preview

Causes Of Hammurabi Code Dbq

comparative Essay
824 words
824 words
bookmark

Hammurabi’s Code: Was it Just? The 282 laws inscribed in a stele somewhere in Mesopotamia have caused an arising debate; whether Hammurabi’s Code was just or if it was unjust. Hammurabi was a Sumerian ruler who ruled from 1792 to 1750 BCE. After battling and winning wars with most of the other city-states around him, Hammurabi began to rule much of Mesopotamia. Hammurabi’s empire grew, and after he was done ruling, he led an estimated population of 1,000,000 people. Along the way, he created a large number of laws that were meant so “the strong might not injure the weak… before the image of me (Hammurabi), king of righteousness” (Document B, paragraph 1). Hammurabi’s Code was just because he created laws that were fair to the offender and …show more content…

In this essay, the author

  • Explains that the 282 laws inscribed in a stele somewhere in mesopotamia have caused an arising debate; whether hammurabi’s code was just or unjust.
  • Explains hammurabi's code was just because the family law helped everyone and did not put the victim or the offender at a disadvantage.
  • Explains that hammurabi's code was just because the property law gave people a way to feel protected, and they saw both sides of the story.
  • Explains hammurabi's personal injury law, which protects people from hate crimes and anger lashes against them.
  • Concludes that hammurabi's code showed more evidence of being just than not. law 213 undervalues slaves, but it was for the people, not against them.

According to Document D, “The man who has been robbed… and the city or mayor… will replace what he has lost.” This is fair because a person who got robbed or got money stolen could become very poor or even die of poverty, but this law will help them get back what was stolen so they will hit the ground running. Another piece of evidence is in Document D, Laws 53 and 54, which say, “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.” This is fair because if a man demolishes all of his neighbor’s crops, it would be unfair to force them to have to gather and refarm that crop. That would tank their income and they would not be as prosperous. If the offender lost his crop, he would want the other person to replace it, so it is only fitting if he replaces the crop he caused harm to. All of these Laws prove that Hammurabi wanted to help people see both sides of the story, and that is why his laws were …show more content…

The personal injury law was a law that Hammurabi wanted to make so that nobody will get hurt. Law 218 says, “If a surgeon has operated with a bronze lancet on a free man for a serious injury, and causes his death, his hands shall be cut off.” This Law was created so people didn't take jobs just to sabotage people’s lives, and it also was invented to keep people safe. Another example is how Law 196 says, “If a man has knocked out the eyes of a free man, his eye shall be knocked out.” This Law protects people from hate crimes and anger lashes against him. This helps because it really shows that you get what you give. That is how people were protected by the personal injury law. In conclusion, Hammurabi’s Code showed more evidence of being just than not. Although there are some laws that are unjust, for example Law 213 undervalues slaves, as it says “... Causes her to lose the fruit of her womb, he shall pay 2 shekels of silver”, But more times than not, Hammurabi’s Code was for the people, not against them. Hammurabi’s Code was just because of how the laws regarding family put neither the victim or offender at an advantage, how they could secure people’s property with the Property Law, and how the personal injury law provided an “insurance” to help people feel safer and get hurt

Get Access