The Code of Hammurabi and the Hebrew’s jurisprudence codification are highly similar although they do hold some differences. Both of the systems of jurisprudence contain some of the same “eye for eye” constructs. One of the chief differences between the two codifications is the codification of Hammurabi is much more rigorous and unforgiving than the Hebrew’s system of jurisprudence. If the United States were to take to follow one of these systems of jurisprudence the codification of Hammurabi would alter our state the most.
There are so many things the codification of Hammurabi and the Hebrew’s codification of jurisprudence have in common that it is difficult to pick out the differences between the two. Some of the similarities include the “eye for eye” rules. the different penalties among the categories. and the accent on a kind of justness. Both of the systems of jurisprudence are based slightly on an “eye for eye” rule although the codification of Hammurabi is much closer to it. An illustration is in both systems a slaying is punished with decease. Both of the systems besides have different effects for offenses committed to the lower category. In Babylonia if a adult male destroys a lower category citizens oculus so he would pay one myna of Ag. In Israel if a adult male destroyed a slave’s oculus the slave was to be set free to do up for his loss. If the same offense was committed to a adult male of the same category the effects were heavier. Both systems besides try to supply as much justness as possible. These are merely a few of the many similarities between these two codifications of jurisprudence.
Although it is difficult to separate the differences between these two systems of jurisprudence. there are some that stand out. One difference is that the jurisprudence used by the Hebrews concentrated more on moral jurisprudence than the codification of Hammurabi did. For illustration if a boy were to hit his male parent in Israel the male child would be put to decease but in Babylonia the male child would merely hold his manus cut off. Another difference is how much more forgiving the system used by the Hebrews was. In the codification of Hammurabi no affair what if you did something wrong you were punished. Under the jurisprudence system used by the Hebrews if you did something incorrect but it was an accident you would hold a less terrible penalty. If a Babylonian were to slay a adult male we would be killed no inquiries asked. If a Hebrew adult male was to hold murdered a adult male and it was an guiltless accident he would fly to another metropolis.
If the United States decided to take either one of these systems of jurisprudence and pattern it our state would alter. But there would be a more drastic alteration if we adopted the codification of Hammurabi. Both codifications are based on an “eye for eye” construct. although the Hebrew jurisprudence is based more slackly. and they would alter how our state would run. The codification of Hammurabi is more rough and would decidedly unclutter up offense. Under no system of jurisprudence would offense halt all together. but the badness of Hammurabi’s codification would assist to beef up our state. But it would be difficult to acquire used to. The jurisprudence system used by the Hebrews would besides alter our state but it is much closer to what we use now.
