Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
What aspects of hammurabi are just or unjust
Code of hammurabi and justice
3 reasons why hammurabi code unjust
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: What aspects of hammurabi are just or unjust
Hammurabi’s Code was unjust because of it’s family law. For example law 129 says “if a married lady is caught ( in adultery) with another man, they shall blind them and cast them into the water”( Doc C). That law is unjust because it will scare men and women and make them not want to associate with each other, causing trade to be low and people not wanting to work together. The laws might have been on a steele in the center of the city, but not everyone could read knowing about the laws. In Doc A Hammurabi says that the laws come from the god Shamash. “ They have given them the right to rule.” and in Doc B “ By the command of Shamash the great God and the judge of heaven and earth.” Hammurabi could be lying about getting the laws from the gods,
just so he can rule. Also so all his people will follow him and trust him. If you think these are unjust then look at the personal-injury laws. Hammurabi’s laws are not just because of the personal-injury laws. If you take a look at law 218 from Doc E, “when 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.” That is not a fair law because the surgeon was operating on a man for a serious injury which he should not have his hands cut off for. In Doc B it says that “In future times, let the king, who may be in the land, observe the righteousness which I have written on my monument: let him not alter the law of the land which I have given.” Which I think that future rulers should be able to alter the law and change it. It also says that “may the great gods of heaven and earth, inflict a curse.” It would be on his family, land, warriors, his subjects, and his troops, those people did not have anything to do with it so they should not have a curse be inflicted on them.
Is Hammurabi’s Code just or unjust? Hammurabi ruled for 42 years. By his 38th year, he already had 282 laws. He ruled over most of Mesopotamia. He became king of a small city-state called Babylon. He wasn’t the first king to write in cuneiform for his laws.
Hammurabi is best known for his succession in writing down the first complete set of laws, titled Hammurabi’s Code. He strived as a king to bring protection, fairness, and justice to the weak of society using laws from the God of justice, Shamash. Hammurabi’s Code was written on a large stone pillar called a stele. In addition to writing a set of 282 laws, he expanded the territory of Babylon northward and westward, encouraged agriculture, and oversaw the erection of many buildings and temples. One may argue that since Hammurabi changed and eliminated some of the laws before he published the complete set, he was changed by the times. However, revising some of the laws was necessary to ensure the best protection and fairness for the people. Overall, King Hammurabi laid the foundation for the laws that we have today and his legacy continues on in our justice
The Hammurabi Code is the oldest and most comprehensive set of laws in the world. The 282 laws set the structure for the civilization of Mesopotamia. Hammurabi, who was the sixth king of Mesopotamia, created these laws for a sense of order and peace. However, when investigating these laws further, they seem unfair and unjust for many reasons. People would be punished differently based on their class status. The punishments were harsher towards the freemen, rather than slaves. Although the Hammurabi Code worked to keep order and justice, discrimination existed between slaves and freemen, men and women, and adults and children.
The justice of Hammurabi's laws can be justified in several ways.In the family laws, law 129 it states “If a married lady is caught [in adultery] with another man, they shall bind them and cast them into the water.” , And in law 148 It talks about how “ if a man has a married wife and a disease has seized her….he shall not divorce the wife …. She shall dwell in the house they have built together,and he shall maintain her as long as she shall live.”, as you can see Hammurabi is fair he doesn't think that neither the husband nor the wife shall use one another, simply because that wouldn't be
The Hammurabi Code of Law was the original father of our “penal and civil laws” of today. It provided guidance on creating a general code that sought to be just and applicable to all classes of citizens. Hammurabi can be considered as the forefather of the modern justice system; we should be very thankful to past societies and rulers for their contributions.
Hammurabi’s code was unjust because of its harsh punishments. In document (A) it shows that Shamash a god gave Hammurabi the set of laws so we don’t know if Shamash hated Babylon, and wanted to see everybody die. So Shamash might of made the laws have harsh punishments. In document (D) Law 23 and 48 have harsh punishments. Law 23 states that a mayor and the city have to repay of what he has lost. That is unfair because that mayor and city shouldn’t have to lose product because someone got robbed. In Law 48 it states that if a man borrows money to plant his crops and his crops are flooded by a storm the creditor
The formers of the Hammurabi’s Code of Laws surely created strict rules with severe punishments for their violation. In fact, these laws played a big role in organization of Mesopotamian society. Reading these laws, reader may learn about ideals people of Mesopotamia had about crimes, their attitude to the lower and higher social classes, and legal rights between men and women. Reading the laws I noticed that many crimes were punished by death penalty. Many laws tell that guilty person has to pay the same price for the physical harm one did to another person or one’s relative. For instance: law 196 states (encyclopedia.com): “ If a man put out the eye of another man, his eye shall be put out.” In addition, at that time, people were penalized to death for many crimes or wrongdoings that almost never would be penalized with capital punishment at a modern time. Among such felony and misdemeanors are stealing, robbery, accusation, adultery, and desertion. Hammurabi’s Code also, reveals inequality between social classes. Slaves were not treated by the laws the same as free-born people. According to the Code of Hammurabi, women had some legal rights, but these rights were not equal to men’s. Married women had a right to divorce as well as men. In fact, in order to acquire the right for divorce, a woman has to find a reasonable explanation for her desire, and only than the divorce could be possible.
One of the most important aspects of any society is the ruling system. A society simply could not function without any sort of rules or regulations. With the tremendous growth of Babylonian society came the need for law systems. Perhaps one of the most well known law systems was Babylonian ruler Hammurabi’s compilation of Mesopotamian laws known as Hammurabi 's Code. Hammurabi 's Code contained laws pertaining to trade, marriage, property, crime, social class, and more (Judge and Langdon, 25). So much can be learned about early societies through this famous artifact. Although these laws may have been accepted by the Babylonian citizens at the time, it is now clear to see that the code was extremely unjust. Hammurabi 's Code uncovers the social
The Code of Hammurabi has a slightly different way of describing the way a society should maintain stability and avoid chaos. In this code of conduct it is more on the lines of something similar to the Bill of Rights where each idea is stated in form of a law. For example, in the 15th amendment of The Code it staes “15: If any one take a male or female slave of the court, or a male or female slave of a freed man, outside the city gates [to escape], he shall be put to death.” It is a listed set of laws followed by a consequence whether it is minor or as harsh as the death penalty. If such harsh punishments were informed, I believe the law makers or theorists saw it as a type of scare which would prevent people from committing the crime. There are those people who do break the law and make stupid decisions, but it would keep the amount of people making stupid decisions and breaking the law to a
In ancient Greece, retributive justice served as both a strict societal code and an expectation of the cosmos. In The Eumenides by Aeschylus, the Furies serve as the defenders of this justice, which is explored in depth during the Furies’ monologue as they pursue Orestes for his matricide. In order to fully understand this passage, the reader must first grasp the Furies’ sense of justice. The Furies require Orestes’ retribution for his matricide. Unlike the contemporary view of justice, their perception dictates strict punishment for the act without consideration of both sides of the argument. Throughout the Furies’ monologue, the beings disclose both their interpretation of justice and the drive they feel to protect that view.
The author of the Code also makes some key assumptions while writing his laws. Hammurabi must assume that the members of his kingdom have the same values and morals that he does. He writes as if everyone will agree with each law written, and makes no provision for members of society to disagree with him. Hammurabi also assumes that the punishment he prescribes will be enough to deter crime and prevent repeat offenders. When prescribing the incentives given to doctors, Hammurabi made assumptions about how much money it would take to encourage doctors to practice medicine and shipbuilders to build ships.
Hammurabi’s Code provides evidence for early documents that signify law and order. For instance, Hammurabi’s says in his code if a man wrongs another with his false accusations, he shall be subjected to death (1, 3). His laws illustrate a judicial system in which someone has to pay someone that they wronged in either the same way that they wronged him or through money depending on the person’s social status. It is also said in his code of law that there were penalties for those who disobeyed his laws. For example, Hammurabi says, “If that man do not pay attention to my words…may the great god, the father of the gods, ...
The Mahele is the division of land in 1843 to originally divide the land into three parts yet, the division was nowhere close to equal. Originally the mahele was created to give an equal amount of land to locals, foreigners, and the government. In the end foreigners gained the majority of the land while leaving 1% of the land with commoners and locals. Kamehameha did not gain much either while foreigners earned an enormous amount of land and money. The mahele was unjust because of the political, economical, and social impacts
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
Hammurabi’s code was a just law system that used the influence of gods and harsh punishments to scare people away from crime to maintain the order of his society. Hammurabi was an 18th century BCE king in Babylonia, in addition to his big title he was famous for the creation of a 282 law code. His laws were very exact in that there was a law for any situation. These laws are famous for the harsh punishments Hammurabi allotted for crimes committed by people living under his rule. The question asked when looking at his laws are were they just? But if you look at the categories of family, property and injury it is clear that they are.