Josh here. I've been remiss in posting my thoughts, so I'll try to get us back on track.
This article was enlightening. We often think of Hammurabi's Code to be "an eye for an eye," and that's a component. However, by today's standards, it's a little more cruel for that. For example, according to The ID, the death penalty applied to many crimes that seem minor today; for example, a woman could be killed for entering a tavern, as could a woman who left her husband without good cause. It's not explained what good cause might have been, or who got to make the determination on the goodness of the cause.
Crazy punishments aside, Hammurabi did something no other ruler had done before - he established laws that were written down, and expected them to be upheld even after his death. Previous to this, rulers generally did what they pleased, when they pleased, and there was no continuity between regimes.
In my judgment, Hammurabi had a great premise, even though his implementation lacked some ... finesse.
I dun seen this! Unfortunately I assumed that the Louvre wouldn't allow photography so I didn't take a camera to prove I was actually there (inb4 "pics or it didn't happen").
ReplyDeleteAlso, FUKKEN BLOGGER COMMENTS HOW DO THEY WORK. I can't ever post one on my first try.