Hammurabi Bronze Lancet Analysis

Let 's say, you come home from cleaning an irrigation ditch, hot in the sun, cleaning all day. You see some sort of plant has infected your left leg, leaving a large puffy numb section of your leg. You go home and show it to your wife and ask her opinion, she says go to the surgeon and get it checked, and you do. The surgeon peers skeptically at the throbbing skin, and finally makes a consultation on the marks. He Believes he will have to cut you open with a bronze lancet, and let the infected blood and skin seep out. You agree, and he gets a bronze lancet. He cuts you open and the bleeding starts, but you end up losing too much. The lack of blood in your body kills you, and the doctor realizes his mistake. Now you’re dead. No saving you. At all. Ever. So the wife Goes to the stele and finds law 218 ( in order for how it is ordered on stele). She goes to court and law 218 wins. Later, the surgeon gets his hands cut off, and slice. The surgeon did what he could to save him. Was that really just? That is the whole point of Hammurabi’s code, equality and justice to all his people.His code was the foundation …show more content…
In Document D, “ If a man has borrowed money to plant his fields and a storm had flooded his field or carried away the crop, ... in that year he does not have to play his creditor” (Doc. D). This is unjust because this money is lost with the crops. The person he has bought the supplies from get it, but the creditor lost his money to a bunch of rain. In law 21, “ If a man has broken through the wall [to rob] a house...put him to death and pierce him or hang him in the hole in which he has made” (Doc D). In the 21st century, you break a window to rob, do they kill you, no. They might send you to jail or charge you, depending on how bad the damage was, but not kill you. This punishment is far too harsh for this crime. Perhaps instead, putting him in jail, charging him, so on so