Hammurabi Code: Was It Just?

691 Words3 Pages
Niko Stines AP World history 8/15/13 Hammurabi Code: Was it just? I believe most laws in Hammurabi's code were just in protecting the people but the penalties were unfair against the accused. Throughout his laws he continues to keep his people safe but at the same time teaches them that an eye for an eye is okay and in most cases revenge is never the best answer. From law 218 to law 21 he promotes violence to all citizens of Mesopotamia. Hammurabi was a ruler of Mesopotamia for 42 years and was the first to really set laws for his land. When Hammurabi took over the land Larsa and Mari he decided to change his war hungry ways into more peaceful thinking. He carved 282 laws into steles which are large pillar stones and placed them all around the city. It was written in cuneiform letters which all free people knew how to read (Doc A). These laws taught historians…show more content…
I think justice or fairness includes everybody in the situation. That means the criminal should have at least some rights. In Law 21 (Doc D) it says that if a robber is caught in the act of stealing by the owners, the owners have a right to hang him in the very spot he stands. Hammurabi is letting a citizen commit a crime that is ten times worse then what the criminal did and that is anything but fair. On Law 218 (Doc E) if a doctor fails a surgery on a free man he hands are to be severed off just like that. This is so unfair to the doctor because he has to guarentee a perfect surgery every time which would never happen. Law 196 (Doc E) states that if a man hurts another man in any way he is allowed to do the same back to him. This law is so unreasonable because it teaches everybody to be so violent and uncivilized. What ever happened to the bigger person or the better role model. Obviously there was no such thing back then and that morals are totally different in 1800

More about Hammurabi Code: Was It Just?

Open Document