together and thrown into the water. Hammurabi should want his people to feel safe and be with whoever they want to be with. The husband may get mad at the lady, but getting thrown into water and drowning is really harsh. The woman would be scared. In Law 195 it states, “If a son has struck his father, his hands shall be cut off.” This law seems, as well, too harsh. The son should get a punishment but getting your hands cut off for hitting his father would lead to son being scared.
In conclusion, Hammurabi 's code is unjust. The evidence shows that the Personal Injury Laws didn’t protect all people equally, the Property Laws punishments were too harsh, and the Family Laws can cause someone 's death. Most of Hammurabi’s laws are not just to the people or society of Babylon. Now, picture in your mind, living in Babylon with Hammurabi as your ruler. Wasn’t as good as you