Hammurabi Dbq Analysis

Hammurabi’s Code: Just or Unjust

Can you imagine a scenario where you loan your friend money to buy food, but since the restaurant is closed the friend is allowed to keep the money? Obviously you’re thinking that this is an act of injustice and is in no way fair, and you are correct, although if you lived during Hammurabi’s rule, this situation may have actually occurred and be noted as just. Hammurabi was an ancient king of an early civilization, Babylonia. According to Hammurabi, Shamash, the god of justice, instructed him a law code consisting of 282 laws. He ended up carving these laws on a large stone column known as stele, which was set in the center of the city-state. These laws were perceived and obeyed with no objection, whether

they were just or not. Although, the laws that make up Hammurabi’s Code are extreme and should definitely not make up the rules system due to its unfairness to the accused, to the victim, and to the society.
Hammurabi’s Code was with no doubt insanely unfair to the accused. Prime examples are the Laws 195, 218, and 129. Law 195 declares, “If a son has struck his father, his hands shall be cut off.” (Doc C). This law is unfair because of the impractical punishment of cutting your hands off for striking your father. How is this fair under the variety of circumstances out there, such as the possibility that your father was taking his anger out on you and you were just defending yourself? The next example is shown in Law 218, where if a surgeon causes a death, their hands shall be cut off. (Doc E) This is unfair because you being the surgeon, all you were doing was trying to help, and just due to the fact that things didn’t work out that particular time, you get your hands cut off! Then Law 129 states that if a married lady is caught in adultery, then both man and woman will be tied up and thrown in the water. (Doc C) These laws, containing unreasonable penalties or punishments, were in no way fair to the accused.
Not only was Hammurabi’s Code unfair to the accused, but also to the victim.

This is clearly seen in Laws 213, 209, and 48. As an example, Law 213 and Law 209 shows that if a man strikes a free girl then he pays her 10 shekels of silver, whereas if he strikes a slave he would only have to pay 2 shekels of silver. (Doc E) A child is still a child no matter what social class, and I wouldn’t be satisfied if I were to be the slave girl. Then, Law 48 says, “If a man has borrowed money to plant his fields and a storm has flooded his field or carried away the crop, … in that year he does not have to pay his creditor.” (Doc D). This law isn’t fair to the creditor because he got cheated and just because things didn’t go the way the borrower hoped, doesn’t mean his debt should be exiled. The unfairness present in the laws directed toward the victim is another reason why they shouldn’t be used an everyday

practice.
To the society was Hammurabi’s Code also unfair.

The Law 23 is a perfect representation of why. Law 23 states, “If the robber is not caught, the man who has been robbed shall formally declare whatever he has lost before a god, and the city and the mayor in whose territory or district the robbery has been committed shall replace for him whatever he has lost.” (Doc D). The explanation of why this is unfair is transparent, it’s because why should the society pay for the crime even though they didn’t commit it, disregarding the chance that a crime wasn’t even made and the “victim” is telling a lie. This is another of the many flaws of Hammurabi’s Code, the lack in fairness to the

society.
Though there are so many examples opposing Hammurabi’s Code, it is unfair to say the code completely consists of unfair laws. For example, I agree with Law 53, 54, which says, “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.” (Doc D). This is one of the laws that are actually just and fair, due to the man’s carelessness, he is given an appropriate consequence. Still, I believe that overall Hammurabi’s Code of Laws is unjust and unfair. This is due to the extreme and violent punishments given for mediocre and nonviolent crimes, and the fact that the laws contained varied treatment depending on social classes.