Hammurabi’s Code: It was not just
“That the strong might not injure the weak, in order to protect the widows and orphans,...”(Document B), is a line from Hammurabi’s code, said by the king himself. Hammurabi was one of the mighty kings of Babylon, who reigned for 42 years from 1792 to 1750 B.C.E. Not only was he one of the greatest rulers ever, he created something that changed the course of history, Hammurabi’s code. Historians think this was the first code of laws that applied to everybody. Hammurabi’s code has 282 laws in total, carved onto a stele, which is a large, pillar-like stone. Historians believe that it was shown publicly for everyone to see. So, one question has come out of how we look back on those laws. Was Hammurabi’s code just …show more content…
For example, in law 195, it states that “If a son has struck his father, his hands shall be cut off” (Document C). This is an extremely severe punishment. The son may have a very good reason to strike his father. Or, the father might have struck him first. But here is one thought to put in your mind: Would a father want his son’s hands cut off? No. So, if a father is not going to go to court demanding his son’s hands be cut off, then the father is actually the one protecting the son, not Hammurabi. The father is having to be put in a position to protect his son from Hammurabi's code. It's as if it in this example Hammurabi's code is the exact opposite of protecting the weak. So, in terms of the family laws in Hammurabi's code, the code is not …show more content…
Take Law 21, when someone has robbed or tried to rob a home. "If a man has broken through the wall [to rob] a house, they shall put him to death and pierce him, or hang him in the hole in the wall which he has made" (Document D). Yes, the robber is most likely guilty. But, just by robbing someone, is it honestly necessary that the robber needs to be put to death? If they are caught, and the stolen items are returned, and everything is put back neatly, almost like the robbery never happened, why is it just that they should have kill him or her? Punishing the robber by sentencing him to death may seem fair in some cases to the victim and society, but not to the accused. The accused may or may not be guilty, and even if they weren't guilty, they wished that they did not commit the crime. They should hear the criminal out, asking honestly why they committed the crime. The law says that the accused should be put to death. But, what if the accused only took one penny from a rich person, or took all the money from a poor slave. Instead of not evaluating the crime, evaluating the crime form how bad it is, that is just. In the terms of the property law and how Hammurabi's code does not let people say why or give opinion, Hammurabi's code is not
“That the strong might not injure the weak, in order to protect the widows and orphans,...”(Document B), is a line from Hammurabi’s code, said by the king himself. Hammurabi was one of the mighty kings of Babylon, who reigned for 42 years from 1792 to 1750 B.C.E. Not only was he one of the greatest rulers ever, he created something that changed the course of history, Hammurabi’s code. Historians think this was the first code of laws that applied to everybody. Hammurabi’s code has 282 laws in total, carved onto a stele, which is a large, pillar-like stone. Historians believe that it was shown publicly for everyone to see. So, one question has come out of how we look back on those laws. Was Hammurabi’s code just …show more content…
For example, in law 195, it states that “If a son has struck his father, his hands shall be cut off” (Document C). This is an extremely severe punishment. The son may have a very good reason to strike his father. Or, the father might have struck him first. But here is one thought to put in your mind: Would a father want his son’s hands cut off? No. So, if a father is not going to go to court demanding his son’s hands be cut off, then the father is actually the one protecting the son, not Hammurabi. The father is having to be put in a position to protect his son from Hammurabi's code. It's as if it in this example Hammurabi's code is the exact opposite of protecting the weak. So, in terms of the family laws in Hammurabi's code, the code is not …show more content…
Take Law 21, when someone has robbed or tried to rob a home. "If a man has broken through the wall [to rob] a house, they shall put him to death and pierce him, or hang him in the hole in the wall which he has made" (Document D). Yes, the robber is most likely guilty. But, just by robbing someone, is it honestly necessary that the robber needs to be put to death? If they are caught, and the stolen items are returned, and everything is put back neatly, almost like the robbery never happened, why is it just that they should have kill him or her? Punishing the robber by sentencing him to death may seem fair in some cases to the victim and society, but not to the accused. The accused may or may not be guilty, and even if they weren't guilty, they wished that they did not commit the crime. They should hear the criminal out, asking honestly why they committed the crime. The law says that the accused should be put to death. But, what if the accused only took one penny from a rich person, or took all the money from a poor slave. Instead of not evaluating the crime, evaluating the crime form how bad it is, that is just. In the terms of the property law and how Hammurabi's code does not let people say why or give opinion, Hammurabi's code is not