Hammurabi Laws

While reading the Code of Hammurabi, several particular components appeared to be continually stressed. One of these is the idea of a distinct hierarchy recurring over and over again. The civilization seemed to be divided into several classes, the first being the royal line, the second is the high class of citizens including doctors, judges, and merchants, the next class is the serfs and peasants, than the last is slaves who were considered just property. The upper class is protected by laws of equal treatment, and the idea of punishment for crimes committed. The lower classes are protected more by monetary return for crimes committed rather than the “eye for an eye” mentality as is held for the upper class.

Also, the idea of judgeship recurs several time as well. Law 5 directly limits a judge’s power, and others dictate what sort of controversy is subject to a judge’s regulation. This is a very black and white system; when you commit a crime, you are either guilty or innocent and there is no in between. And you will be punished accordingly without regard to the severity of the crime. Petty theft is the same as major theft, and the offender is deemed a thief and is subject to death. There is also the idea of judgement by fate as Law 2 gives the decision for deciding a witch is left to the River Ordeal. The laws also ensured that judicial procedures remained impartial. For example, perjury was ardently prohibited in law 3 which dictated that a man who had "borne false witness in a trial... shall be put to death."

The Code of Hammurabi

While reading through the rules set forth in the Law of Hammurabi, I made a number of interesting observations. The laws focused on issues such as theft, agriculture, possessions, marital relations, judicial processes, and physical damage. The punishments themselves seemed to fall into two categories for me, some were lenient, and others were extremely harsh. For example, the 196^th law that is famous for the “eye for an eye” principle, seems reasonable as an equal punishment for the crime. On the other hand, laws such as the 1^st one, where false accusation of murder results in death, does not have an equal balance between the crime and punishment. I found most of the laws to be far more strict than they are in the present. Many of them have to do with crimes that will result in the death of those convicted. It seems as if it was easier for this society to give capital punishment to those who did not behave accordingly. For example the 22^nd law says that any robber who is caught, will be put to death.

I also noticed that a significant part of the code dealt with economic regulation. The middle section of the laws deals a lot with the issues of slavery (an economic resource of the past), land rights, animals, and other rules that deal with agriculture and commerce. Many of these punishments included giving up resources and currency. This makes the Laws of Hammurabi not only the first written rules of human government, but the first time we see government trying to regulate an economy to make it fair.

Social standards and norms are also present in the code. For example, one law, the 128^th, says that if a man has married a woman but not yet had sex with her, the marriage is not valid. This clearly defined standard shows how the governments in the ancient days had not yet come to terms with differences among individuals and did not hesitate to mandate certain social behavior. We also see that the code displayed the idea that some people are more valuable than others. The 202^nd and 203^rd laws deal with a man hitting another man of higher or equal “rank”. Hitting the man of higher rank would result in a much harsher punishment. This double standard shows us that the Code of Hammurabi lacked the principles of human equality. Although it did a lot to introduce ideas of fairness and order into society, we see that the code still upheld inequality.

Hammurabi’s Equivalent Punishment

The Code of Hammurabi, the set of laws passed onto Hammurabi by the gods, was defined to be absolute in the Ancient Near East. These 282 laws became the guide to the lives of the Babylonians, each in a pattern of defining a crime, followed by its respective consequence. After observing this text, I have noticed that not only are the punishments extremely violent and severe, but also often resulting in execution. One of the examples of crimes we can see is robbery. If anyone is caught stealing, he will be put to death. Although this may sound absurd today, the Code of Hammurabi has a strict perspective of the crimes in general. There are many crimes that the laws try to address with equivalent punishments. If a man puts out the eye of an equal, his eye shall be put out also, literally meaning an eye for an eye. As the Code uses death as the punishment for many of the listed crimes, it is interesting to see how severe the Babylonians considered these crimes to be. The present may have a different law system, which uses death as a controversial ultimate punishment, the Babylonians followed the strict Code of Hammurabi, deeming many wrongdoings such as stealing as an act punishable by death only.

Divine Authority

In “The Hitite-Egyptian Treaty,” the king of Egypt is constantly referred to as “Ramses, the Beloved of Amon, Great King, King of Egypt” while the king of the Hitites is called “Hattusili, Great King, King of Hatti.” At first, this difference may seem unimportant, and Amon may be assumed to be some family member or something of Ramses. However, Amon is noticeably absent from the family histories of the two kings presented at the very start of the text.

To those familiar with Near Eastern Studies, it is known that Amon is the chief god in the Egyptian mythology. Thus Ramses is meant to be seen as having fallen into some kind of supernatural favor, most likely declaring a divine source of his power, making it absolute. One then wonders why Hattusili is not shown to have this same absolute power. One explanation might be that Ramses and Egypt in general are meant to be shown as having more power, but this is a non-parity treaty. It is unlikely that in trying to establish a peace, Hattusili would allow himself to be seen as weak. This is especially true considering the fact that the Hittites are very likely keeping hold of the lands they took from Egypt during their conflict.

Another explanation may that is has to do with different levels of religiosity in the two nations. Perhaps religion and the gods were not as important in Hittite society so Hattusili felt no need to give himself this type of authority. However, it is made clear in the treaty that it is to be sanctioned by the gods, and that the very reason this peace need exist is because it is the natural state the gods intended. Politics and religion are very clearly intertwined for these two societies, and if Hattusili wanted the gods to sanction his treaty then he would most likely want them sanctioning his rule as well.

The most likely answer is given by the translator in one of his notes. Apparently, Hattusili had a very controversial rise to power, and thus even if religions was important, he was likely simply not referred to as having divine authority, nor did he try to claim it. What is odd is that religion at this point in time served a very utilitarian function, and because of its association with politics was very often manipulated by rulers for their own benefit. If there was a god from whom Hattusili could claim authority, which there most likely was, why would he not choose to claim this authority, especially in such an important treaty?

Laws of Hammurabi

"Laws of Hammurabi" is a great example of how kings were considered to have the divine right to rule. The way Hammurabi describes himself in the prologue makes him sound godlike. In the beginning, he just says that he was appointed by the gods because "Anu and Enlil ... named me by the name" (76). He says he is a good king because he is "obedient to the god Shamash", implying that the favor of the gods is necessary for him to rule. The way Hammurabi describes himself later, though, makes him sound like he is a god himself. He calls himself a shepherd several times, which is the same way God is described as a shepherd in the Bible. Hammurabi also says he will "rise like the sun-god Shamash" (76-77). He describes himself as "the fierce wild bull" (78) which is exactly how the part divine, part human Gilgamesh was described. The language of the Prologue is similar to that in the beginning of a myth, giving the impression that Hammurabi is larger than life.

The laws in this document seem to deal out pretty harsh punishments. Many of the crimes listed, such as theft, are punishable by death. Other than that, the laws seem pretty fair. For example, if a person does not follow through on a promise, they must compensate for it in some way. We can also see that religion was not separate from law. Law 11 states that witnesses are to speak "before the god".

Code of Hammurabi

Throughout the Code of Hammurabi I noticed that the punishments used for crimes were all very similar, and they all consisted of the taking of life, or material loss. It seemed strange that the punishments were one of two options because today our justice system has such a wide, and seemingly endless range of possible consequences for crimes. In the Code of Hammurabi, the punishments seemed like they would truly cause a person to think twice before acting because they would either be committing a crime that is punishable by death, or one that could end up their having to repay several times more than what they took. By putting monetary value on all the punishments that were not death, it could be assumed that people would abide by the laws more because they could lose several years crop, or loads of silver. This is far unlike our justice system today because, aside from the complete incorporation of religion into the judicial system, instead of maybe going to jail for week or a few months like today, the perpetrator would have to sometimes pay several times the monetary cost of their crime.

Instead of putting the burden of punishment costs on the shoulders of the innocent and victims through the price of prison systems, the cost is inflicted upon the guilty. This provides for a much more cost effective judicial system. With this method, a criminal doesn't go to a prison and get regular meals and a bed to sleep in, he is forced to either face death or have to turn over large amounts of silver and/or crop yields. By doing this there is a far greater incentive for people to not commit crimes because the burden is on their shoulders if they do, instead of on the rest of the people. With religion so deeply integrated into the laws, not only does the criminal have the burden on themselves, but the promise of holy punishment is an even greater motive to behave.

Death?

After reading through the Cod of Hammurabi, I found that the most striking thing to be the severity of punishments of certain crimes. A lot of the crimes, if committed today, would not impose the death penalty. It should be noted that in our time, people are much more lenient and much more forgiving. Back in the day, people sought to prevent crime more than give people another chance. In my opinion, there are good thing and bad things that come of such a decision. It is good in a way because if capital punishment were enforced, people would be discouraged from conducting those acts. It is bad in a ways because the guilty might repent and go on to make something of himself/herself. It is true that times are different and that people see things differently, but again there exists a fine line. Our system is, at times, overly complicated and in my opinion sometime it does not serve what it had been imposed to do. Our taxes pay for the jail and keep it running, but in the long run, if we keep the jail running, people might get hurt in other ways such as financially. This question will always exist because it is such a complicated one. Should any one crime be so great that it require the capital punishment? If we kill the criminals aren’t we as bad as they are, but if we don't and keep them in jail, are we being too light on them? This debate would last a lifetime.