Hammurabi's Code Ruined The Family

Nearly 4,000 years ago kind of Babylonia, Hammurabi made 282 laws to protect the weak. Hammurabi´s Code: wasn't Just because it threatened the family, affected personal property in a bad manner, and it was not harsh enough on the personal injuries. To began with, Hammurabi´s Code threatened the family. For example, in Law 129 if a woman cheats on her significant other then she must be killed with whom she used to cheat. Also, in Law 195 if a son hits his father then his hands must be cut off. Based on what I read, I can infer that if a woman cheats she must be killed, this is a too harsh rule that in my opinion should not be followed because adultery should only land them in jail and not jail. This shows, how much he threatened the family by making them lose a part of their body or parts of their body and if necessary death, he also endangered them by separating each other. Moreover, Hammurabi's Laws affected personal property in a bad manner. For instance, in Law 21 it states that if a man robs a house than he shall be pierced, or hanged in the hole in which he created to get in. Also, in Law 53 and 54, if a man opens his trench for irrigation and a flood cause his neighbor's crop to be lost then he must restore the crops. …show more content…
For example, in Law 209 if a man were to strike a free man´s daughter and causes her to lose her fruit then he must pay the man 10 shekels of silver. In addition, in Law 213 if a man were to strike a slave and cause her to lose her fruit then he must pay 2 shekels of silver. The reason, why I think he made the slave only 2 shekels is because many people, including himself thought slaves were invaluable and only useful for work. Based on what I read, I can conclude he would want hanks from the slaves because they weren't valuable. Overall, I think Hammurabi wasn't harsh enough on the rules because people who cause the ladies to lose their fruit should pay