Hammurabi’s Code: Was It Just?
Hammurabi’s Code: Was it just?
Imagine this: you are walking around in an outdoor market when you feel someone take your wallet. You turn around and you see a person. You accuse them of stealing your wallet and it gets taken to trial, when right in the middle a person comes in and confesses to the crime. Suddenly, the current trial ends and a new trial begins: against you. The judge decides to cut your hands off for falsely accusing someone while the thief gets away scot-free (Journey Across Time). I bet you’re thinking that it would be totally unfair to get your hands cut off while a thief gets away with stealing your wallet, just because you thought someone else stole it, then you are completely correct. However, if you lived during Hammurabi’s rule, then this situation might have actually happened. Hammurabi was an ancient king who ruled a small city-state in Mesopotamia, called Babylonia. Hammurabi ruled for 42 years from 1792 BCE (Before Current Era)-1834 BCE. Around Hammurabi’s 38th year of rule, he created a law code which he carved on a large stone column called a stele. Now you know a little background, we can start answering our main question: Was Hammurabi’s Code just? I don’t think so and here are three reasons why.
Hammurabi’s Code was unfair to the victim. This is shown in Laws 48, 209, and 213. For instance, in Law 48 it says that “If a man has borrowed money to plant his fields and storm has flooded his field or carried away the crop,…in that year he does not have to pay his creditor.”(Doc D). In Law 48 it is unfair to the creditor because he got cheated because he never got his money back. How would you liked to have loaned someone your good money and have never gotten it back? Or in Law 209 and 213 when if a man hits a free girl and causes her to lose her child, he has to pay her 10 shekels of silver, whereas if you were a slave you would only get 2 shekels of silver!(Doc E). If you were that slave girl would you be satisfied? I wouldn’t! A
Imagine this: you are walking around in an outdoor market when you feel someone take your wallet. You turn around and you see a person. You accuse them of stealing your wallet and it gets taken to trial, when right in the middle a person comes in and confesses to the crime. Suddenly, the current trial ends and a new trial begins: against you. The judge decides to cut your hands off for falsely accusing someone while the thief gets away scot-free (Journey Across Time). I bet you’re thinking that it would be totally unfair to get your hands cut off while a thief gets away with stealing your wallet, just because you thought someone else stole it, then you are completely correct. However, if you lived during Hammurabi’s rule, then this situation might have actually happened. Hammurabi was an ancient king who ruled a small city-state in Mesopotamia, called Babylonia. Hammurabi ruled for 42 years from 1792 BCE (Before Current Era)-1834 BCE. Around Hammurabi’s 38th year of rule, he created a law code which he carved on a large stone column called a stele. Now you know a little background, we can start answering our main question: Was Hammurabi’s Code just? I don’t think so and here are three reasons why.
Hammurabi’s Code was unfair to the victim. This is shown in Laws 48, 209, and 213. For instance, in Law 48 it says that “If a man has borrowed money to plant his fields and storm has flooded his field or carried away the crop,…in that year he does not have to pay his creditor.”(Doc D). In Law 48 it is unfair to the creditor because he got cheated because he never got his money back. How would you liked to have loaned someone your good money and have never gotten it back? Or in Law 209 and 213 when if a man hits a free girl and causes her to lose her child, he has to pay her 10 shekels of silver, whereas if you were a slave you would only get 2 shekels of silver!(Doc E). If you were that slave girl would you be satisfied? I wouldn’t! A