Compare And Contrast Hammurabi And Greek Laws

Ancient laws were brutal. Babylonian laws, like Hammurabi's Code, included physical torture and death as punishments. The rule behind these punishments was "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth."Hammurabi was the name of the king in the city-state of Babylon who ruled for nearly 4,000 years ago.This code was a set of 282 laws that maintained order. Hammurabi's Code was unjust because accidents were punished, punishments for intentional damage was extreme, and it focused on revenge instead of preventing future crime.

Citizens of Babylon who were forced had to follow Hammurabi's Code always had to apprehend about getting punished for an accident. Thi was the case in law 218, which said, " If a surgeon has operated with a bronze lancet

on a free man for a serious injury, and has caused his death,... his hands shall be cut off." Accordingly, the case in law 53,54 said, " If a man has opened his trench for irrigation and the waters have flooded his neighbor's field, the man must restore the crop he has caused to be lost." Some people may claim that people had to get a punishment for an accident, but like in law 218, the punishment was too extreme. This is because the surgeon did his best to save the patient, but instead, he got his hands cut off even though he did it by accident. The thing that matters is that it's the thought that counts, not the results. Also in law 53,54, the person opened his trench and flooded his neighbor's field and he had to restore the crop which isn’t that extreme of a punishment. Nevertheless, this scenario gives evidence that accidents were punished.

People under Hammurabi's Code had suffered because punishments for intentional damage was extreme. This case was included in Law 21 which said, " 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."Another case is in Law 195 said, " If a son has struck his father, his hands shall be cut off." One cannot deny that the robber intentionally broke the wall and attempted to rob the house, but the robber shouldn't be punished this extreme because life is more profitable than a wall. The wall could be repaired but the robber if pierced or hanged the can't come back to life. In law 195, people might say that the son deserved to get his hands cut off because he struck his father, but it doesn’t guarantee that the son has any remorse because the punishment isn’t equal.

The people under Hammurabi's code were in pain because the code focused on revenge instead of future crime. This is the case in law 199, which said, " If a man has knocked out the eye of a free man, his eye shall be knocked." This was another case in law 129, which said, " If a married lady is caught [in adultery] with another man, they shall bind them and cast them into the water." It is true that the man knocked out the eye of a free man, but if the free man knocked out the man's eye, both of them will be in pain. Therefore, this doesn't compromise anything. Based on the case for law 129, the cheated man technically got revenge by killing the cheating couple to make him satisfied. Moreover,revenge creates more pain
in the society.
In conclusion, Hammurabi's Code was unjust because accidents were punished, punishments for intentional damage was extreme, and it focused on revenge instead of future crime. Hammurabi's Code was full of brutal and unjust laws. These laws create more pain in the society and made the population decrease over time.