Good morning, folks. Today I would like for you to participate in the following activity:
1st) Select THREE laws of Hammurabi's Law Code. Everyone should have three different laws.
2nd) Summarize the laws in your own words, including the numbers of the laws.
3rd) Evaluate your selected laws. Do you believe that the laws were fair? In terms of social health, were they beneficial? Why?
Feel free to ask any questions for clarification.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete17. If any one find runaway male or female slaves in the open country and bring them to their masters, the master of the slaves shall pay him two shekels of silver.
ReplyDeleteIf you find someone’s slave that has run away, then if you bring him back, then the owner must pay you money. This seems fair because the person brought back a slave that you lost, the least you could do is pay him for his deeds
56. If a man let in the water, and the water overflow the plantation of his neighbor, he shall pay ten gur of corn for every ten gan of land.
So basically if you flood your neighbors land, you have to pay him with crops, because you destroyed them. This seems fair because you destroyed someone else’s crops, so you should pay them back with your crops
22. If any one is committing a robbery and is caught, then he shall be put to death.
If you get caught stealing then you will pay with your life. This is fair because you can’t let this person back onto the streets, what if he steals again, or if his crimes worsen? The only way to stop it from happening you have to kill them
5. If a judge is wrong about a ruling, he has to pay a lot of money and then he is removed from the judge’s bench and it to never practice law again.
ReplyDeleteI think this law is fair because the judge has ruined the life of the accused and the accused family by either sentencing him to death or making them pay more money than they have and make them live in poverty. The judge has been removed so he won’t make the same mistake again.
It would be socially beneficial because people wouldn’t have to worry about having corrupt judges and people won’t be falsely convicted.
21. If any one break a hole into a house (break in to steal), he shall be put to death before that hole and be buried.
ReplyDeleteIf you try to steal and put a hole in the house, then you can be killed by the house owner and be buried next to the hole
3. If any one bring an accusation of any crime before the elders, and does not prove what he has charged, he shall, if it be a capital offense charged, be put to death.
If you accuse someone of a crime and it is false, you will be sentenced to death
14. If any one steal the minor son of another, he shall be put to death.
If you kidnap a boy, then you are sentenced to death
I think that a majority of these laws are fair because it causes a lot of death, but they were for very bad crimes. For the three I chose, the punishment is death. False accusations, pilfering, and kidnapping are dangerous crimes that are not caused by accident, so I understand that innocent people won’t die. One issue I find is that there is no reason for death for accusing incorrectly, and you should be able to state your case before death.
ADD-ON:
DeleteStealing someones kid can sometimes happen for a valid reason, as if you are taking them out of a bad environment, so you should be able to explain like this instead of immediately being sentenced to death.
109. If some people who are planning something bad in a tavern and they aren’t caught, the tavern owner will be killed because they planned it in his tavern, so he will die.
ReplyDeleteI think this law is unfair because the tavern owner had nothing to do with the crime and he/she isn’t part of the police, so they can’t control whether or not they are captured. The owner shouldn’t be put to death because it doesn’t pertain to them.
This wouldn’t have be socially beneficial because tavern owners could be falsely killed because of something they didn’t know about and they didn’t find the criminals.
Hammurabi’s 21st Code: If any one break a hole into a house (break in to steal), he shall be put to death before that hole and be buried.
ReplyDeleteTranslation: If somebody breaks in your house to steal, you have the right to kill him where he stands when he tries to break in.
Evaluation: Fair, and beneficial
Hammurabi’s 200th Code: If a man knock out the teeth of his equal, his teeth shall be knocked out.
Translation: If a man starts a fight and hurts you, you can hurt him back in the same way.
Evaluation: Fair, not very beneficial
Hammurabi’s 275th Code: If any one hire a ferryboat, he shall pay three gerahs in money per day
Translation: If you rent a boat, you should pay $300 per day.
Evaluation: Fair, beneficial for political not social
Evaluation of all of Hammurabi’s Laws: I think the codes of Hammurabi weren’t fair in all cases because some were very harsh for the little things they did wrong. For even the little things you could possibly be put to death and that is a little irrational for the tiny things they did wrong. The laws in the Code of Hammurabi were very beneficial for social health. The laws would make people scared and they would not want to do the things that others did, they would put fear into the the civilization and they would then not want to do things that would cause them harm.
The three codes that I chose were:
ReplyDelete195. If a son strike his father, his hands shall be hewn off.
56. If a man let in the water, and the water overflow the plantation of his neighbor, he shall pay ten gur of corn for every ten gan of land.
3. If any one bring an accusation of any crime before the elders, and does not prove what he has charged, he shall, if it be a capital offense charged, be put to death.
Summaries:
The third law of Hammurabi is saying that if someone were to falsely accuse another person of a crime, then he will be put to death.
The fifty- sixth law of Hammurabi is saying that if a farmer over waters his field and the water goes into the farmer’s field that is next to his and ruins his crops. The farmer who ruined his neighbor's field must pay him back his entire field of corn, even if he the farmer did not ruin his entire field.
The one 195th law of Hammurabi states that if a child hits his father, the childs hands will be cut off.
Evaluate:
The third law of Hammurabi is not fair. I do not think that a son who were to hit his father, will lose his hands. That is a little extreme. I would agree with a punishment, but not that severe. Those are his hands, he’ll never get them back, the father will feel better in a few seconds. The 56th law of Hammurabi is fair. I totally think that if a guy were to ruin my field, he should have to pay me back the cost of all the corn. I would agree with this if it was a law today. The third law of Hammurabi is not fair. I would want a serious punishment for a person who falsely accused me, but not death. I think during this time, I feel that in terms of social health, these laws were good to the social health of the civilization. These laws probably made the civilization run smoothly and there were few rebellions. I think these laws were beneficial because with people afraid of the consequences of their actions, there would be less crimes committed because of that fear.
Hammurabi's Code
ReplyDelete14. If any one steal the minor son of another, he shall be put to death.
15. If any one take a male or female slave of the court, or a male or female slave of a freed man, outside the city gates, he shall be put to death.
16. If any one receive into his house a runaway male or female slave of the court, or of a freedman, and does not bring it out at the public proclamation of the major domus, the master of the house shall be put to death.
Summaries:
14 says that if a man steals the other man's son he will be put to death.
15 says that if you take another mans slave outside the gates you will be put to death
16 says that if you house a slave and others find out you will be put to death.
Law 14 Evaluation
I believe this law is fair because it is not right to take another mans son. However the punishment is a bit harsh but at that time the son was important so the person deserved what they got. This law was beneficial because it made sure that your son was safe and it would lessen the chance of him being taken.
Law 15 Evaluation
This law is fair because slaves were important too landowners so taking them is not right. This law is beneficial to society because it kept peoples slaves inside the city limits so the owners had no worry..
Law 16 Evaluation
This law was fair because people should know if you have a slave. This law is beneficial because slaves were considered dangerous so people should know. If you do not tell them you deserve what you get because that slave could cause problems.
“4. If he satisfy the elders to impose a fine of grain or money, he shall receive the fine that the action produces.”
ReplyDeleteThis law basically states that if the elders see that it fit to fine the person who commits a crime they shall do so and whoever is fined must pay the fine.
I believe that this law was fair because if you commit a crime and you are caught for it you should have to pay for it. I believe that this law was beneficial to social health because it deters or deterred people from committing crimes and having to pay for.
“5. If a judge try a case, reach a decision, and present his judgment in writing; if later error shall appear in his decision, and it be through his own fault, then he shall pay twelve times the fine set by him in the case, and he shall be publicly removed from the judge's bench, and never again shall he sit there to render judgement.”
This law states that if a judge files a judgment and it is later found out to be incorrect because of an error from that judge he must pay twelve times that amount that he sets and will be removed from the bench immediately and will never again be allowed to sit on the bench and pass judgements
I do not believe that this law was fair because everyone makes mistakes and to believe that judges or anyone else for that matter is perfect is absurd and therefore this law is unfair. I believe that this was beneficial because it taught judges to make sure that there were no errors in their judgement and to make sure that is was fair to whoever they were passing it onto.
“6. If any one steal the property of a temple or of the court, he shall be put to death, and also the one who receives the stolen thing from him shall be put to death.”
This law states that whoever steals something from a temple or the court will be put to death immediately and whoever he is stealing it for shall also be put to death along with him
I believe that this law was fair because it showed people that there were going to be very strict consequences for their crimes. I believe that this law was good for social health because it deterred people from committing crimes because they knew what was going to happen if they committed that crime
110. If a nun was to go near a bar or get a drink from the bar, she will be burned to death to signify the wrath of god.
ReplyDeleteThis law is unfair because it isn’t against the nun’s code to drink alcohol from a tavern. Burning someone to death is too extreme.
This law is not beneficial to society because it is not saving the people from a terrible crime or making the society a better place.
14. If any one steal the minor son of another, he shall be put to death.
ReplyDeleteThis law is saying that if anyone steals another person’s youngest son, then they will be killed. I think this law is a bit harsh but it does make some sense. It’s a bit extreme but they should have some form of mildly extreme punishment because they did steal a son.
128. If a man take a woman to wife, but have no intercourse with her, this woman is no wife to him.
This law is saying that you can’t be an actual couple unless you do the do. This law doesn’t really make sense because there are people out there who are asexual (having no interest in frick fracking) but not aromantic. That means they could be married, there just wouldn’t be any woohooing involved.
195. If a son strike his father, his hands shall be hewn off.
This law says that if a son hits his father, his own hands will be sawed off. This law is very extreme, but I understand where it’s coming from because of cultural context and the other rules. It’s a bit excessive for the son’s hands to be cut off, maybe something less drastic would have made more sense.
110. This law is pretty harsh. Basically, if a nun were to go into a bar or drink alcohol, she’s gonna be burned to death. I understand that times were completely different back then, but death is an extreme consequence. This law is definitely not fair. In terms of social health, I think that the community of nuns would be stricter, however I believe that there could easily be an assuage in the consequence of just expulsion from the community.
ReplyDelete132. If a wife is accused of cheating, but isn’t caught sleeping with another man, she has to jump into a river FOR HER HUSBAND. This rule is bringing out my inner feminist. This law is setting the woman up for a loss either way. Even if there is no evidence whatsoever of the woman cheating, someone could accuse her, and she would still have to jump in even if she was a very loyal wife. This rule is completely pointless and has literally no point in social benefits.
282. If a slave literally tells his master that he is not his master, his ear gets cut off. This law really isn’t fair whatsoever. The fact that there were slaves is not fair, but say one slave was sarcastic, and obviously knew that his master was his master, but told him he wasn’t, he would get his ear cut off. How is the slave supposed to further listen if their ear is cut off????????? Definitely not socially beneficial.
Law #2, which states, “If any one bring an accusation against a man, and the accused go to the river and leap into the river, if he sink in the river his accuser shall take possession of his house. But if the river prove that the accused is not guilty, and he escape unhurt, then he who had brought the accusation shall be put to death, while he who leaped into the river shall take possession of the house that had belonged to his accuser,” seems to be fair. I feel that, for this time period, this makes complete sense in the structure of government that had existed then. I feel that, as bizarre as it sounds, if the accused jumps into a river but does not drown, than he is not guilty, and the accuser deserves to be punished for making false acquisitions. I do, however, feel that the punishment of death seems extremely harsh. It is beneficial, however, in terms of social health, because it caused a fear within the community, which would have kept them from bringing false accusations forward into the law.
ReplyDeleteThe meaning of this law basically is that, if one is found “not guilty,” than the accuser will be punished with death for falsely accusing.
Law #11, which states, “If the owner do not bring witnesses to identify the lost article, he is an evil-doer, he has traduced, and shall be put to death,” does not seem like a fair law. I feel that the owner should not be punished for not being able to provide a witness, he just should not have justice brought to him. This is not socially acceptable, in terms of social health, because it allows those who have committed a crime to continue, while those who tried to bring it to the law’s attention was put to death. I feel that it is not fair, when that person could be telling the truth but no one else was around to witness the crime, so the one who had a “lost article” is punished for nothing.
The meaning of this law is that if someone does not have a witness to prove that a possession of his was stolen, than the man who states that something of his was stolen will be killed.
Law #243, which states, “As rent of herd cattle he shall pay three gur of corn to the owner,” is seems to be extremely fair. If one is renting another’s cattle, they should pay for the use of that person’s cattle. It is similar to renting a room or something else in modern-day culture. This seems socially acceptable, in terms of health, because it is fueling the economy and creating a similar lifestyle for everyone. This also seems a fair enough price for the time that the cattle are being rented.