To start off, code twenty two states,” If anyone is committing a robbery and is caught, then he shall be put to death.” This code to me is very simple yet surprising. In today’s day and age, in the United States, robbery is considered a crime and morally a wrong doing, but no one would ever be put to death over a robbery. The defendant might receive jail time, if the jury has no doubts that you committed the crime, but certainly not the death sentence. On the other hand I do somewhat agree with this code. Theft is a serious crime and is not always taken serious in our country. Do I think people should be put to death for it? No, but I do think the penalty should be more than a slap on the wrist and community service.
Secondly, Code twenty five says, “If fire break out in a house, and some one who comes to put it out cast his eye upon the property of the owner of the house, and take the property of the master of the house, he shall be thrown into that self-same fire.” I think this law is literal. My understanding of this is that if someone helps you put out a fire and steals something then they will be burned at the stake. As I said previously being killed over theft is a little much but being burned at the stake is something entirely different. That’s just torture in my opinion and I think this law should have never been conceived.
To continue, code fifty five states, “If any one open his ditches to water his crop, but is careless, and the water flood the field of his neighbor, then he shall pay his neighbor corn for his loss.” This law makes perfect sense to me and I think it does relate to today. If my neighbor is cutting down a tree branch in his yard, and doesn’t ask for help and is careless resulting in the tree branch smashing my car, I think he should pay for the damages. The same goes with this law but is about corn, if a farmer destroyed my crops I would want repayment in what he destroyed. I agree with law one hundred percent and think it is reasonable and fair.
Moving on up the list, code one twenty eight, “If a man take a woman to wife, but have no intercourse with her, this woman is no wife to him.” My understanding of this law is a divorce to be made if the husband does not have sex with his wife. Now, this code is nothing like present day. These days you can get a divorce over anything and even over nothing. You don’t need a reason to get divorced like the people did four thousand years ago. Nevertheless this law does make sense in the time period of which it was written. Today we are so worried about what’s the weather like tomorrow or if Susie from work likes me or if this red dress makes me look fat without thinking about our survival. Back in those days survival was everything considering average life span was thirty. So if you were married intercourse was crucial to the human survival. If that woman was not having children then she was a waste of resources. So I do agree with this law in the context of those days and what was important.
Continuing, code one hundred and forty eight states, “If a man take a wife, and she be seized by disease, if he then desire to take a second wife he shall not put away his wife, who has been attacked by disease, but he shall keep her in the house which he has built and support her so long as she lives.” From what I can see it is saying that a husband can’t bring another wife into his house and ditch his old wife who is sick with disease and not try to save her. Morally I think this law is great but putting on my survival skills, I do not agree with it. Through medical advancements of today we have learned that a diseased person will only spread that disease if not