Based on the information given in the prologue of the Code, it can be concluded that Hammurabi is of divine origin. More specifically, the origin of this Code was done according to the will of Anu and Bel, king of the Anunnaki, who called Hammurabi to bring order to the land of man. This was based on the idea that Anu and Enlil had given control over humanity to Marduk, who ruled over Babylon. The development of human communities, inferior to the deities, required regulation and control “from above,” so Hammurabi was appointed.
An excerpt of the laws is given in this document, but it is already clear from it what the law enforcement and judicial culture of Babylon during Hammurabi’s reign was like. It was a brutal, inhuman, by modern standards, but precise and unambiguous administration: any serious transgression, accusation, slander, and theft were punishable by death. More minor crimes were punishable either by a beating, cutting off an arm, or compensation for pecuniary damage. At the same time, the code guaranteed the rights of women, and although they differed from the rights and freedoms of men, women could still legally divorce and abandon their husbands. Thus, the general culture of ancient Babylon was based on the principles of perceived justice and honor, excluded slander and falsehood, and recognized the importance of the social responsibility of individuals.
Babylon’s social and economic system defined the use of slave power, but slaves had some protections. For example, §199 postulated pecuniary liability for physical injury to a slave. Thus, it established boundaries and showed that slaves had a minimum of socio-economic safeguards since the punishment for causing physical harm to them was punishable only financially. The socio-economic agenda of ancient Babylon also determined the development of the relationship between subordinates and superiors. Thus, according to §200 and §202, if an individual harmed a person of his rank, it was punishable by retaliation of the same force: knocking out a tooth was punishable by knocking out a tooth. However, if the damage was inflicted on a superior, the individual is publicly beaten with a lash. Thus socio-economic class, although not stated literally, is the foundation on which the Hammurabi Code is based. The recognition of the marked distinctions between people of different ranks allowed for the structuring of Babylonian society and marked the essence of production relations.
“An eye for an eye” is indeed one of the most common forms of punishment in ancient Babylon. It can be taken both literally and metaphorically, and the Code demonstrates this well. For example, §196 postulates the necessity of destroying the eye of the perpetrator if he has destroyed the eye of another person. Alternatively, for example, §218 ensures that poor performance of clinical services resulting in injury to an individual is punishable by chopping off fingers: this is not an exact interpretation of the aforementioned retaliation but a demonstration of the degrees of its extension. There is no clear answer as to how fair and just such a system is. On the one hand, it helped to guarantee safety in society since no one wants to lose fingers, hands, or eyes. On the other hand, such unambiguity eliminated the possibility of an accidental mistake that caused damage. In this case, even a coincidence that caused a person to poke another person’s eye out would not be judicially reviewed, which means that the accused would receive a commensurate injury instead of a mitigating punishment.
Finally, the woman had no small role in Babylonian society but was still seen as an adjunct to the man. A husband could brutally kill his wife if he found her with a lover (§129), but if the man did not provide for her and they lived in poverty, she had the right to leave for another man or father (§134 and §142). In doing so, the diligent mistress faces a public death, which means that for the Babylonian woman, the role of homemaker was “constitutionally” defined.