The first observation we can make for Hammurabi’s Law Code is that the Babylonian justice system is punitive rather than correctional. The code never makes reference to any rehabilitation center or rectification process where wrong doers could perhaps learn from their mistakes and change for the better. Punishment is dealt instantly and the nature of the punishment is often equal in severity with the crime committed. For instance, line 196 states that if a man breaks another man’s bone, his bone shall be broken in return. It is clear that ideas of vengeance and revenge dominate Babylonian society, and offenders should be hurt as badly as their victims. However, it should be said that inequalities are seen throughout the text and we se how those of lower rank are not given the same treatment. For instance, a man who knocks the tooth out another man need only be punished if they are the same rank.
Through Hammurabi’s code we also get a sense of the state being an oppressive force, rather than a benevolent entity protecting the livelihoods of its citizens which most modern day institutions at least try to come across as. Punishments are cruel and often disproportionately harsh compare to the crime a person is committing. Line 109 states that a wine seller should be put to death if bad characters gather in front of her house and line 11 states that owners of stolen property who do no produce witnesses shall equally be executed. The message is clear: stay in line or face execution, any disobedience will not be tolerated. This further enlightens us on the Babylonians’ callous attitude towards life and the ignorance of the intrinsic value of every individual
It is also clear that the state has vast control over commerce and trade in ancient Babylon. Rather than a free market economy (which most states today operate as to some extent), the price of goods and services are fixed by the state and included in Hammurabi’s code of law. This can be seen in the Wage Regulations section where the costs of various services are listed, and the Loans and Interest where even the interest charged by grain-lenders are set in stone. It paints a picture of a highly regulated business environment and further adds to the oppressive image of the Babylonian rulers as mentioned before. However with most transactions happening between individual to individual it is hard to imagine how the Babylonian rulers were able to enforce the prices dictated within Hammurabi’s code.
Hammurabi’s code also provides useful insights into civil procedures and the overall legal system in place in Babylonian society. Evidence within the text makes it clear that the burden of proof rests solely on the individual in legal disputes and investigations are not a collective effort. Lines 10 and 11 pertain to cases of stolen property and necessitate that both parties would have to produce their own witnesses and substantiate their claims, or face the death penalty. It shows a lack of proper legal investigators and civil authorities in place, with individuals tasked with defending their own cases. This alludes to deeper issues regarding inequality within Babylonian society, as more powerful individuals with connections would be able to pay the right people to lighten their crimes while the poor would be left to fend for themselves.
The male figure is presented as the central figure of Babylonian society. The pronoun “he” is used throughout the text to refer to the parties discussed in each legal situation, save for when referring to a select few women dominated occupations and wives, showing that men had a more active and public role, and tended most affairs. We can also see several biases within the text such as that men are allowed to possess many maidservants but not the other way around showing that polygamy was condoned, provided that the man is the one partaking in multiple partners. Additionally, there was social pressure for wives to provide children for their husband, with the text going so far as to allow men with infertile wives to take a concubine and “bring her into his house”.
We get a glimpse into the traditional family values surrounding Babylonian society. Though divorce is mentioned throughout the text, it only happens under special circumstances showing that marriage was a lifetime commitment to the Babylonians. Of note is line 148 which states that even if his wife falls ill, a man shall not divorce her but instead they will continue to live together and he shall take care of her for the remainder of her life. The preservation of the family unit can be seen in other places such as line 168 which states that disowning one’s son is possible only if he has “committed a crime sufficiently grave to cut him off from sonship.” There is also an emphasis on filial piety: If a son strikes his father, they shall cut off his hand, showing how assaulting one’s father would be a grave offence.
Within Hammurabi’s code we also get a sense of the prevalence of religion throughout multiple aspects of Babylonian society. We see that priestess’ who open a wine shop or partake in drinking shall be burnt, showing the strict rules religious authorities have to adhere to. Many times in the text we also see that an accused could “take an oath in the name of gods” and the matter would not be escalated any further. The oath substitutes a part of the legal process and legitimises god as a witness with the assumption that breaking it would result in dire consequences to the oath-bearer in the near future. What may be a simple turn of phrase in modern society is hence a powerful legal tool within Babylonian society, showing the deep respect its citizens have for the divine. Of course this is a clear weakness in the system, and criminals would be able get away with their crimes simply by taking an oath.
(998 words)