Code Of Hammurabi Research Paper

Code of Hammurabi Can you imagine a world without laws and everyone lived in an uncivilized manner? If this scenario was real, life would be barbaric and the lack of justice would cause chaos. Before the Code of Hammurabi, crime was a personal matter to be dealt with. It was “mano y mano,” but in most cases that phrase meant perpetrator’s village verses victim’s village. Crime was not settled in a sense of organization, nor was correct punishment dealt out in the right way (Bertman). Since there was no organized justice before it, the Code of Hammurabi brought an organized system of justice, even though in recent times, historians consider the laws harsh. Around 1800-1740 B.C.E., Mesopotamian culture bloomed and flourished when King Hammurabi ruled, but as his rule was just starting to get into effect, the people still had a sense of revenge instilled in their mind. The Code of Hammurabi was put into place because daily life was getting out of hand and

Historians argued that certain punishments on the Code of Hammurabi were just as painful and gruesome as the old personal punishment. The old personal views on revenge were still there for the Code of Hammurabi. Certain laws were unbearable. “If any one be guilty of incest with his mother after his father, both shall be burned.” (Code.) That was rule 157 out of 282. That is a perfect example of the historian's argument. Most likely a vigilante punishment in this scenario, would be less severe, or it would not even get a punishment. “If the owner do not bring witnesses to identify the lost article, he is an evil-doer, he has traduced, and shall be put to death.” (Code.) This rule seems to have a more severe punishment by the vigilantes, than by the Code. The vigilantes most likely would have reacted out on the owner, but for a false accusation, it is harsh for the punishment to be