Inequality but not Oppression

Hammurabi’s Law Code is a product of his effective ruling from the earlier years of his reign. The textual evidence that supports Hammurabi’s interest in both individual and collective problems, suggests he was well aware of the issues that plagued his kingdom. Babylon’s changing territory and political alterations allowed Hammurabi experience with a large variety of societal issues, which provided experience for his Law Codes. Residues of extensive power over free people (and intensive power over temple-associated people) are evident in the punishments of the Code, as “laws can be harsher or more lenient depending on social differences”(Van De Mieroop 105). Van De Mieroop also suggests that the sole purpose of the stelas were to put citizens’ minds at ease (supported by Hammurabi’s words), and not for judicial reference. Thus Babylon can be assured of protection from the King, and I argue the punishments are adjusted for the amount of protection offered. Hammurabi has a greater responsibility to protect the temple and its range of essential duties before the commoners or free men, thus punishments are in the favor of the higher rank.

The people of Babylon that the King could better access (whether through records or by accessibility to the temple) are primarily those who are not free. Hammurabi’s loyalty is strongest to the temple and its associates, where more protective laws apply. The lack of political interest over other people in Babylon seems to result in a lesser punishment for crimes. An offense to a commoner bears less consequence than an offense against the temple, as seen in law number 8:

“If a man steals an ox, a sheep, a donkey, a pig, or a boat- if it belongs either to the god or to the palace, he shall give thirtyfold; if it belongs to a commoner, he shall replace it tenfold…”(LH 82).

Political interest for higher-ranking individuals (usually associated with the temple) allows for stronger protection compared to free men. This is best illustrated with laws 200-205 (LH 121). If a higher-ranking man hurts a lower-ranking man the punishment is a mere sum to pay (instead of an equal or greater punishment pertaining to the ailment caused). It is evident that any crime against a higher-ranking person bears stronger punishments, thus offering stronger protection to those most important to his kingship.

Hammurabi’s vast experience with issues that cross between his people (both free and not), allowed for such detailed laws pertaining to Babylon. Hammurabi is sure to include laws relevant to all those benefiting from Babylonian kingship (women, children, high ranking, low ranking, free, or slaves). The inequality of punishments issued is simply an indicator of where Hammurabi’s prime loyalty lies, where most of his protection is expected, but he does not abuse this power. He maintains less restrictive, extensive, power for commoners since commoners who strike another commoner are expected to pay less than a higher-ranking person hitting their equal (Laws 202 and 203, LH 121). Although inequality is present between classes, Hammurabi does not deliberately oppress people more removed from the temple.