Hammurabi's Code

Why Hammurabi's Code isn't just

Document B

Hammurabi claims that that the laws are just, but they aren't. Any king who changes the rules Hammurabi had set forth would be almost definitely better than the rules already set. Hammurabi's laws do make sense but have unreasonable punishments.
Big image

Document C

Law 129 says that if a married wife is caught with a man, they shall be bound and thrown in the river. This isn't a good punishment because the people might pollute the river or fish. Even if this was a reasonable punishment, the people executed could simply float down the river without drowning. Plus, the people might have only been whispering secretly about random stuff. An alternate punishment might be to fee both of them an equal amount of money that will threaten the life of both of them together, but not to make a wide definite struggle to live.
Big image

Document D

Hammurabi's Code isn't just because the laws have severe punishments or effects that don''t make sense. For example, law 21 says that if a robber is caught having broken a mans wall, they shall pierce them or hang them in the hole that they destroyed. That dosen't make sense because the crime doer should only have to pay for the cost of remaking the wall, and only get hung if they can't pay the price. Also, the victims wouldn't want to have a hanging crime doer staring at them while they are eating dinner or something else private.

Document E

Law 196 says if a man has knocked an eye out of another man, they shall knock out his eye, but law 199 says if a man has knocked an eye out of a slave, they shall pay half his value. I think that this isn't just because the slaves are already discriminated enough, they should have the same punishment for both of the crimes.