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 38^th 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 child is a child all the same, no matter which working class.

Hammurabi’s Code was also unfair to the accused. This is shown in Laws 218, 129, and 195. For instance, in Law 218 it says, “If a surgeon has operated with a bronze lancet on a free man for a serious injury, and has caused death, ...his hands shall be cut off.”(Doc E). Law 218 is unfair because if you were the surgeon, you were just trying to help, right? And sometimes things just don’t work out, and then you get your hands cut off? Just for helping!? Or in Law 129 how it states that if a married lady is caught in adultery, then both man and woman will be tied up and thrown in the water. (Doc C) Law 195 is unfair because the punishment for striking your father is cutting your hands off!(Doc C) What if your father was being really mean and hits you because he was angry at someone else? Sometimes you have to defend yourself!

Hammurabi’s Code was unfair to society. This is shown in Law 23. For instance, Law 23 declares, “If the robber is not caught, the man who has been robbed shall formally declare whatever he has lost before a god, and the city and the mayor in whose territory or district the robbery has been committed shall replace for  them whatever he has lost.”(Doc D). This is unfair to society because they didn’t commit the crime. Why should they pay for it?

Even with these many examples, I agree some laws in Hammurabi’s Code, like Law 53, 54 which states that if a man has opened his irrigation trench and his neighbor’s field has flooded because of it, then the man who opened the trench must pay back the neighbor in crops(Doc E), are just and fair, overall Hammurabi’s Code of Laws are unjust because they had violent punishments for nonviolent crimes, and treated people differently because of their working class.