Well guys, we're kicking off our year with two work from home days. In addition to your unit work (timeline, vocabulary, binder check, etc.) make sure you have your Morris Article Questions and Chalk Talk Prep Sheet for Wednesday.
For tomorrow, review the Mesopotamia PowerPoint and the Harrapan (Indus River Valley Civilization) PowerPoint and be prepared for a comparison chart of River Valley Civlizations on Wednesday. Finally, Tonight's, homework is your first analysis of a primary source document for this class– an excerpt from the judgments of Hammurabi, a Babylonian king from the 18th century BCE .After carefully reading through the text provided for you in class (or the digital copy on the Period 1 Materials page), please respond to the prompt at the bottom of this entry in the form of a comment on this blog post. You’ll find the “Leave a Comment” link right under the title of this entry, next to the date. Your comment should be thoughtful and refer to at least two specific examples in the text. In order to encourage you to use this blog as a venue for discussion, here’s how grading for this assignment will work: a response which appropriately answers the discussion question will receive a maximum grade of 95%. To earn that final 5% of the grade, you must respond (thoughtfully!) to one of the comments left by your classmates. A few reminders about appropriate online interactions: as this is an academic assignment, I expect your responses to reflect all standard grammatical and mechanical practices. Remember that tone is sometimes difficult to discern in online communication, so be sure that you express yourself clearly. If you’re uncomfortable using your full name to post a comment, please just post using your first name and last initial– I’ll know who you are. Here’s your discussion prompt: Consider Hammurabi’s judgments. Do you think they would have been effective as a law code? Who were the judgments meant to protect or benefit? What sort of social distinctions can we see in Hammurabi’s law code? Did any of the laws or their implications surprise you? If so, why? This will be due at 11:59pm January, 10th, 2017. Stay safe in the ice and hopefully I'll see you Wednesday. Best, Ms. Elrick
147 Comments
Aaronweber Jodesty
1/9/2017 06:24:19 pm
This Article shows how that even during the Mesopotamia times. Rules and Morals were still relevant and also followed. Even though some of the rules were a bit extreme like the one were it claims if the man has been caught doing brigandage he will be slain. It is still morally to recognize that doing a act like that is lawfully wring. This Article states that during the Mesopotamian time. People were extremely civilized in they way that they thought about about these certain rules and their punishment.
Reply
Chayce Walker
1/9/2017 10:00:08 pm
I agree that they were very civilized in the way they thought about the rules and punishments, but coincidentally, were very barbaric in punishment. many of the punishments resulted in either death, or harm of another body.
Reply
MC Toth
1/10/2017 03:21:47 am
Hey Aaron! I really enjoyed reading your comment and interpretation of this article. I agree with you and your standpoint on extreme laws, it's a bit crazy what was socially accepted back then compared to now! You made a good point when you stated, "rules and morals were still relevant and also followed." People were civilized in the sense of having a government and control. This society showed qualities of power, development, complexity and expectations that must be followed, or repercussions would take place.
Reply
Grace Babcock
1/10/2017 01:33:01 pm
Hammurabi's judgments would have been effective as a law code, even though the rules were extreme and had dire consequences. Law 196 under Personal Injury; "If a man has destroyed the eye of another free man, his own eye shall be destroyed", justifies that in a civilized society, one must pay for their actions and should be punished. The judgments by Hammurabi were meant to protect all citizens, peasant or not, in Babylonian society. In reality, however, they mainly protected the people deemed more superior. Social distinctions between peasants and the superior are described in his judgments, when the superior citizens receive better treatment and more benefits. This is described in law 201 under Personal Injury: "If a man knocked out the teeth of a man of the same rank, his own teeth shall be knocked out." Hammurabi's judgments can be described as civilized, with barbaric roots and outcomes.
Reply
Karen Flores
1/10/2017 05:44:27 pm
Aaron, I completely agree with your statement concerning the harsh punishments that are stated. They would range from the death of a person to hurting a particular body part. A minor punishment would only go as far to pay someone in silver usually involving an offense to a low class person.
Reply
Dian Hassan
1/9/2017 06:56:19 pm
I personally do not think Hammurabi's code of law would not be a truly effective to produce legitimate justice in that society. It is obvious that the judgements are meant to protect the citizens of higher status in the Babylonian society. In code 202 it states," If a man strikes the body of a man who is superior in status, he shall publicly receive sixty lashes with a cowhide whip..." while code 201 states, "If he has knocked out the teeth of a peasant, he shall pay one-third of a mina of silver." This shows the blatant disparity in the harshness of punishment. The code is evidently shown to benefit the rich and those in higher status while being a scourge to peasants. Women are also greatly discriminated in this society as well. Code 129 states, " If the wife of a free man is caught lying with another man, they shall both be tied up and drowned in the water; but if the husband decides to let his wife live, than the king shall let the man live." A crime punishable by death, but the Hammurabi code doesn't mention any punishment of this severity to a husband. This shows the code deems women as a more inferior gender. One law that intrigued me was code 229 about the builder being slain if the house he builds caves in and kills the householder. That is because so many different variables can contribute to a house caving in than just builders incompetents, such as weather, termites, vandalism, among other things. They shouldn't put all the blame on just the builder because to me that is ludicrous.
Reply
Dora Vang
1/9/2017 09:21:28 pm
I also agree with your views. Hammurabi definitely seems to favor men of the higher class, and his punishments for everyday mistakes are brutal and unethical, so the Code of Hammurabi would not be effective as a law code.
Reply
Kaniz Momin
1/9/2017 11:38:59 pm
I highly agree with your views. It is also unfair to refer to oneself as "the king of justice" if you aren't one to serve it right. He most definitely serves people of higher status more importance than those who have a much lower status. He also isn't as fair to women as he is to men. Hammurabi also isn't one to determine the reasoning behind the collapse of a house. I never thought of it the way you did. The reason behind a house to be destroyed could strongly be the weather, termites, or someone else.
Reply
John Koroly
1/10/2017 09:34:10 am
I strongly agree with your views of Hammurabi's Codes. I also believe that the way upper and lower class people were treated was truly unfair that women are just said to be killed with no punishment at all to the husband. Truly what you said about the builder has opened my eyes about it because not everything should be taken down to who made the house, but how did it happen.
Reply
Blake Williams
1/10/2017 11:41:19 am
I completely agree with your statement. Hammurabi's code really only protects the people that are deemed more superior. In code 199 "If a man destroyed a slaves eye he only has to pay half the slaves value." This is no way to treat a man of god even if he is labeled as a slave.
Reply
Courtney Moody
1/10/2017 12:50:04 pm
I share your view, there is an obvious inequality going on between the classes and genders. Although they see divorce as an almost equal issue by saying that as long as no one is at fault the women receives her bride price and they can go their separate ways. I enjoyed reading your comment it was meticulously written!
Reply
1/10/2017 05:48:32 pm
I disagree with your accusations of Hammurabi calling women the 'inferior gender'. Back then, they were nowhere near inferior. Sure, they were viewed as those that should stay at home and raise the children etc., but that was their place in society. They did not disagree with it, and, naturally, women typically do take that role in a relationship. I do not think they should be forced into being just 'the wife', but most of them wanted that in their life. The laws were simply an extension of social standings back then of what men do, and what women do.
Reply
Aaronweber Jodesty
1/10/2017 06:20:36 pm
Dian I agree, it does show the separation in classes due to punishment types. I also agree that in this stage of society were everything is equal and everybody has an equal opportunity. People today would see these rules as outrages and not fair necessarily
Reply
Andrew Riner
1/9/2017 07:08:55 pm
I do believe that during that time period, Hammurabi's code would have been somewhat affective. The code itself is designed to benefit the King and those close to him. The strict laws or "judgements" set in place either have a consequence of death/harm or paying for the freedom of whatever has burdened them. I have to say that I was genuinely surprised by the fact that women had the rights that they did. Even though they had some obstacles to go through, they were still able to leave a relationship with a man on their own do'ing. Based off of my previous knowledge of history, I assumed going into the code that it was going to be primarily in favor of the men. After reading it, I can say I was surprised. The punishment of a boy disobeying his father was definitely harsh but for that time period, that was most likely seen differently. His codes set in place for debt were not terrible and could actually work. My major concern was most of the judgements were very specific and carried on by "and" after each implication. I feel like ultimately, it came down to the kings decision right then and there and was all interpreted differently based on the situation.
Reply
Priyanka Patel
1/10/2017 01:32:47 pm
I also share some of the same views that you have. I was surprised that women had many rights as well as that the laws would benefit people of high status, like the king and his friends. Also, I feel like the decision came down to the king but it may have been biased based on the social class of the person being punished.
Reply
Grace Babcock
1/10/2017 01:44:05 pm
I agree with you Andrew, on that Hammurabi's judgments could have worked as a law code during the time period. I was also surprised that women had as many freedoms as they did, and that they were treated with much more respect than peasants were. I do feel like some of the judgments were carried on last minute, and the details and length of the judgments make it seem like they were made up as they were written. During that time period, respecting your elders, especially a man or father, was a huge deal. The law about cutting off a sons hands seems normal to me, and fitting for the time period. But overall I agree with your response and the surprises that you had.
Reply
Abir Ghallab
1/10/2017 04:09:37 pm
Andrew, I agree with you on how surprising it was at the rights given to women because normally when we go back in time we think women are treated with less and less equality. Also I agree with your point on how the code was designed to favor the individuals close to the king and the king himself.
Reply
Leda Catak
1/10/2017 04:59:30 pm
Andrew, I agree with many of your perspectives when it comes to this article. I found it extremely intriguing, and my jaw dropped open when it was time for me to read "Marriage and the Family" category. Then I thought about all of this for a second, I thought about many other historical events that took place and how women were treated before this. It kind of made sense but really, it is never a normal thing for these types of "laws" to make sense. I also agree with the audience; it is most definitely the King and those around him. On the very first law under the category "Marriage and the Family" reads, "If the wife of a man is found lying with another male, they shall be bound and thrown into the water. If the husband lets his wife live, then the king shall let his servant live" (129). I think that these "judgements" could have been effective in some aspects, and I think this just because how strong of an impact it would've had to the people at that time. It is blatant that women and men had specific rights at the time and when all of the puzzle pieces come together, these judgements could potentially have the beneficial effect that was necessary in that time period. However, I'm trying to think in all perspectives. In other words, what if these judgements were actually the law at that time, would these words stand out more or stand back because it is official? This is my question to my peers.
Reply
1/10/2017 05:56:07 pm
I do not think that they would stand out more because it is official, or written down in law. Sure, when you look back today and see that, it is hard not to see these tough, rigid gender roles in society, as we have the privilege to be relatively free from that if we want, but back then, it was just the way things went. In the hunter-gatherer tribes before the official governments were set in place, the men would go and collect food, and bring it back for the tribe to eat, plus they would act as the protectors for the tribe. The women would take on the more motherly, emotional and maternal side of the society. This has stuck with us throughout history, and in the day-to-day lives of the people living under this law, I doubt they would hardly even notice anything was wrong. It was simply just completely normal for these seemingly odd gender divisions in the society.
Giancarlo
1/10/2017 09:03:01 pm
I completely agree with you. The rights given to women were completely strange due to the fact that if we look upon previous history that women were treated less than men. The codes set back then were a bit harsh but in fact were working.
Reply
Chayce Walker
1/9/2017 08:13:01 pm
At the time that the laws were created, i could see these being implemented and effective as a code of law. Though most of the punishments seem every intense and extreme, they overall benefit everyone as a whole. I was surprised at the attempt he had to make everyone somewhat equal. there were strict punishments for government officials (to ensure they did their job properly), and laws that protected the rights and freedoms of women (which though wasn't the best, was uncommon at the time). Another thing which really surprised me was how important marriage was to them. The rules revolved around keeping individuals together, unless there were extreme circumstances. Even if a spouse was gravely sick/ill, could the other not divorce them and continue to take care of them.
Reply
Andrew Prather
1/10/2017 07:36:21 pm
Hi Chayce, After reading your response, I agree with your thinking of how the code of law could be implemented at the time of them being written, as i included a similar statement in my answer as well. Overall all I think that most of your statements are thought out and make sense. For me, they reflect some of the same viewpoints i had while reading the code.
Reply
Chance McGarey
1/10/2017 08:35:17 pm
While I do agree that the laws had the intent to benefit the society as a whole, I believe that Hammurabi could have been a little less savage in his punishment, and that the cons of the laws regarding women outweigh the pros. While you did make some valid points and provided a new perspective on the laws, I still believe that they weren't as good or unprejudiced as they could have been.
Reply
Dora Vang
1/9/2017 09:11:55 pm
Hammurabi referred to himself as "the king of justice" as stated in his epilogue, but his judgements were based off of the upper class men, and they would not have been effective as a law code. The Code of Hammurabi shows the distinction between free-men, peasants, slaves, and women. It strikes fear into his followers. For example, slaves are not as valuable as free-men in Hammurabi's eyes. He says, "If he has destroyed the eye of another freeman, his eye shall be destroyed," but if "he has destroyed the eye of another man's slave, or broken a bone of a man's slave, he shall pay half his value [that of a peasant]". This shows that Hammurabi believes the higher status men are more important. He exposes his true colors by saying that money can make up for a slaves eye. Money is a man-made concept put into place to distract us from reality. The reality is that the true purpose of life is to obtain nutrients and reproduce. Money has prevented us from having that animal instinct, and it is what feeds pleasure to people like Hammurabi with his materialistic ideology. Also, he strikes fear into his followers by limiting their ambition to technologically advance. He says, "If a builder has built a house for a man, and his work is not strong, and if the house he has built falls in and kills the house-holder, that builder shall be slain." By doing this, he makes it so his people are unwilling to work, fearing that they may be slaughtered if they make a simple, mediocre mistake. None of these laws surprised me because they were predictable and shallow just like Hammurabi (:
Reply
Andrew Riner
1/9/2017 09:38:50 pm
I agree. To add on, women would get in trouble for not being loyal to their husband but men could be unloyal to their wives. Gender inequality was very strong. However, if a woman was unhappy with her situation, there were measures she could take to get out of it.
Reply
Dian
1/9/2017 10:33:11 pm
Although money is a man made concept, you could say it is an indirect way reaching the "true purpose of life" as you said. To obtain nutrients, you need food, and for food you need money. For a father to marry off his daughter he has to pay a dowry which uses money. We hit two of the main purposes of life with money. Another think built in all animals instincts is survival, and one could argue that you can be guaranteed a better chance if you work in a group or in this case live in a civilization which means you have to conform to the standards that those in that society live by. A consequence of that is using some type of monetary system. People have been using money since around 5000 BC and although it can be seen as the root of all evil, extensive amounts of money can guarantee food, increase your chances of finding a mate, and resources you may need to ensure your survival. You could say that money an indirect way of reaching your "true purpose" of life.
Reply
Rachel Kudina
1/10/2017 02:44:50 pm
I agree with a lot of what you're saying. These rules are mostly put into play for the people who are seen as "important" to Hammurabi, and it leaves you to wonder what about the other people that are outside of that circle? And even if it's not about being fair killing someone or cutting off their hands for not screwing in a few extra bolts on a house or making a few surgical mistakes is extremely harsh and certainly not called for. He really is scaring all the people who surround him just to come in and save the day with his "laws" making him seem more and more like a king
Reply
Alex Martinez
1/10/2017 08:21:04 pm
I agree with you Dora Vang, I think that the laws were extremely leaned towards the people of lower class.
Reply
Kaniz Momin
1/9/2017 11:28:03 pm
I do believe Hammurabi’s judgments would have been effective as a code of law. Hammurabi’s judgments do not serve the utmost justice, which is ironic considering he referred to himself as “the king of justice”. These judgements were meant to protect and or benefit the Babylonian society according to their status, to me that’s not serving justice. Whether you were benefitted, simply protected, or both, depended on if you were a free-man, a peasant, a slave, or a woman. Hammurabi says, “If a man has destroyed the eye of another free man, his own eye shall be destroyed.” He then says, “If he has destroyed the eye of a peasant, or broken a bone of a peasant, he shall pay one mina of silver.” This judgment proves Hammurabi thought of free-men to be more important that peasants, even though they’re all human. He serves injustice by putting a price tag on a man's bone or eye simply because of his lower status. The law where he states, “If the wife of a man is found lying with another male, they shall be bound and thrown into the water.” There is no further law that serves justice to the wife if her husband was found lying with another female. There is an immense amount of gender inequality as well as social injustice. I was however, surprised to see laws that protected women to a certain extent as I was not expecting there to be any at all.
Reply
Jada Dixon
1/10/2017 04:05:13 pm
I am on the accord with you response. The judgments were meant top serve and protect the people of the land. It seems as if Hammurabi didn't consider the peasants as people, rather like they were animals. Their lives were thrown around carelessly. The women were protected to some extent, however in verse 129 :"if the wife of a man is found lying with another male, they shall be bound and thrown in water." Women in Babylonian times were considered sacred, so she was not to spiritually defile herself. Adultery is an example of shame on a woman.
Reply
MC Toth
1/10/2017 03:14:27 am
I believe that Hammurabi’s judgments would have been an effective law code in some aspects, although I do not agree with his ways. In the prologue, Hammurabi stated, “to promote the welfare of the people.. to cause justice to prevail in the land, to destroy the wicked and the evil, that the strong might not oppress the week.” Yet, in most of his laws, there was a definite bias towards the higher class. If Hammurabi wanted to emphasize justice and equality, his laws spoke otherwise. His code was based more on specific incidents that might occur between individuals, rather than vague guidelines between “right and wrong”. These laws would of been effective in the sense of, if one of the clear-cut circumstances took place, there would be no debate on what the punishment would be. Although in my opinion, it shouldn’t be so cut and dry. There’s always exceptions to incidents and things that she be up for debate. I also believe that his punishments violated our standards of cruel and unusual punishment. In law 230, it states, “ If the child of the householder is killed, the child of that builder shall be slain.” If your house falls, the builder is blamed; then the tragedy of the death of a child that is occurring in your family, is then inflicted onto another innocent cild, so the builder can share the suffering. Why promote more death? The judgements Hammurabi had were benefiting men, people of higher class, or people experiencing setbacks, as well as showing obvious social distinctions. An example of men being favored is in law 117, “If a man has contracted a debt, and has given his wife and his daughter, for silver or labor, three years they shall serve in the house of their purchaser..”, this is stating that men are allowed to trade in their wives and children for money or labor. An example of higher classes being favored is in laws 200, 201 and 202. These laws deal with inflicting harm on other individuals of different classes. Law 200 states, “If a man has knocked out the teeth of a man of the same rank, his own teeth shall be knocked out.” An eye for an eye type punishment. Yet, law 201 states, “If he has knocked out the teeth of a peasant, he shall pay 1/3 a mina of sliver.” The same crime resulting in less severe punishment because of a less prestigious status. Last but not least is law 202, dealing with assaulting a man of a higher social rank, “If a man strikes the body of a man who is superior in status, he shall publicly receive sixty lashes with a cowhide whip.” As you can see, as the class increases, so does the severity of the punishment. An example in which people who experienced setbacks was in law 23, “If the brigand has not been taken, the man plundered shall claim before god what he has lost; and the city and governor in whose land and boundary the theft has taken place shall restore to him all that he has lost.” The country and god will bless you for what you have lost. Throughout the code, Hammurabi mentions slavery and unfair discipline for women, showing social distinctions and discriminatory actions. Lots of the laws listed surprised me, while understanding the different things and social norms taking place in different cultures as well as time periods, some of the cruelty listed was still shocking. In the epilogue Hammurabi stated, “has made to be feared...gladdened the flesh of his people forever and the land he has placed in order...my deeds have no equal”, which caught me off guard with the complete contrast of tone Hammurabi spoke with in the beginning.
Reply
Cedric
1/10/2017 07:58:15 am
For the most part I do agree with the points you have made. Hammurabi does contradict himself many times throughout the code. However, I do feel that, for the most part, the code gave fair treatment to women. While there are a few bumps, the idea that a woman may keep her children, if she would like to get divorced, or even the idea of divorce, failed to come into laws later on in history.
Reply
Esteban Alarcon
1/10/2017 01:25:16 pm
MC, after analyzing your arguments, I completely agree with you. This so called "justice system" is equating the value wives and children with money and labor, as code 117 states. The majority pf these laws are irrational and redundant.
Reply
Cedric Pfeiler
1/10/2017 07:52:56 am
In my opinion Hammurabi’s Code, was fairly just, considering the time period it was created in. However, as many people before me have pointed out, some ideas mentioned, are not some that would work in today’s society. Firstly, it seems to me that there was a heavy dependence on slaves, which, today, is a widespread taboo. Secondly, Hammurabi often uses unequal treatment for people of different ranks. For example, he states on rule 198 that “if a man has destroyed the eye of a peasant , or broken a bone of a peasant, he shall pay one mina of silver,” while if “he has broken the bone of a free man, his bone shall be broken.” Hammurabi does, however have some reasonable laws concerning marriage, and especially ones protecting the rights of women and their children. This is shown in law 134 where it says “if a man has been taken prisoner, and there is no food in the house, and his wife enters the house of another, then that woman bears no blame.” As for the rights of children, Hammurabi ruled that if a woman gets divorced, the man must give up the children to the woman, and give the woman land to raise the children. In all, I was very surprised the equality and order Hammurabi was attempting to achieve using these laws. Even if some laws are not up to today’s standards, they are defiantly more advanced than some laws that came later, especially in the Middle Ages. Lastly, I was surprised to see that there was a court for the average people at this time, because again, that is something we lost as time went on.
Reply
Maggie Huff
1/10/2017 08:20:04 am
It looks like our ideas were very similar when we read Hammurabi's Judgments, which is really cool. I highly agree with your argument, and I like how you specified why his laws would not work in today's time, but seemed to be fair and equal according to his time. I really enjoyed your view point, and it was very well explained. I especially liked how you discussed the role of women in marriage; it was a topic I thought was really interesting too.
Reply
Maggie Huff
1/10/2017 08:08:25 am
If you consider the fear that Hammurabi's Judgments must have struck into the hearts of his people, then it is very easy to assume that they were effective. Although they are extremely harsh, someone is a lot less likely to break a law if it ends in the loss of there hand, or some cases, their life. This causes me to think that maybe fear is the strategy that Hammurabi was attempting in the first place. He wanted to scare his people out of committing crime.It seems that people of higher status received more "equal" judgement for crimes committed against them. To elaborate, breaking a bone of someone of a higher status meant the breaking of your own bone; however if it was a peasant or slave who's bone had been broken, justice was paid in rations of currency instead. In a way, this shows that the judgments were in favor of those of higher status. This leads into the different distinctions as Hammurabi's punishments are divided between quite a few types of people. For instance, in the family they are divided by husband, wife, and usually son rather than daughter, while society is divided by slave, peasant, free man, and man of higher status. There are even some distinctions of jobs. I was surprised by how many rights women had relating to marriage, divorce, and the disappearance of their husband. Hammurabi made it clear that in certain cases the woman was not to be blamed, which is a lot to say about earlier civilizations when genders were typically very separated and men were more powerful. What surprised me even more was that even though women had rights, asking for a divorce was not one of them. The divorce had to be filed by the husband, which seemed to contradict the other rights of women in marriage.
Reply
Susana Negrete
1/10/2017 10:22:32 am
I agree with your views of how Hammurabi used fear in order to keep the people from committing a crime. However, as you said, he favored those of a higher status.
Reply
Fatema Momin
1/10/2017 08:42:04 am
According to Hammurabi's judgements, I think they would be effective as a code of law in some ways. In the prologue, Hammurabi states "When Marduk had instituted me governor of men, to conduct and direct, Right and Justice I established in the land, for the good of the people." But in some of his laws, you can tell that he is helping the rich more than the peasants. I also see that in his laws he is protecting the men more than the women. In the Hammurabi's code law 198, it says "If he has destroyed the eye of a peasant, or broken a bone of a peasant, he shall pay one mina of silver." as you can see in this Hammurabi is favoring men in higher class than the peasants. But in another, law 197 it says "If he has broken the bone of a free man, his bone shall be broken." in this one you can see that if they are equal in class then they both get punished the same, but if one is higher class than the other, the higher class only has to pay the lower class with money. The laws didn't really surprise me, but they were just very specific events. There is also a lot of gender inequality between the men and the women which I expected at the time.
Reply
Taylor Gerald
1/10/2017 09:06:24 am
I really agree with you in terms of Hammurabi catering to the wealthy more than the peasants. Social distinctions and class statuses were really important back then. The peasants and slaves were really the lowest of the low, and were only compensated with money instead of a punishment for the perpetrator.
Reply
Adeline Harris
1/10/2017 11:18:56 am
I agree with you! I like that you included his quote about his intentions being "for the good people." Which is funny because he seems to contradict himself when he feeds into the social norms of his society! It is upsetting that he could set a price for a man's life as long as those 2 people were ranked differently!
Reply
Maryury Deloya
1/10/2017 11:32:49 am
I completely agree with you about the inequality between the social classes and genders. During this time, people only cared about wealth and their self being. The lower classes were nothing to them. Men would always feel superior to women because of the labor they would do. Many people would be treated unfairly because of inequality.
Reply
Taylor Gerald
1/10/2017 08:57:20 am
I personally think Hammurabi's judgments would have been effective as law code for the time period. He covers most of the problems that are prevalent and needed to be addressed at the time. A lot of the law codes are also based on "an eye for an eye" type of scenario, so ruling by fear is also implemented here. Hammurabi's judgments were mainly geared towards males that were wealthy or of a higher status. Most of the judgments pertained to men and their affairs because they did more than women. Judgments for women were mostly limited to the "Marriage and the Family" section, which shows the society's place for them at the time. Class distinctions are clearly shown in codes 200-202.If a man should knock out the teeth of another man of higher status they get whipped publicly. But if a man should knock out the teeth of a peasant, they only have to pay "one-third of a mina of silver". The peasants tend to luck out when it comes to injustices done against them. The law that surprised me the most was code 218. If a physician treats a man with a metal knife and the man dies, the physician's "hands shall be cut off". If a physician decides to do surgery with a metal knife, it's really all or nothing. It's a continuation their job or a lifetime with nubs for hands.
Reply
Rebecca Shaffer
1/10/2017 09:20:19 am
I agree, Hammurabi did imply fear in almost every one of his laws. He knew that people would be too afraid to do anything if it cost them a hand, especially since most of his laws were aimed toward wealthy men of higher status.
Reply
Joanna Shephard
1/10/2017 01:48:18 pm
I agree very much with your analogy comparing Hammurabi’s judgments to an “eye for eye” scenario. In the personal injury section (195- 212) there was a lot of “eye for an eye punishment.” What I found most interesting about that type of punishment was that it only occurred in members of the same class. The document also talked about punishments for upper class members that had inflected injury’s on peasants or slaves but not the other way around. I’m interested in knowing if their punishment is similar or more severe. It would help in the analysis of how social distinctions were treated.
Reply
Rebecca Shaffer
1/10/2017 09:15:40 am
Given the time period Hammurabi’s Codes were established, I believe that they would have been considered successful and even fair. However his codes did show prejudice upon social classes. The codes gave special protection and benefits to the king and those who wealthy. One such law was Law 197, “If he [wealthy man] has broken the bone of a free man, his bone shall be broken.” This shows how important wealthy, free men were thought to be. Poor peasants were to be treated differently. Law 198 states, “If he [wealthy man] has destroyed the eye of a peasant, or broken a bone of a peasant, he shall pay one a mina of silver.” With these to laws alone you can see the value of one’s life based on where they stand in society. Slaves were compensated with far less, if a wealthy man broke a bone or disabled them, the slave would be paid half of their value. Hammurabi’s equality of men or lack thereof was shocking, but just as shocking was how equal he made women seem. For instance Law 137 states “If a man decided to divorce…a wife who presented him with children, then he shall give her…property, and she shall bring up her children. After…take a son’s portion of all that is given to her children…” Allowing the women to raise her children on her own seemed to be his attempt of showing everyone was equal. In the law mentioned above he showed his thoughts of women equality, but in Law 117 he contradicts himself. In 117 he states that men are free to trade their wives and children for debt that they collected. Which shows that women were not all that equal after all. Although these laws are severe in today’s society, Hammurabi was in a way hoping people would break laws less knowing what was at stake.
Reply
Abigail Spence
1/10/2017 02:32:22 pm
Hey Becca, I completely agree with how surprising it was that some of these laws seem to favored women. When I mentioned it in my comment, I looked more on how women were basically paid if their husbands wanted a divorce. I would think that society would look at her and judge her instantly thinking she has done something immoral to deserve a divorce and not compensate her, but by law she should be. I like your take on the topic where even though women got some positives to raise her kids even after the divorce, there is always a loophole to the freedoms you are given. Men still have the power to trade your kids away. Even though it may look as if they are given some freedoms, there is always something else that contradicts such freedoms. Overall, all that I and many expected when it came to equality was met in these laws of judgments.
Reply
Johh Koroly
1/10/2017 09:27:15 am
I believe that Hammurabi's Code would have been very effective as a law code in some ways because since most rules stated involve death or an extremely harsh punishment it would make people not want to make the mistakes they have ever again. For example in law 200 it states, "If a man has knocked out the teeth of man at the same rank, his own teeth shall be knocked out." With knowing this law it can really lower the acts of violence because people know the price they could pay. The judgments also really seemed to be in advantage of the rich and puts the poor in a disadvantage.A law that proves this is law 201 stating,"If he has knocked out the teeth of a peasant, he shall pay one-third of a mina of silver,"which is rightfully not equal or fair for the peasant. It's just insane how a peasant was not given the same reward as an "upper class" person. A major social distinction is the rights of men compared to women's. A great example is law 38 which says, "A captain, soldier, or official may not give his field, or garden, or house to his wife or his daughter; neither can they be given as payment for debt." That law overall mean that those women can truly not own any property alone. That a man has to be the rightful owner of where they live, farm, etc. A law that really caught my attention was law 195 stating, "If a son has struck his father, his hands shall be cut off." It's just crazy how they cut right to the chase with the son getting his hands cut off. He doesn't have a say whatsoever. For all you know maybe he was defending himself because his father was beating him or maybe he was defending his mother, but nope his hands just get cut off. The law itself is just unfair for the son.
Reply
Zayed Makboul
1/10/2017 12:45:14 pm
I agree with you, the fact the upperclassmen had "special" rights where their punishments for mistreating peasants were less severe than for mistreating people of there own class was unfair. I also agree with you where you said it was unfair for women not to own property sadly it was "just the norm" back then but you make very good points in your comment.
Reply
Henry Nolan
1/10/2017 03:42:28 pm
I agree with what you're saying about these judgments scaring people into doing right instead of wrong. The punishments for crimes were extremely firm and each would completely change some ones life because of how serious they all are. I feel that the laws have good reason but needed more work on the punishments.
Reply
Anthony Rodriguez
1/10/2017 10:19:09 am
I believe that Hammurabi's judgements would have been an effectual law code at that time. These judgements kept a very strict society in which people wanted to follow these judgements, most people would be very scared to break these judgements and face the punishments. For example, in law 22, "If a man has perpetrated brigandage, and has been caught, that man shall be slain." Even though, this may sounds harsh, it was effective, and most people feared to break any law and face the punishment(s). In some cases, these judgements were benefiting the higher class rather than the lower class and the slaves. For example, laws 196 and 197 state, "If a man has destroyed the eye of another free man, his own eye shall be destroyed," then "If he has broken the bone of a free man, his bone shall be broken." But then, law 198 states, " If he has destroyed the eye of a peasant, or broken a bone of a peasant, he shall pay one mina of sliver." So, you can obviously see the distinctions between the higher class and lower class/ slaves. Hammurabi clearly believes there should be a distinction between the peasants and free men. We can also see a social distinction between the men and the women in his judgements. Hammurabi clearly seems to be more bias toward men rather than women. For example, law 38 states, "A captain, soldier, or official may not give his field, or garden, or house to his wife or his daughter..." So, clearly men were of a higher rate then women during this time period. There was one law that surprised me the most, which was law 230, "If the child of the householder is killed, the child of that builder shall be slain." This surprised me the most, mainly because the child had nothing to do with the actions of the parents, so why should they be killed if they did not do one thing wrong. It should not be their fault for something that their parents did, leading to the child being killed.
Reply
Chike Asuzu
1/10/2017 07:02:34 pm
I completely agree that Hammurabi's concept of equal trade offs of punishment, especially when it came to using children to balance the loss of both parties involved, was an extreme hard to stomach when the fault completely and solely lies on the adult(s).
Reply
Leanna M.
1/10/2017 10:21:03 am
[email protected] considering Hammurabi's judgements I believe these would be effective law codes because of how it addresses punishments reasonable for all people. Peasants don't pay as severely, monetary wise, as others would and physical punishments are fair, albeit brutal but fair nonetheless. Rules that affect the gender equality have clauses that benefit both genders, even though some rules seem as push against women rights, there are laws that defend them just as much as their are rules that defend the rights of men. Examples of these are some of the rules under the Marriage and Family category; rule 134 protects the woman if her spouse has been convicted and rule 148 allows a man to remarry when his ill wife dies if he supports her during her final days. Despite a number of their laws promote physical brutality as a reasonable punishment, these laws help to prevent such horrendous acts from even happening. A child would think twice of hitting his father if he knew he would lose his hands (law 195), same in which one would not dare to hurt another's eye in fear of losing his own. I'm not surprised by these laws or punishments because 1. These were in a time older than ours and 2. Some of these act on dubious moral principles that were socially acceptable at the time. In response to some the comments of my fellow peers, yes these rules aren't perfect but neither do they promote the benefits of the government. Hammurabi's laws are indeed flawed but they do protect the people, maybe not in the best way possible but a lot better than what could have been expected in the times B.C.E. I understand all your points and do see your views and understand your thought processes.
Reply
Cindy Bishop
1/10/2017 04:09:04 pm
I agree with you that the laws would be effective because they are clearly well thought about as they include punishments. However some laws have very harsh punishments that should have been reconsidered at the time. I also agree that it does focus on both genders some, but it mainly focuses on helping the male population having harsher punishments for a women if she does something bad in some cases.
Reply
Leanna M.
1/10/2017 10:23:36 am
Ignore my email at the top. Typo, my mistake. Sorry
Reply
Adeline Harris
1/10/2017 11:10:42 am
For the purposes of Hammurabi, I believe his code of law was very effective. The codes very much benefited those of his exact stature; elite men. His codes contain much prejudice, however, towards the lower class and women. In many of the laws to deal with marriage, a woman may not make the choice to divorce her husband, although it may appear in such a way. For example, law 141, "...if her husband says she is not divorced, her husband may marry another woman, and that [first] woman shall remain a slave in the house of her husband." It is plainly stated that the woman may ask for a divorce, but the husband must comply or she must live the life of a slave. To some women, MOST women, that would not be an option. A life of a slave could not have been much easier considering their lives were valued as less. As stated in law 200, "if a man has knocked out the teeth of a man of the same rank, his own teeth shall be knocked out." However, it is acceptable for a man to pay an amount of money for the life of a man. Stated in law 208, "if he is the son of a peasant, he shall pay a third of a mina of silver." From the perspective of someone who lives in today's society, these ideals seem barbaric and outrageous. On the other hand, I cannot say I was surprised much by the laws due to the time period such laws were set in place. This does not make it any more acceptable, but it just happened to be the social norms of the period.
Reply
Aubrey S.
1/10/2017 11:13:02 am
I think the Hammurabi's laws would be effective because the punishments for breaking the laws were so extreme, many would abstain from breaking them. The judgement's were of course to protect the people who lived in the civilizations that the rules were enforced. Social distinctions in Hammurabi's laws would be the cutting down on the price of the punishment if someone could not pay for it like law 140: " If there was no bride-price, he shall give her one mina of silver for the divorce. If he is a peasant, he shall give her one-third mina of silver." That made some the laws fair as possible so that someone of a lower social class can pay for their consequences. One of the most shocking law to me was law 209-210: " If a man strikes the daughter of a free man, and causes her fetus to abort, he shall pay ten shekels of silver for her fetus. If that woman dies, his daughter shall be slain." I think that's very extreme for the daughter to have to pay for her fathers wrongdoing with her life. Also law 195 stated," If a son has struck his father, his hands shall be cut off." I completely understanding respecting your parents, but cutting off their child's hands if absolutely overboard. Other than those laws, the others were justified in there own extreme way.
Reply
Jade G
1/10/2017 10:25:06 pm
I immensely agree with your comments of Hammurabi's code. If these codes were enforced as official laws they would rarely be broken. As controversial as they would be to the people then (and now) enforcing them would bring a stronger system. In addition I do believe some laws go to the extreme such as with the cutting off the hands. Not to mention innocent children paying for their parents mistakes is wrongful and unjust. Any mistake or fault that that person has made should be implied to them and not others. Plus other extreme laws could simply be resolved into different measures. But to put the time period into play the laws could have been pretty just to the the peoples eyes.
Reply
Susana Negrete
1/10/2017 11:23:11 am
After looking over Hammurabi's judgements I believe that they would have been effective as a law code. While his judgements may not necessarily be agreeable with modern times, they would be effective because Hammurabi used fear to control his people. The judgements were supposed to protect everyone; however, Hammurabi was in favor of those who had a higher status. For example, judgement 196 says, "If a man has destroyed the eye of another freeman, his own eye shall be destroyed". Yet judgement 198 states, " If he has destroyed the eye of a peasant...he shall pay one mina of silver". What surprised me was that, even though women were not given much power, they were still protected and had some rights.. For example, judgment 142 that if a woman hates her husband because he neglected her, she cannot be blamed.
Reply
Madeline Toombs
1/10/2017 01:29:01 pm
I do agree with what you say about inequality in the system. I did notice that there were mentions of slavery and how it was implied that the slaves had prices, which indicated that people were being bought and sold and treated as property. I also noticed that there were few mentions of daughters unless they were pregnant which led me to believe that women were seen as the keeper of the children. The fact that richer people could get out of punishment by paying gives evidence to what you said about social statuses.
Reply
Zion Fitch
1/10/2017 03:42:44 pm
I strongly agree with you Susanna. I do agree Hammurabi's code would have been very effective and I also picked up on the fact that slaves and peasants were treaty as property. The peasants seemed to only have monetary value and were not be considered as people. I also, hated how unjust the laws were. Wealthier people were able to get away with so much and escape harsh punishments and that is still evident in today's society.
Gina Trotta
1/10/2017 06:01:34 pm
I agree with you on the fact that women were degraded in their rights, being that they get laws with almost worse punishments than men. Plus, the fear tactics used are over the edge, though it is effective in having people do the right thing.
Reply
Madigan H.
1/13/2017 02:36:18 am
Hammurabi's laws would've have been effective solely because of how frightening the punishments are. Hammurabi seemed to subscribe to Machiavelli's rule of being feared is better than being loved. I also agree with what you said about him favoring the class system, it is quite obvious he was playing favourites with the upper class. While there are laws in place that protect women, you can't ignore the blatantly unfair ones that call for death when no law seems to exist for men who commit the same crime.
Reply
Maryury Deloya
1/10/2017 11:24:36 am
Hammurabi's Code would have had some disadvantages, but it would mostly be affective. When people commit crimes, they do not know what to expect. Some may get minor punishments, others major punishment. In his code, it is clear to what will happen if they commit the specific crime. These laws would mostly benefit the people in a higher class or status, noticing the unfairness with "peasants" in code 202. This code states that if a higher status was hit, then they shall receive sixty lashes if front of many people, publicly humiliating them. Social inequality also continues through codes 200 and 201. If a peasant is hit, he shall receive half or one-third of what a higher class would had received. Some law codes did take me by suprise, such as code 185, which states that if a child son strikes his father, his hands shall be cut off. This represents the amount of respect that is needed between a child and his father. One could not simply disrespect his parents without seeking punishment. Nowadays, a child could get away with disrespecting his parents and getting no punishment. Although many of the law codes seem extreme, it could have helped to minimize the amount of crimes that occurred. Many of the codes are either fair or unfair, but people would be aware of the consequences of their actions before they could commit them.
Reply
Fatema Momin
1/10/2017 03:41:51 pm
I agree with you on your views of Hammurabi's code. I agree that his law mostly benefits the higher class, leaving the peasants with injustice. I also agree with how you said how kids nowadays if they disrespect their parents they could get away with it, but in Hammurabi's law it says that if they "strike" the father there hands will be cut off.
Reply
Blake Williams
1/10/2017 12:12:25 pm
I do not feel as if Hammurabi's "law Codes " should really be considered as a law code. Most of these codes consist of somebody being slain or its like an eye for an eye type of thing. To me that isn't how a legislative system should run. A big down side is that these law codes protect people that a more superior or that have some sort of power. In code 209 it states that, " If a man strikes the daughter of a free man, and causes her fetus to abort, he shall pay ten shekels of silver for her fetus." And then in code 211 " If he has caused the daughter of a peasant to let her fetus abort through blows, he shall pay five shekels of silver." What proves my point is that just because she is the daughter of a peasant but yet still free, the person who struck her will only have to pay five shekels of silver. You can tell through out these law codes Hammurabi's gave us on a stone pillar, is that women or anything under a man is inferior. In code 110 its tells us, " If a priestess who has not remained in the temple, shall open a wine- shop, or enter a wine- shop for drink, that women shall be burned." To further my point in code 202, " If a man strikes the body of a man superior to his status, he shall publicly receive sixty lashes with a cowhide whip..." This one was the most surprising to me, i feel if a man who is "superior" to you is being rude to you and your family you should have the right to show him what's up. Furthermore Hammurabi's judgments shouldn't be law codes they might have worked back before the common era but definitely not in this society.
Reply
1/10/2017 12:20:37 pm
After considering the context of Hammurabi's Judgments, I believe that these laws would have been an effective legal system for the time period (1750 B.C.E). At the time, punishments for malfeasance were based predominantly on an "eye for an eye" basis and this was effective for both judging and deterring crimes. Because of the social hierarchy of the Mesopotamian civilization, most of the lower class would of been less willing to abide by the judgments of Hammurabi due to the increased severity of punishments for them opposed to that of the middle and upper classes. However, this standing social pyramid also justified the imbalance of judgments between slaves, peasants, and women, as they were believed to be beneath men holding wealth or property. The context and developed beliefs during the ancient time period made Hammurabi's judgments fair and probably successful in the opinions of the Mesopotamian people. I feel that the judgments of Hammurabi were meant to protect or benefit men owning property or holding wealth and the prestigious class. This clear disparity is evident by the judgment stating that "if [a man] has destroyed the bone of a peasant, than he shall pay one mina of silver," compared to "if he has broken the bone of a free man, then his own bone shall be destroyed." Often, the laws force the wealthy to pay if they hurt a slave or a peasant, when if a peasant hurts a wealthy man they are faced with death. Clear social distinctions are evident in the judgments of Hammurabi. As previously stated, peasants were far lower on the social hierarchy than the wealthy, and slaves were on the very bottom. Women also were clearly below men in the social pyramid, as "if the wife of a man is found lying with another male, they shall be bound and thrown into the water". This and the other judgments show that women had much less freedom than men did, and were more tied into marriage than men were. It was much more difficult for a woman to divorce a man than for a man to divorce a woman. One specific judgment that surprised me was number 211, which states "if [a man] has caused the daughter of that peasant to let her fetus abort through blows, than he shall pay five shekels of silver." This was surprising to me, because the death of a prenatal child of the daughter of a peasant was worth a sum of money, while the death of a rich mans child was worth the lives of the family that caused the death. This judgment showed just how imbalanced the social classes were, and the fact that a price was determined for the worth of someone's life was very surprising and sad.
Reply
Zayed Makboul
1/10/2017 12:35:49 pm
I definitely believe that Hammurabi's law code would have been a very effective. The laws were extremely brutal and had deadly consequences for being broken, which would make people think twice before committing a crime. I'm not saying the laws are agreeable with modern times but they would still be effective. The laws were supposedly for all the people to have justice and to be protected but in reality they favored the upperclass. In judgement 202 it states that " If a man strikes the body of a man who is superior in status, he shall publicly receive sixty lashes with a cowhide whip" this entails that the punishment for hitting someone in a higher class than you is worse than the punishment for hitting someone of the same class as yourself or in a lower class then you which is unfair and more favorable of the upperclass. Again in judgement 196 it's says that "if a free man destroyed the eye of another free man then his eye would be destroyed" but in judgement 197 it says that "if a free man destroyed the eye of a peasant then he would have to pay one Mina of silver" which was very unfair to the peasants. The Laws of code were not at all surprising that's just how things were back then. But in end these laws would be effective in our time because people would be afraid and fear can have a very strong hold on people's actions, in the case it would keep people from committing crime
Reply
Rachel Panettiere
1/10/2017 01:37:35 pm
I agree with you about the consequences of breaking Hammurabi's law codes. It definitely appears as if he was attempting to instill fear in his kingdom. I also agree with what you said about him favoring the upper class, as the punishments for committing a crime against a man of high social standing was much greater than committing a crime against a peasant.
Reply
Madeline Toombs
1/10/2017 01:17:46 pm
Hammurabi's judgments were basically meant to ensure there is justice for all wrong doings. I do think the judgments were effective as a law code because the consequences because the consequences were harsh enough that it is unlikely anyone would knowingly break break them. The judgments were meant to protect the citizens in the civilization. There are more laws referring to wives, sons, and fathers than there are to daughters (unless they are pregnant). Women are considered less than men however, they reserve the power to leave their husbands and are more respected if they have sons. There are also references to slaves and free men indicating that there is some sort of social structure where there is an oppressor. Some of the laws were surprising. Code 195 details sons getting both their hands cut off for striking their fathers. It was a bit shocking to read at first because it sounded exaggerated.
Reply
Aubrey S.
1/10/2017 05:36:14 pm
I strongly agree with your point of people not breaking law because of the consequences and how severe they are. You also pointed out the rules being towards more towards the men also but maybe cause woman didn't play much of a role outside the house to even get into any kind of trouble. Law 195 also shocked me, i agree that's a bit extreme. Maybe this was to scare the children so they wouldn't think about putting their hands on a parent.
Reply
Rachel Panettiere
1/10/2017 01:23:02 pm
I think Hammurabi’s judgments would have been effective as a law code because they are relevant to the way of thinking during this time, which mostly pertained to the value of status and property. Many of the rulings focus on the significance of a man’s status and the grave punishments for those who disregard said status. For example, code 202 states that, “If a man strikes the body of a man who is superior in status, he shall publicly receive sixty lashes with a cowhide whip”. A man’s property went hand in hand with his status. The more land and slaves that he owned, along with how many wives and sons he had, displayed how high his social standing was. Because of this, property was strongly protected as well. For instance, code 22 says that, “If a man has perpetrated brigandage, and has been caught, that man shall be slain”. Since earnings and social ranking were so highly valued, the law codes are mostly meant to protect and benefit freeborn men that were not peasants. Hammurabi’s law codes depicted a social pyramid in which free men of considerable wealth stood at the top, then peasants, and then women and slaves. This is evident in the Personal Injury section where it says “if he has broken the bone of a free man, his bone shall be broken”, and, “if he has destroyed the eye of a peasant, or broken a bone of a peasant, he shall pay one mina of silver”. Also, “if he has destroyed the eye of a man’s slave, or broken a bone of the man’s slave, he shall pay half his value”, and, “if a man strikes the daughter of a free man, and causes her fetus to abort, he shall pay ten shekels of silver for her fetus”. It is important to note that in the matter of personal injuries, the severity of punishment decreases as you go from a free man to a woman’s fetus. One specific law code that surprised me was code 218, which states that, “If a physician has a treated a man with a metal knife for a severe wound, and has caused the man to die, or has opened a man’s tumor with a metal knife, and destroyed the man’s eye, his hands shall be cut off”. This particular law surprised me the most because it shows how seriously patients were protected in this time period, as opposed to today.
Reply
Priyanka Patel
1/10/2017 01:24:06 pm
I believe that Hammurabi’s judgments would have been effective as a law code especially because many people were frightened to face the consequences if they had broken a law. Since people would be so scared to break a law due to the punishment that they would receive, Hammurabi’s judgments would have been an effective law code because people would be so scared to go against the laws. He basically wanted to scare the people before they committed a crime. It seems that the judgments would have protected the elite or the upper class because if the elite were to break one of the laws, they would be able to pay with silver because they would be able to afford it. For example, if a man that is in the upper class had wanted to divorce his wife but there was no bride-price, then that man would be able to give her "one mina of silver" because he could afford it. Also, a man of higher status seems to have more of a say in what happens rather than if it was a slave committing a crime. Also, there were some social distinctions present. Much of the laws were divided based on the different people. There would be some laws that had the division between man, wife, son, and daughter and others were divided based on free man, peasant, and slave. What surprised me was the amount of laws that benefited women. For example, "If a man has been taken prisoner, and there is no food in the house, and his wife enters the house of another, then that women bears no blame." This shows how women do have a say in some cases. Also, I was surprised as how slaves and peasants do not get the same equality as men of a higher status. If a slave was to receive money or silver, they would only receive half or a third of the amount a man of a higher status would get. I feel that no matter what your status is, that there should be one amount that everyone should receive because at the end of the day, there was a crime committed.
Reply
Chesley Lucas
1/10/2017 01:43:51 pm
I agree with you that the main purpose of these laws was to use scare tactics to deter people from committing crimes. I also agree with your statements on the clear double standards and the clear social distinctions. However, I do think that it guaranteed some rights to women and lower-class individuals, even though they weren't as highly valued.
Reply
I do think Hammurabi’s Code would have been effective to impose justice at that time. Since the consequences and punishments were so harsh, there would be less people breaking the law. A more stabilized society could have been the result of having such a strict set of rules. According to Hammurabi, this law code was meant to protect everyone. However, there was a clear social distinction. The rich or the elites were more benefited. One example is how they could get away with breaking the law by paying. Code 198 states, “If he has destroyed the eye of a peasant, or broken a bone of a peasant, he shall pay one mina of silver.” On the other hand the people with lower social status and the slaves had to face the consequences and suffer the punishment. I was surprised by how many laws there were regarding marriage and family. The code that also surprised me was code 195, “If a son has struck his father, his hands shall be cut off.” Although children should not be disrespectful to their parents, I think this punishment is a little bit too harsh.
Reply
Esteban Alarcon
1/10/2017 01:25:48 pm
From a mileanials point of view, the the judgments of Hammurabi would seem unethical, but considering the era in which they were devised, they would have been effective as a law code. Hammurabi wanted to “‘promote the welfare of the people...to cause justice to prevail in the land, to destroy the wicked and the evil, that the strong might not oppress the weak.’” . He formulated the codes from specific situations that had occurred in his civilization, thus allowing application to take place when using these laws. Due to the creation of these codes taking place in the eighteenth century B.C.E, there was a distinction of a blatant bias that leaned in favor of males of the higher class. Code 141 declares “If a man’s wife, dwelling in his house, has decided to leave, has been guilty of dissipation, has wasted her house, and has neglected her husband, then she shall be prosecuted. If her husband says she is divorced, he shall let her go her way; he shall give her nothing for divorce. If her husband says she is not divorced, her husband may marry another woman, and that [first] woman will remain a slave in the house of her husband.”. This code depicts the contrast in justification of a man versus of a woman. Though both the man and woman would be punished for neglecting their spouse and household, the severity of the consequences of a woman is beyond that of a man. Codes 207-208 exhibit the contrast of equality in those of different classes when it states “If he dies of his blows, he shall swear likewise; and if it is the son of a freeman, he shall pay half a mina of silver. If he is the son of a peasant, he shall pay a third of a mina of silver.”. The urgency of the punishment, whether it be a fee or physical infliction, increases as the class of the prosecuted decreases, exemplifying inequality in this justice system. After considering the perspective of someone of that era, none of the laws or implications surprised me. We must understand their influence on morals and ethics.
Reply
1/10/2017 02:36:03 pm
I completely agree with you that these laws would be atrocious in our time, but they were appropriate for the social schema that most people had in that era. People needed a structured system of laws, yet not one that was meant to categorize and dehumanize ones fellow man. I feel this system worked but could have been more ethical and open to interpretation in some sort of court of law to address the crime in question.
Reply
Joanna Shephard
1/10/2017 01:32:09 pm
Hammurabi’s judgments were a series of rulings that were to be administered on certain crimes. The judgments were meant to standardize law across Mesopotamia. The rulings were not equal for everyone. They varied greatly depending on social status or gender.
Reply
Courtney Moody
1/10/2017 01:43:27 pm
I don't think these specific laws would be helpful in the slightest but some of the basic ideas for some laws could be applied today. The idea of if you are caught harboring a fugitive you are going to be punished is one we share today. Although their ideas of justice often favored the higher class, and men. The fact they have to make laws like 207, and 208 shows that the higher classes were more highly favored. I found it somewhat interesting that in law 195 it says, "If a son struck his father, his hands shall be cut off." It references what would happen if a son was physical with his father, but not what would happen if the parents picked a fight with their children.
Reply
Hope Kutshe
1/10/2017 05:04:41 pm
Hello, Courtney! I agree that a lot of these laws wouldn't work today. I noticed that they said the laws were written in response to specific cases, so the case being tried would have to be very specific for any law to apply to it at all. I also thought it was interesting how much they favored male heads of higher ranking families. Like your point about there being no law against a father striking a son, there seem to be many laws that give the father of a family much more power than his wife or his children. The main one that highlights this and surprised me was the law that mentioned a father could give away his wife and children as slaves to pay off a debt.
Reply
Chesley Lucas
1/10/2017 01:52:21 pm
I believe that these laws wouldn't have been very effective, especially among higher-class individuals, because they didn't have as much repercussions for their crimes. However, it would have been more effective for lower class individuals, because they would have feared repercussions for their crimes. It is clear that these laws benefited the upper-class individuals and society: "if a man knocks out the teeth of someone of the same rank, than his own people be knocked out", however "if a man knocks out the teeth of a peasant, he shall pay one third of a mina of silver". I am not surprised by these laws, especially because of the time period they were made in. However, something that did surprised me was how women and lower class people were given some rights. Women could become divorced if they were neglected or mistreated by their husbands, and lower class individuals could get some reparations for crimes against them or their families. From today's points of view and standards within our society these laws definitely seems very unethical and very discriminatory. However, considering these laws were made in a different time, when different people were treated as less than human it is not surprising.
Reply
I completely agree with your response. Hammurabi’s code clearly benefited the higher class society since the consequences for them were insignificant. For the lower class individuals the punishments were too severe. The social class distinction that is seen in this law code is definitely unfair. I’m also surprised by how women were given rights and they somewhat benefited by some laws.
Reply
Morgan Brown
1/10/2017 02:59:42 pm
I definitely agree with the bit you mentioned about how higher class citizens had less repercussions for their actions. The worst punishments for harming a low class citizen if you where upper class was paying money, which is ridiculous compared to losing actual body parts like if you where of the same class. Its almost funny how he blatantly just calls lower class people "peasants" and is noticeably mean to them. It was definitely a different time, almost feels like a different world.
Reply
Abigail Spence
1/10/2017 02:11:29 pm
In my opinion, I think that Hammurabi's judgement would have been very effective as a law code in his time period. Those were simpler times when people had less variety of property in their name, and only cared about social status and labor. In today's world people have more than just land that they defend in court, children to work the family business and slaves. This list of judgments was just enough to cover the priorities during Hammurabi's rule. The judgments were meant to protect people of higher statues and mostly men. There are different judgement for people of different statues. For example, in law 207, it says, "if he [the victim] dies of his blows, he [the murderer] shall swear likewise; and if it is the son of a free man, he [the murderer] shall pay half a mina of silver." When it comes to a peasant's death, law 208 says, "he [the murderer] shall pay a mina of silver." This shows that the life of man of a higher status is worth more than a peasants. It was also protected the King himself, who is at the top of the social ladder, by keeping his kingdom in line and maintaining his power over the people. Other than social distinctions between people of different classes or ranks, such as the wealthy, the peasants, and slaves, there are also gender distinctions. In law 129, it reads that "if the wife of a man is found lying with another male, they shall be bound and thrown into the water." There are no similar judgement for men. In some cases, it made it seem acceptable for men to have more than one partners while women would be punished for the same actions. Lastly, most of these laws did not surprise me. The roll of women and men were always different since the beginning of the human race. Even as hunters and gatherers women had different jobs from men, so it was obvious that they would be treated differently in different aspects of life. Things that did surprise me was that women could get back a portion of their bridal-price or dowery based on the circumstances of their divorced. This was slightly favorable to women, which was the surprise to me. Besides this small detail, all the other laws were as expected.
Reply
Nathaniel Kem
1/10/2017 02:12:15 pm
Hammurabi's judgements would make for an effective law code, helping maintain order in the lands of Babylon. The judgements satisfied the heavily patriarchal society of the time, whilst seeming just to the people of the land. They protected the rights of the many women and children, protecting them from external abuse. Although I hardly got surprises over the fact that the women and children were equivalent to property of the man, I was surprised at the inheritance laws whereby the wife got a share of the land if the child was not of age. I expected the land to be distributed to the family of the deceased, but it was to the contrary.
Reply
Rachel Kudina
1/10/2017 02:38:05 pm
Most of Hammurabi's judgments were anything but fair, but it was effective because the people who the laws didn't protect obeyed them. The judgments he made were really only supposed to benefit upper class people and specifically males, which leaves out an entire other group of people. Based on his judgments the way social standards were back then is that if you were rich, you're a top priority and you're at the front of the line, whereas if you are a peasant, or even just someone who wasn't exactly rich, you're not that important and the justice you may or may not deserve can wait. Honestly, none of the rules surprised me because there were a few that were actually fair; for example if you build someone's house wrong and a wall falls and damages their items, you have to compensate for them, but the ones that completely disregard women, children, and people without a certain amount of wealth were harsh, but they were not surprising to me because people were not really seen as equal at those times, so of course there were different standards.
Reply
Morgan Brown
1/10/2017 02:54:43 pm
Looking at the language in the writing was really setting a tone of regality to these words even though he claims its made for the people. Also many of these rules are very specific and maybe even hard to follow if someone isn't well educated or aware of their social position or families position in society. Its surprising how the laws seem to truly try to benefit its people but really come across as things only a law man could remember or even know. In order to properly serve and protect, the people must be aware of whats expected of them. He obviously attempts to make all aware by writing it on a stone pillar but I doubt that could reach all his subjects. Many of these laws center around punishments even taking the term eye for an eye literally which definitely date them. This most likely would be effective during this time since the world was a very different place. Also peasants or low class people were definitely treated poorly as reflected by the minor punishments given to people who mistreat them (again look at the bits about destroyed eyes).
Reply
Gillian Ashley
1/10/2017 03:05:53 pm
I like that you mention the lens, although not in as full depth as was possible, but neither did I if I am honest with myself, so it doesn't really matter. And while I agree with all of the points you make, I feel there were more points you could have made, such as the son getting his hands cut off, the unfair divorce laws, or the part about the surgeons getting bits chopped off because a patient died. However, what you do have is accurate, to the point, and probably better organized than my post if I'm being honest with myself.
Reply
Gillian Ashley
1/10/2017 02:59:32 pm
While these laws were most likely at the time not only just and fair, but the most sophisticated set of laws ever seen, looking at them through today's lens causes them to appear as anything but. Unless you were a 'Free Man', these laws appear to have not fulfilled their purpose - unless a 'Mina' is worth far more than I suspect, in which case it may have done more than I initially thought. They were unfair to children, these rules - just look at the consequences of striking a man! If you were the child of the man in question, you would get your hands chopped off, while everyone else merely had to pay a fine. This also seems to be the beginning of the Unfair Divorce Laws - something humanity didn't get rid of for a long time. A man may simply leave and yet a woman is tied to him unless he says she may go? In what world does that seem even remotely fair? And yet it was not only the law but remained the law for a long time, and many women are still scared of filing for divorce for fear their husbands shall do something to them or their children. Not only are these rules unfair, they are confusing, as rules 38 and 39 seem to be telling me opposite things are true, so which is it? In short, these laws, this code, is important as a fore-barer to the law systems of today, but trying to follow it would be a tragic mistake - it needs to stay in the past where it belongs.
Reply
Mycah Brooks
1/10/2017 03:04:16 pm
I feel that, Hammurabi's judgement, was something that worked at the time, but now it would be unethical to follow. The judgements i feel were more made to protect men. Women are only briefly mentioned in the article to have any rights. We can see, that men are based higher in a social level then women. Some of the laws that i found surprising were the laws on felons and victims. I was surprised to see that people could get the death sentence for the simplest of crimes.
Reply
Chloe Vernex-Loset
1/10/2017 07:50:42 pm
I was also surprised by how easy it was for them to just say "death solves that problem". Like the law that states that "a women caught lying with another man, shall be bound and thrown into the river", that's way unnecessary.
Reply
Cole Wilson
1/10/2017 03:06:11 pm
Hammurabi's laws made for sufficient protection from many crimes that plagued society and provided a tight and high standard of product quality assurance in a time of rudimentary practices. They clearly bias towards men, and especially men of a higher social status, though these laws did provide decent protection of women and children from abuse and gave the wife rights not seen in many societies at the time. The laws did surprise me with its children first leaning philosophy when it came to unfortunate events.
Reply
Henry Nolan
1/10/2017 03:30:44 pm
Hammurabi's judgments were unethical in certain ways, however I can see how these laws would have helped prevent crime or other misdemeanors. For example law 218 talks about how if a surgeon doesn't complete a surgery correctly his hands could be cut off as punishment. Also his second law says that if a judge is found to have been wrong about a verdict that he will be thrown from the stand and never to return to the bench of judges. I see how laws like these that he came up with helped to protect those who had been wronged. The structure of a government was beginning to form.
Reply
Jared Nolen
1/10/2017 06:20:37 pm
I do strongly agree with your statements. It was shocking to me reading the laws that were in place. Quite frankly, many of them made me sick to me stomach just thinking about them. The laws seemed to be layed out in an "eye for an eye" system which causes ethical issues as you stated. I do agree with the statement you made about a government starting to form, in my opinion, I saw a dictatorship on the horizon as one single man was controlling the laws of many.
Reply
Zion Fitch
1/10/2017 03:35:01 pm
I believe at the time of Hammurabi's code, his laws would have been very effective for that time period. Even though many of Hammurabi's rules were cruel and unnecessarily intense, I believe people would have respected the laws and there would be little crime due to the severe punishments. Also some of Hammurabi's laws did try to make people equal. There were laws for women that protected them and although they weren't the best it was still very surprising to see. laws that protected women were extremely uncommon in that day and age. Hammurabi's code was meant to benefit the freed men and property owners. On the other hand the law did not protect the slaves and lower class. The slaves were basically seen as worthless. Law 200 states, "If a man has knocked out the teeth of a man the same rank, his own teeth shall be knocked out." However law 201 states, " If he has knocked out the teeth a peasant he shall pay 1/3 of a mina of silver." These laws are completely unfair to the lower ranked people. The social distinctions of Hammurabi's code are unjust and unfair.
Reply
Brad Pilcher
1/10/2017 03:37:02 pm
Hammurabi's Law Code was a set of laws that came with a fine print, which symbolically read: Men of high class get more protection then the common man. These laws would not be effective today as a law code, but social structure has evolved with the evolution of man and mind over the centuries. Back in Babylonian times under Hammurabi's crown, the structure was very biased towards aristocrats and the wealthy elite MEN. Women weren't very protected but restricted. Many of the laws, seeing that this is a very early civil time, do not surprise me because the laws benefit the social structure set forth by the organization of civilization.
Reply
Elizabeth M
2/27/2017 06:58:38 am
I definitely agree with you on the point that the code favored men, especially elite and free ones, heavily. How you emphasized that it was men that were favored clearly showed the bias towards men in this code. I agree with you on the point that women weren't really protected by the code and they were definitely restricted heavily by it.
Reply
Jada D
1/10/2017 03:44:53 pm
In my opinion Hammurabi's judgments would've have been an effective law code for the wealthy and upper-class citizens in ancient Babylonian times. Based on these code of laws, the servants and the peasants were treated as less than the rest of society. The severity of each crime depended on your gender and social roles in society. For example, if a man killed a free pregnant women then the penalty was death, however if a man killed a peasant then the penalty was to pay a fine. These judgments did not show that every single life has value. These laws were made to establish a sense of justice and fairness throughout all of the land for everyone, however the women, men, the rich, and the poor were treated in a different fashion under the law. If an highborn elite were to wrong a person on the same status then the punishment was equal to their wrongdoing, however if a peasant wronged an upper-class citizen then their punishment was death. In ancient Babylonian times, a woman's womb and fertility was sacred so if a woman committed adultery then the punishment was death however if a man committed adultery then the punishment was to simply give his wife her dowry. The law was presented to enforce the laws of the Babylonian god, Marduk. Since the laws dictated what a person could or could not do, the morals of the people were already selected. The law instilled fear in the lower classes because it had such a strong moral system and the upper-class was somewhat protected by the law. In the epilogue, Hammurabi spoke highly of himself and his laws as if they were sent from a high power beyond creation. What surprised me was the fact that he made the laws according to his judgment. An imperfect man does not have the right to judge and correct the personal principles and behavior of another imperfect being.
Reply
Abir Ghallab
1/10/2017 04:05:22 pm
Things are constantly changing and evolving as time moves forward and along with this are the choices we make. When we make decisions that are guaranteed to affect at that moment, we tend to choose the ones that will benefit us the best. In this case, Hammurabi created a law of codes that he believed would be most beneficial to himself and his people. In the prologue Hammurabi expresses that these laws are "to promote the welfare of the people...to cause justice to prevail in the land, to destroy the wicked and the evil,that the strong might not oppress the weak, so we can see his effort to create the most effective laws. After considering Hammurabi's judgements, I believe that they would have been effective as a law code at that time. Hammurabi reigned from about 1792-1750 B.C.E and at that time I do feel that these laws would have been effective. Laws are constantly being altered to fit the time periods, so at that stage of advancement, the laws would have had potent results. The law code Hammurabi fabricated created a sense of fear by his people. As the citizens feared him and his laws, they were most likely not to fall out of line. Even though the laws would not work in modern times as they do not come close to covering everything in today's society, they do, however, meet the standards of 1750 B.C.E. It is clearly shown that Hammurabi's judgements were meant to benefit and protect the higher class or the individuals seen as elite in the social class structure. He also shows a gender biased towards men, which is commonly seen under marriage and the family. For example law 129 states "If the wife of a man is found lying with another man, they shall be bound and thrown into the water." There is only a law that addresses adultery toward women, but none toward men who commit this same crime. This obviously shows gender biased as there is leniency towards men. Social distinctions seen in Hammurabi's law code comprise mostly between individuals in the upper classes compared to ones known as peasants. There was a hierarchy and it is seen in his law code. In law 140, Hammurabi's specifically mentions the lower class as it states "If he is a peasant, he shall give her one-third of a mina of sliver.". Again in law 38 we see he has specifically mentioned individuals of a social class as he says "A captain, soldier, or official may not give his field, or garden, or house to his wife or his daughter:...". I think what was surprising to me was how oddly distinct each law was and how they each went along with very specific circumstances.
Reply
Cindy Bishop
1/10/2017 04:23:27 pm
Hammurabi's judgements would have been effective as they provided a clear specific penalties to specific actions, although many of the punishments were very harsh. The judgements were mainly made to protect men and upper class citizens as they were mostly treated better then a lower class citizen. The greatest distinction can be observed in law 200 and 201, which is the same law just different punishment because it has been done to a lower ranking person. It showed that if cruel act has been preformed to an upper class man then they shall get the same act that they had preformed on the man. However if a peasant is injured the same way an higher class person is all the person has to do is pay a very small amount. Something that was really surprising was law 195, because it talks about what happens if a son injures his father but what happens if the father injures his son there is no written law as to what kind of punishment the father would get. Abuse isn't acceptable from any family member to another, and should not be taken lightly.
Reply
Hope Kutsche
1/10/2017 04:39:55 pm
I think they would have been fairly effective as a law code. It seems that most of the laws would work well and in total they all sound as if they'd work as they intended, but there are flaws. There are major gaps and obvious loopholes available, and there's no laws protecting the government's power to have the final say on something not explicitly written into law. These judgements were made to protect and benefit people (mostly higher ranking males) who were done injustice, had been hurt, or people who were in debt/owed a debt. We can definitely see major social distinctions between the classes, especially the outlook that peasants don't fully qualify as people, and neither do slaves. We also see a distinction between male and female, as the males seem to have final say over things like divorce and marriage. Most of these laws and implications didn't surprise me because they do seem to make sense, but some things surprised me, like the "eye for an eye" way of thinking and the way that male heads of family could give away their family as slaves. I expected the eye for an eye way of writing laws but I hadn't expected that an eye of a high ranking person would be seen as worth more than the eye of a peasant or slave.
Reply
Bahaar Esfahani
1/10/2017 05:07:05 pm
I completely agree about the loopholes in the laws. There are very easy ways to get out of the punishments, but I don't think they were as effective as they could be. I think they discouraged doing unmoral things, but they seemed to make it easier to commit crimes if it were against someone with low status. You know?
Reply
Maggie Huff
1/10/2017 06:16:57 pm
I also recognized some of the loopholes weaved into the judgments, and they were a little astonishing. It seems like even though the punishments were harsh there were several ways to get out of most of them, especially the laws concerning property. They are subtle but definitely there.
Reply
Chloe Vernex-Loset
1/10/2017 07:45:53 pm
When you look back on those times, people literally were their money. IF you had no money, you were nothing. I understand your point but, i disagree with your last sentence. It was completely normal for them to just whip a peasant, or take whatever little money they had.
Reply
Karen Flores
1/10/2017 04:56:38 pm
Taking into consideration Hammurabi's judgements, personally I would suggest that for the period of time this is being taken place it's effective as a law code. There was a clear bias towards men especially those at a higher rank, the judgments would mostly benefit those who fit into that division. There was a definite stigma that females and "peasants" were considered less indispensable than that of an upper class male. Females have no control of certain things such as wanting to be divorced, but if switched the other way around the man has complete choice towards the argument of divorce. A female will only be allowed to divorce her spouse as long as he consents, if not she become a servant to him and the husband can marry another woman. To support my accusation towards servants being treated differently at first assumption rule 200 "if a man has knocked out the teeth of a man of the same rank, his own teeth shall be knocked out" seems to show equality towards both parties. However compared to rule 201 it clearly states "If he has knocked out the teeth of a peasant, he shall pay one-third of a mina of silver. ". Proving that the punishment is only different depending on the rank of the particular person in question. Considering the time and how particular people were viewed I'm not surprised by the laws or their implications. Although today it seems unethical with new different kinds of views in place I had to take in account the perspective of others during that time.
Reply
Bahaar Esfahani
1/10/2017 04:58:50 pm
Hammurabi's laws, while setting rules for society that definitely discourage violence and other crimes, are not as effective as they could be. The rules clearly favored men of higher status, making punishments for the same crime more or less severe based on the social status of the victim. For example, the difference between punishments for the same crime in rule 196 ("If a man has destroyed the eye of another free man, his own eye shall be destroyed") verses rule 198 ("If he has destroyed the eye of a peasant... he shall pay one mina of silver") is made less severe if the victim is a peasant. This would not be accepted by any means in our society. If the difference of punishment in America for killing a person was based on the murdered individual's living situation, that would not be tolerated, and for obvious reason too. The judgments were meant to protect all people, but if you were a male of high social status, the laws protected you more than, for example, a woman of no status. Clearly, his implication of these laws was socially motivated. One specific law that stood out to me above the others was 210: "[If a man strikes the daughter of a free man and] that woman dies, his daughter shall be slain." In all honesty, I'm not positive if I interpreted that law correctly, but what I got from it was that if a man murdered someone, his daughter would be killed. What if that man doesn't have a daughter? Will he be left with no punishment? How would that be punishment to the murderer? That sounds incredibly unfair to kill a completely innocent person as punishment to a murderer. That, out of all of the laws, shocked and disappointed me the most.
Reply
Morgan S.
1/10/2017 05:22:35 pm
Hammurabi’s judgments may have been effective in their time as a code of conduct. The judgments cover a variety of situations giving distinct consequences, but if a new situation was to arise the judgments may not have the solution to the problem, in which case there may be quarrels. Although the judgments prevent quarrels and protect those who have been wronged. For instance, code 22 and 23 under Felons and Victims protects the victim of the robbery and if possible gives punishes the brigand. Most codes under personal injury do the same using the "eye for an eye" approach, quite literally. Although if a female is wronged the husband or father of that female is looked at as the one who has been wronged, and the compensations are rewarded to him. Although laws concerning these circumstances would shock many in the twenty-first century, it doesn't come as a surprise considering the era in which the lived.
Reply
1/10/2017 05:32:49 pm
The 'Codes of Hammurabi', to me, show one of the first cases of authoritarianism. While some may argue that the government is an extension of the people, and the laws of said government are put by the people, however indirectly. That, to me, is not true, as the king, as it says in the article, forcefully united Mesopotamia. This means that these laws that were put in place, were by the king, not the people, and because of that fact, were probably not very effective.
Reply
Gina Trotta
1/10/2017 05:45:11 pm
I believe that in a way, Hammurabi's law could be effective, being that he gave laws that were scare tactics that could make people do the right thing in order not to be slain, burned, or given a harmful punishment that could lead to death. For instance, Hammurabi states that "If the wife of a man is found lying with another male, they shall be bound and thrown in the water." This punishment, though a bit extreme, gives women a reason not to commit the crime put forth, since no woman wants to die drowning from this type of crime. Though it does get a bit more extreme when it talks about the priestess and how she shall not leave the temple she vowed her life to, serving the deity, by saying that "If [she] leaves, she shall be burned." The fact that these laws somehow scare the people into not committing crimes, instead of letting people make the choice to do so on their own, makes Hammurabi’s laws effective as a law code. Some of these laws did in fact surprise me, such as the law that pertains to a surgeon who fails to keep a man alive while performing a surgery on him. I honestly don’t believe that cutting his hands off would be the best punishment for someone who tried not to let the man die. This surprises me that they would do this because something that could be completely out of someone’s control could happen, impacting the surgery greatly, which could result in a huge punishment. Though, this law does keep the surgeon focused on the surgery, making sure it goes well and that he doesn’t let him die, so he won’t have to live life without his hands. All of these scare tactics don’t make the laws ‘right’, but they make them extremely effective.
Reply
Gina Trotta
1/10/2017 05:53:09 pm
Additionally, these laws seemed like they were only there to protect people who were higher ranked in status, and women didn't seem like they were of a higher rank. Most of the laws that objectifies women seem more extreme than those of men.
Reply
Steven Robinspn
1/10/2017 05:57:01 pm
Considering the time period Hammurabi's judgements would have been an effective code. The concept of "an eye for an eye" was the philosophy that seemed to be used the most, such as when it is stated "If the child of the householder is killed, the child of the builder must be slain". Even though the child wasn't responsible for the death they are punished. These judgements were meant to protect the rich male, while it exploited the peasants and women.
Reply
Steven Robinson
1/10/2017 06:05:49 pm
Submitted the first part prematurely. The rest is below.
Reply
Jared Nolen
1/10/2017 06:16:40 pm
After reading the judgments of Hammurabi I was very interested in the nature of leadership and law that seemed to be around during this time period and era. I think that the judgments were very effective for the time being, but I do not think that they would be suitable as a form of law in today's current era. I believe that people were very unstable during this time period, everyone seemed to do their own thing, this law code served as a hammer almost nailing everyone into place. The laws were placed in order to help society and improves peoples lives which is stated in the passage- "to promote welfare of the people... to cause justice in the land". The social distinctions that are apparent are the discrimination of women, and also the discrimination of peasants. Peasants are never rewarded as much as wealthy people are, "If he is a peasant, he shall give her one-third mina of silver" as apposed to one whole mina. I was very surprised that there was a law that could subject as physician to death if he harmed a patient, that would be unheard of in today's age.
Reply
Madison Oligny
1/10/2017 06:29:33 pm
At the time that they were created they world be a very effective law cod. Today they stand as the basis for most modern law codes, but the principle of Hammurabi's code of law is still used. But the code itself would not be as effective as it would go against much of our societies beliefs; such as all men are created equal. It seems that the judgments were meant to protect and benefit the justness of the society among the different social classes. "If a man has knocked out the teeth of a man of the same rank, his own teeth shall be knocked out,""If a man has knocked out the teeth of his superior then the man shall publicly receive sixty lashes with a cowhide whip."Then there is the clear separation of the social classes and genders; a free man gets compensated more than the son of a peasant, a slave or a daughter. It wasn't so much the implications that surprised me as it was the draconian consequences, for example " If a son has struck his father his hands shall be cut off." I also agree with most of Gina's argument that Hammurabi's code of law were made up of mainly scare tactics that went to the extreme with its punishments.
Reply
Adam Blair
1/10/2017 06:29:55 pm
At the time that these judgments were created these rules seemed correct. Hammurabi's laws were used to make sure that the society was perfect. He wanted to make sure that everything was correct and that no dishonesty was in place. Everyone in a social class had their own judgments, and if they were not followed the consequences were extreme and were most likely to scare people, like "If a man has destroyed the eye of another free man, his own eye shall be destroyed", so this made people not want to disobey any of these rules. As it states in the document that men were the head of the house, the way the rules were stated truly showed that this was true, for instance, when is said "If the wife of a man is found lying with another male, they shall be bound and thrown into the water. If the husband lets his wife live, then the king shall let his servant live." This is an example that shows that men were superior in this time, and that their actions determined the outcome of the situations. I do not think that these judgments should be made into law codes, because if they were lots of them would be changed greatly or eradicated all together if they ended up in our current era. A good amount of these laws actually surprised me with how extreme the outcomes were, like "If a physician has treated a man with a metal knife for a severe wound, and has caused the man to die, or has opened a man's tumor with a metal knife, and destroyed the man's eye, his hands shall be cut off." These judgments surely scared a vast amount of people at the time, even if some of them are not considered acceptable in the current era, but they are extremely effective for stopping people from doing bad things.
Reply
Tara Anastasoff
1/10/2017 07:29:37 pm
I agree with your statements made about how the codes were created to scare people, as well as how everyone in different social classes had their own judgments and consequences. I thought it was interesting how varied the punishments were for the different levels of the hierarchy as well. Lastly, while I agree that this code of laws stopped people from misbehaving, I feel like it did more harm than good because the entirety of Babylon lived in fear of prosecution. In the end, the effects may have not even weighed out the costs.
Reply
1/10/2017 06:40:36 pm
In the article "Bringing Order to an Uncertain World", I fully believe that Hammurabis' judgements were effective but not immaculate. This is because these ordinances greatly benefited the hierarchy or nobles of this Babylonian society. An example of this occurs when the author states, "If he has destroyed the eye of the peasant, or broken a bone of a peasant, he shall pay one mina of silver " (4). The quote is not the main point but what surrounds it. If a free superior man is struck then an eye will be taken for an eye. The reason these laws were not perfect , because most likely the peasants are the larger population , and may eventually revolt . Additionally another dissimilarity socially is for men to have greater benefits than women.An example is women cannot obtain property except through debt. Many of the laws suprised me, especially if a doctor does not cure a citizen of a serious illness, and they die, the doctors hands are cut off.
Reply
Lyle Singletary
1/10/2017 06:51:26 pm
Reed, I agree with your claim of Hammurabi's unfairness to peasants. I was also surprised by the punishment given to the doctor, especially when people of other trades would be killed if they let someone die.
Reply
Reed Walker
1/10/2017 06:57:14 pm
Premature Submission
Reply
Reed Walker
1/10/2017 07:08:52 pm
*Suprising Rules
Lyle Singletary
1/10/2017 06:44:21 pm
I think Hammurabi's code could have been very effective in the 18th century but a lot has changed since then so it wouldn't be so effective today. Part of the reason for for ineffectiveness in today's world is how it mainly benefits and shelters men in the elite classes. It is clear in his writing that Hammurabi's code unfairly treats the peasants, this is shown in Personal Injury #196-198. If a higher class citizen has his eye destroyed then the one who destroyed it will have theirs destroyed too, but if this same scenario happens to a peasant he will only receive a small amount of money for his injury. Consumer protection #218 "If a physician has treated a man with a metal knife for a severe wound, and has caused the man to die, or has opened a man's tumor with a metal knife, and destroyed the mans eye, his hands shall be cut off" surprised me because of the amount of mercy showed to the physician. If his patient dies he only losses his hands, while at the same time Consumer protection #229 "If a builder has built a house for a man, and his work is not strong, and if the house he has built falls in and kills the househoulder, that builder shall be slain", if a builder's building kills the owner then the builder is killed. It seems strange that one would be put to death and one would live but lose his hands
Reply
Chike Asuzu
1/10/2017 06:58:08 pm
After reading the text detailing Hammurabi and his numerous situational judgments, I do not see his rulings being effecting to a systematic law code. Several of these judgments had a leniency towards men or higher-ups in the social ladder. While it can work for women or those of peasant status, it is in very few and specific judgments that are meant to benefit them. The ruling for men versus women is massively exemplified in the marriage and family laws like in law 141 where "If a man's wife, dwelling in his house, has decided to leave, has been guilty of dissipation, has wasted her house, and has neglected her husband, then she shall be prosecuted. If her husband says she is divorced, he shall let her go her way; he shall give her nothing for divorce. If her husband says she is not divorced, her husband may marry another woman, and that [first] woman shall remain in a slave in the house of her husband." This concept of the woman getting the brunt of the punishment to their pride, especially to the ends of slavery, is repeated more than once. Adversely, men's pride is constantly taken into account with their punishments, with slavery being one little to zero times. This is similar with the class difference massively attributing to their punishments. For instance, when it comes to rulings like law 202 explaining how "If a man strikes the body of a man who is superior in status, he shall publicly receive sixty lashes with a cowhide whip", such a violent judgement pales in comparison to law 201 that says "If he has knocked out the teeth of a peasant, he shall pay one-third of a mina of silver". Several of these laws did surprise me because of how purely situation-focused they are. It leads me to think that people living under these judgments are not inspired to be good people, but rather to avoid these very specific judgments.
Reply
Reed Walker
1/10/2017 07:06:42 pm
Great Comment Lyle ! I definitely agree about how these rules would not translate to the modern era. I also agree about your comment about the builder. With that kind of death sentence, who would want to be a builder.
Reply
Tara Anastasoff
1/10/2017 07:15:37 pm
After considering Hammurabi’s judgments, I believe that in that time period, yes, they were effective as law code. As public punishment was common then, this code appears to have been created to scare people into acting right and being honest. It is clear that honesty was a highly valued trait, as evident in Code 3, “If in a lawsuit a man gives damning evidence, and his word that he has spoken is not justified, then, if the suit be a capital one, that man shall be slain.” Many of the codes in his judgments have retribution, often giving an “eye for an eye” perspective on punishments where, quite literally, in Code 196, “If a man has destroyed the eye of another free man, his own eye shall be destroyed.” These judgments were clearly created to protect and benefit the privileged male class. While some codes also accounted for women, especially those bearing or raising children, most codes protected the aforementioned class. Written in Code 202, “If a man strikes the body of a man who is superior in status, he shall publicly receive sixty lashes with a cowhide whip,” as opposed to Code 208 where, “If he [the man who has been stricken] is the son of a peasant, he shall pay a third of a mina of silver.” Looking at these two codes, the different levels of severity for the punishments is dependent on where the individual who is wronged lies in the hierarchy. Furthermore, the social distinctions seen in Hammurabi’s judgments are especially present when differentiating the punishments for members of the prestigious class and the lower class. At the very bottom of the hierarchy lies slaves, who were treated as pieces of property, as displayed in Code 231, “If the slave of the householder is killed, [due to faulty construction of the builder] he shall give slave for slave to the householder.” While women did not hold as many rights as men, they still had some respect in the community, especially in instances where the husband initiated the divorce. Supporting that fact, Code 138, states that, “If a man divorces his spouse who has not borne him children, he shall give to her all the silver of the bride price, and restore to her the dowry which she brought from the house of her father; and so he shall divorce her.” As for surprising laws in Hammurabi’s judgment, I found Code 141 slightly odd, which read “If a man’s wife, dwelling in his house, has been guilty of dissipation, has wasted her house, and has neglected her husband, then she shall be prosecuted. If her husband says she is divorced, he shall let her go her way; he shall give her nothing for divorce. If her husband says she is not divorced, her husband may marry another woman, and that [first] woman shall remain a slave in the house of her husband.” The last sentence was especially surprising because if the man did not declare divorce and married another woman, his first wife―hopefully a woman he once loved―became a slave in her own house. This idea is just hard for me to wrap my head around, due to the fact that Hammurabi’s other codes regarding divorce did not have punishments as harsh as becoming a slave to one’s ex-husband.
Reply
Jennifer Bolanos
1/10/2017 09:01:41 pm
I was too surprised by the harsh punishment of slavery for a woman who left her household. It clearly shows the distinction between genders and how a woman had no right to have a say in the relationship at the time.
Reply
Andrew Prather
1/10/2017 07:29:01 pm
After reading Hammurabi's judgments, I personally believe that they would have been effective as a law code at the time they were written, but not by today's standards. The law code was written to protect the people, which can be shown in the prologue, and states "When Marduk had instituted me governor of men, to conduct Right and Justice I established in the land, for the good of the people" This central idea can be found in many government systems today such as the United States Constitution or the Magna Carta. In Hammurabi's code, several social distinctions can be observed. There is a clear distinction between the nobility, common man, peasant, and slave. In the section of personal injury, throughout the codes punishment for a lower social class is less than punishment of equal class. The majority of these laws surprised me in terms of severity, however some laws made sense. For example the doctor's malpractice laws and builders insurance laws follow a good idea, although the punishment is unethical by today's standards. The gender inequality is observable in the marriage laws section of the code. In many of the laws, the man is in all way superior to the women. For example, in law 129 it states "If the wife of a man is found lying with another male, they shall be bound and thrown into water. If the husband lets his wife live, then the king shall let his servant live." However, some of the laws in contrast give the women equality or superiority over the man. In conclusion I think that at the time Hammurabi's code was written, it was ethical and applicable. It also included many ideas of liberty that can still be seen today.
Reply
Chloe Vernex-Loset
1/10/2017 07:37:41 pm
After reading the laws and conduct, I believe it would've been effective. It was just in some cases but, in others it was unfair. It was surprising to see the laws for a woman but, they were still dictated by a mans actions so, it was understandable. I think they would've been effective because people like having their rights, even back then, and not following the rules would've sent their king literally into despair.
Reply
Tessah McAllister
1/10/2017 08:10:23 pm
Hey Chloe, I definitely agree with you about the laws and conduct being effective. I also agree with how you believe that in some cases that it is unfair. I didn't think about people wanting to follow the rules so they could keep their rights. That was a good idea!
Reply
Janiah Daniels
1/10/2017 07:39:10 pm
I don't think they would've been effective at all because some of the judgments were very violent and slaughterful. The judgements seemed to be protecting the king or anyone of his status. I noticed a lot of writing about men having more power than women. They were granted with more blessings and necessities than women were. Even the child of a family could have their hands chopped off just for striking their father, regardless if it was self-defense. That seems too extreme to me. It honestly surprises me how violent the punishments were for certain "crimes" committed, if it was a crime to begin with. For example, physicians could be using a knife for whatever reason to treat a certain wound that really needs medical attention, but the physician "destroys the eye" probably by accident. A physician would have to pay the price by getting their hands chopped off. That's too much gore. The wounded victim could've already been on the verge of dying or have gotten a more serious injury regardless of the physician helped or not. No punishment like that would be passed up as any form of law nowadays.
Reply
Tessah McAllister
1/10/2017 07:59:46 pm
During this time period I think that Hammurabi's judgments would have been effective as law code. However, it would not be effective now. I think it would have been effective then because in many of the laws, if they were broken, the punishment was death, or harm to a person. An example of this would be if a man was caught doing brigandage he would be slain. People would be scared to lose their lives, so they would obey the rules. The judgments were meant to protect the people of that society, but some people were more protected than others. In the marriage laws, the man is more protected than the women, and the men are treated as superior. Also many of the laws are based off of class. Peasants were not as protected compared to an upper class person. The thing that surprised me the most was the punishments for the crimes. However, for the time period, the punishments make sense.
Reply
Rola Goke-Pariola
1/10/2017 08:32:04 pm
You make some excellent points on how the use of fear tactics seemed to have dominated this society. Even if someone disagreed with the law, they would be very motivated to comply with it because of the severe penalty. I agree that a system of classes is very apparent, whether they were distinguished by how much money one had, or ones gender. And while yes, the laws of today are nowhere near as drastic, its interesting to see how some of these classist attitudes are still present, even if it is on a much smaller scale.
Reply
Harrison H
1/10/2017 09:00:08 pm
I agree with you that his judgments would only have been effective in that time period. I would go even further to suggest that they were only this way because of the lack of basic human rights, and so it does make sense that people were afraid. I think that once a basic principle for protecting the rights of everyone were established, then the transition into today's judicial system started to occur.
Reply
Chance McGarey
1/10/2017 08:16:35 pm
I believe that in modern day society, Hammurabi's laws would not be effective because they were made to fit in an ancient society and were extremely unequal, as they were meant to benefit males of the upper class. This is evident as Hammurabi gives harsher punishments to women or people low on the social ladder. For example, "If a man has knocked out the teeth of a man the same rank, his own teeth shall be knocked out.", however, "If he has knocked out the teeth of a peasant, he shall pay one third of a mina of silver." Also, even if a man kills the daughter of a free man and causes "her fetus to abort" he will not be killed, but his daughter will. This makes it evident that there was major gender inequality in this society. A law I found somewhat surprising was that if a surgeon operates and treats a man for a severe wound or cuts his tumor specifically with a metal knife and kills him or his eye is destroyed, both the hands of the surgeon will be cut off. It surprised me because in a time where death rates were high (compared to now) it seemed a little harsh to cut off a man's hands.
Reply
Alex Martinez
1/10/2017 08:17:58 pm
I think that the laws would have been effective at the current time that they were in since it was so long ago, considering that it was 1792 - 1750 B.C.E and people weren't as civilized as now. Seems like the laws were made to benefit the people of higher class; for example, the part where he talks about debt, he says that if you owe money to anyone and you do not pay, you have to become their slave for 3 years which is crazy. You can see the poor and the rich in his law of code according to the punishments that he places on people. A lot of the "laws" surprised me, because some of them were really Petty and the punishment was so heinous. It was very very clearly shown that he favored people in the upper echelon.
Reply
Tucker K.
1/10/2017 08:22:41 pm
i agree with you that he favored people in upper echelon, but Also judges were in high positions and they could be put to death as well as a normal regular person who wasnt a judge if they committed a crime.
Reply
Tucker K.
1/10/2017 08:18:49 pm
At that time i think the law code would be effective because their civilization was very simple and not technologically advanced and followed strict rules and aided them. Most of Hammurabi's laws protected everyone but i feel that the higher stats you have the less crime penalty you had to pay, for example if a peasant hits a superior male that peasant would be slain but if a superior male hit a peasant the superior male would only have to pay some shekels. Also i feel that women did not have the best justice, for example if a man hit a pregnant women and aborted her baby he would only have to pay 10 shekels towards the fetus. Some social distinctions are even if you are a builder, judge, or wine seller the law still effects you. One law that surprised me was if you are a builder and you build a house for someone and later on the house falls in and kills the owner the builder dies. I find that unfair because what if the house owner did not take very good care of his home or what is there was harsh weather that withered the house away little by little and then one down just brought down the house. I do not think that is the builders fault.
Reply
Rola Goke-Pariola
1/10/2017 08:20:11 pm
I believe that Hammurabi's judgments would have worked well simply because of the era they was presented in. If such laws were to be presented in today's society, they would not go over well at all because universal opinions on what is just and what is unjust have changed very drastically. The laws benefited wealthy men and men in general, on a lower level. This sort of social class ranking can be seen in the penalty for hitting a woman who is pregnant, resulting in the death of her child. If the daughter is that of a free man, then the fine would be ten shekels of silver as opposed to only half a mina of silver if the woman is the daughter of a peasant. This highlights the main social distinction that can be seen. The most respected people in society were the wealthy males, and the least respected were females who also happen to be peasants. Some of the penalties and punishments went a lot further than just fines— many were relatively violent. The punishments ranged from mutilation to death. For example, if a man were to hit his father, he would have both of his hands cut off. But if a builder built a house, and that house were to fall on and kills its owner, then the builder would be killed. Though these laws seem very dramatic and over the top, they do not surprise me at all. Ethics were very different in this time period than they are now. People deemed such laws necessary to maintain order in society, and perhaps during that time it was necessary. However, since then, the majority of humans have distanced themselves from the mentalities and ways of the past, as can be expected when humans evolve and change over time.
Reply
Larissa Gutierrez
1/10/2017 08:52:39 pm
Yes the it would've been effective as a law since this was made to reflect a rapidly growing society with no outer influences. In modern times when a new society builds usually it has major influences from the societies around it. As people began to settle and expand rules had to put in place so that the people would live in a more structured society. But to live in a more structured society the citizens had to give up some of their personal rights, to better protect the community as a whole. Although the society written in Hammurabi’s code is far outdated from our own society there are still aspects that are similar, such as the death penalty, that shows hammurabi’s code could have been effective as a laws.
Reply
Jennifer Bolanos
1/10/2017 08:54:26 pm
Considering Hammurabi's judgements for establishing true "justice" within a society, I believe they were most certainly effective only for his time. This is because there were many influential factors such as slavery, gender inequality, and strict social classes that shaped the way of life; therefore the laws were considered most appropriate at the time. However, as the populations progressed along with their lifestyles, gender roles constantly became more equitable and social classes received less distinct punishment. Hammurabi's laws clearly benefited the higher classes as well they favored men in most cases. For example, his rulings show the disparate priorities of people as he states in codes 197,198, and 199 that if a man breaks another free man's bone, his own should be broken, if he breaks a peasant's, he should pay one mina of silver, and if he breaks a slaves, he should pay half his value. Male benefit is also perceived from how women cannot have the right to divorce unless they are harmed. Code 229 was the only law that truly surprised me due to many of the factors that could affect the structure of a house. The code implies that if an owner's house falls and kills him, then the builder should be slain; it does not seem like a just action because the house could be impacted by natural disasters or landscape issues.
Reply
Harrison H
1/10/2017 08:56:23 pm
Considering Hammurabi's judgments, I feel that his law code served effectively for his time period. As most of these laws were established on a case-by-case basis, it makes sense that they would apply directly to the people and the crimes of the time period. To reference, I believe that the marriage laws that were put in place were fair in an extreme way. The marriage laws seem to favor the side that were the logical victims of the offense of the spouse. For example, law number 129 mentions that if a wife commits adultery with another man, then she is to be drowned, yet if the husband allows her to live, than the lover of the wife cannot be killed either. I see this as a fair way of inferring that there are different outcomes for every crime committed. These judgments were potentially meant to benefit and protect the rights of those who were the victims of a wrong-doing. Socially, distinctions can be seen in that the majority of laws will benefit a man or someone who is higher in society. For instance, many of the laws will carry a reduced sentence if the victim is someone who is lesser in society, such as a peasant, and will usually have to pay their family less in terms of money. However, the opposite can be seen when the victim is a man or important person. While not many of the laws surprised me, I did have to think about why so many of the crimes resulted with punishments by death or loss of limbs. With consideration, it does seem fair in an ironic way that the society carries an "eye-for-an-eye" attitude when it comes to convicting criminals. These sort of punishments are directly outlined in the personal injury section, and I believe that, again, it makes sense for these rulings to be carried out for this time period. In conclusion, I feel that most of these laws were effective for their time period. It was an entirely different era when it comes to socio-economic structures, and there have been many changes since then that reflect the transition from time periods.
Reply
Giancarlo Davila
1/10/2017 09:10:20 pm
Hammurabi's code was in fact a great start to the use of code and law. Hammurabi was in fact trying to protect the lesser or peasants by reducing the punishment of the sentence they received. The social distinctions can be seen by the difference in punishments depending on where you are in the social class. The laws that surprised me where the ones where the punishments was to lose a limb. There could have been many other alternatives and to be stripped of a limb was a bit inhumane. Accidents had to be made to learn from them and the laws that Hammurabi made was a great start.
Reply
Jade G
1/10/2017 10:04:22 pm
I do believe that the Code of Hammurabi would have been effective as law. Due to the harshness and severe consequences he enforces I feel as though civilians would comply to these regulations very seriously. According to Hammurabi he voices, "to promote the welfare of the people...". In this sense, I truly believe he wants to benefit and protect the people to better and stabilize a common "ground" for the society. I can see a bit higher distinction of men having the better hand of judgement or upper ladder. But he did incorporate woman and children also having rights but with more constraint. Many of the laws did surprise me. Such as having the dependence if something bad happened to another (even by accident) severe consequences were in order. For example, personal injury, if destroying another mans body or property the same thing would happen to you in repercussion. Seeing as in current era wrongs wouldn't be taken to these extremes but in a mild demeanor . Another surprisement that struck me was as many rights women had back then such as entitlement to money and property. I wasn't surprised by the consequences given to lower classes if in debacles with higher powers (upperclass) seeing as though they were to be highly respected in any century.
Reply
James Gerdes
1/10/2017 10:07:34 pm
Hammurabi’s laws would be effective for most of what they cover. While harsh, the punishments do discourage crime. This can be seen laws such as the one stating that “if a man has perpetrated brigandage, and has been caught, that man shall be slain.” While killing a man might be a harsh punishment, it would help to reduce the number of brigands. The laws also help to ensure a certain level of balance in disputes such as divorce. Laws are made to both protect women and men who are courted. A man can divorce his wife, and a woman, her husband. Where the laws fall short is that they favor the higher classes in society which can be seen in laws such as the one stating that “If a man has knocked out the teeth of a peasant, he shall pay one-third of a mine of silver.” Considering that if a man knocks out the teeth of a man of the same rank, he will have his teeth knocked out, the laws do favor the higher ranks or classes in the society. Given the time that these laws were made, none were necessarily surprising, but it is interesting to see how the law affects people of different social classes or ranks.
Reply
Lucas Magalhaes
1/11/2017 07:13:01 pm
Considering Hammurabi and his judgements, I believe that most of them could have been affective as a law code. There are some judgements however that involve killing, which goes a little too extreme, and some judgements that give some unequal rights to women just because of their gender. This goes for all of the judgements that involve marriage. Also for the judgements that give not as bad as a punishment for the ones that are higher in class.
Reply
Madigan H.
1/13/2017 02:21:08 am
Given the time period, Hammurabi's laws would have been great at keeping order, but not justice. While getting lashed publicly with a whip would deter even the most aggressive from punching a superior, would paying a small amount of silver keep a superior from punching a peasant? In no way is it fair that one would get an eye blinded for destroying the eye of a higher-up, yet only have to pay one mina of silver for causing a peasant partial blindness. The laws were unfair to women, too. According to rule thirty-eight "a captain, soldier, or official may not give his field, garden, or house to his wife or daughter..." Why would a law like this exist? What about the law that calls for the burning of a priestess who enters a wine shop when no such law seems to exist for a priest? Many laws seem to serve for the benefit of Hammurabi himself, a king.
Reply
Cat Arnett
1/26/2017 05:45:37 pm
I think these would have worked pretty well as a code. There are some harsh and sort of unnecessary things like if a woman has an affair and her husband finds out she can't return to him ever. I think that's a but extreme but I can see where they're coming from I guess. I think the Codes overall were meant to benefit everyone, although some things can be not that way.
Reply
Elizabeth M
2/27/2017 06:54:49 am
Hammurabi's judgements would most likely not have been effective as a law code because they are very discriminatory and exact. Since "Hammurabi's code is actually not a coherent and systematic code of laws but rather a compilation of decisions... that the king made in response to specific cases and perceived injustices," the judgements as a law code would be extreme specific and exact. Given that they were based on specific decisions based on specific instances and cases, there wouldn't be much variety in rulings from case to case, even though every instance is different. This would make them ineffective because the judgements only cover specific rulings that have happened before and they don't account for cases varying from each other. The judgements were also very discriminatory towards women in general and heavily favored men when it came to rulings related to marriage and the family or property. They were meant to protect and benefit men, specifically free men, because they always gave the right of way to men in divorce cases and such so that the men got the final say and were the ones who owned the women and specifically got paid or reimbursed for loss of anything such as family or property. The social distinctions shown include peasants being worth less than free men and slaves being worth less than peasants. The prices for loss depending on class or rank varied greatly and the distinct social classes impacted the rulings heavily. One law that really surprised me was "218. If a physician has treated a man with a metal knife for a severe wound, and has caused the man to die, or has opened a man's tumor with a metal knife, and destroyed the man's eye, his hands shall be cut off" because it seems quite extreme that the surgeon should lose both of his hands for a patient dying or losing his eye, but it is also quite surprising that the surgeon didn't get killed for a man dying because of them so it seems somewhat less extreme than some of the other judgements in the code. Surgeons make mistakes and if they lost their hands for a patient dying, not many people would want to become surgeons and there would most likely not be many anyways because they wouldn't be able to do their jobs after losing their hands. One eye is also not equal to both hands because people can still see with the other eye and hands are needed more than most other body parts while it is easier to survive without one or both eyes.
Reply
Angel Serrano
4/20/2017 05:14:18 pm
Hammurabi’s judgements couldn’t not have been efficient as the law codes for his people. The punishments compared to the crime that was committed, for the most part were not even in any way. For example “If a son has struck his father, his hands shall be cut off.” The codes were meant to benefit a grown male man. In many of the codes involving a husband being unfaithful to his wife the husband is punished just as much as the wife is. “If a man’s wife, dwelling in his house, has decided to leave, has been guilty of dissipation, has waster her house, and has neglected her husband, then she shall be prosecuted…” Only in few cases do the outcomes of a crime result in a positive way for females in this civilization. In the laws he has written you can see that there are different social classes that people may fall into. These could be such as a father, mother, children, workers, and slaves. Even though father and mother are almost the same thing both of them can result in a different punishment or reward. Yes many of the laws that were enforced did suprise me such as one that says if a worker does a poor job and their customer’s child is killed so is there chilled to be killed. Even though this might be considedered a modern civilization many of the judgements of Hammurabi were not modern at all and quite vulgar.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorCategoriesArchives
April 2017
|