Some offences against property were assessed at a fairvalue, and simple or multiple restitution enacted ($§ 57-59). Minor thefts were fined (§§ 259, 260).
It is evident that offences against the rights of property were most severely repressed, perhaps on account of their frequency ; ef. Gn 31°? 44°,
Offences against the person were graded, accord- ing to the rank of the injured person relatively to the offender. Murder is not expressly dealt with ; but that the penalty was death, may be assumed from the treatment of manslaughter in a quarrel (§ 206 f.). Here, if there was no malice, a payment of the doctor covered any wound, and death result- ing involved a fine only. If a pregnant woman was struck and abortion caused, the child’s life was estimated at a fine on a graduated scale. If the woman died, the compensation was also gradu- ated according to the woman’s rank ($$ 209-214). A rash or careless operation was penalized according to the rank of the sufferer ($§ 218-220).
Assaults are treated much the same way. To strike a parent was very heinous (§ 195). _ Injuries by one gentleman to another were punished by retaliation ($§ 196, 197),—to a poor man by fines ($§ 198-201), to a slave by lower fines (§ 199). 'To strike a superior on the cheek involved scourging (§ 202); an equal, a fine ($§ 203, 204). A slave who struck a superior on the cheek was mutilated (§ 205). ,
Offences against morality were mostly capital : adultery (§ 129) ; rape of ad aughter-in-law (§ 180) ;
bad conduct on a wife’s part ($143); procuring a husband’s death (§ 153); incest (§§ 154-158). However, seduction of a betrothed virgin involved only a fine (§ 155), and incest with a mother-in- law, outlawry (§ 158).
Tf not, he must’
CODE OF HAMMURABI 597
Desertion of a wife dissolved marriage (§ 136) ; persistent worthlessness of a wife justified divorce (§ 141) ; mutual aversion also (§ 142). Persistent unfilial conduct justified disinheritance (§ 169). Ingratitude on the part of adopted sons was punished according to the status of the son, apart from his adoption (§§ 192, 193). Presumption on the part of a maid against her mistress earned degradation to slavery (§ 146). A maid was not necessarily a slave.
The principle of retaliation was extended to the intention of a crime. To put a man in danger of a damage was punished by the infliction of that damage on the offender. This elucidates several points. To accuse a man wrongfully of witchcraft (black magic?) put the accused in danger of death, for it was punished by death (§ 1). Similarly, to accuse a man of magical arts subjected him to the risk of death (§ 2), and, if not proved by the result of ordeal, was punished by death. It is clear that the Code did not mean to let a witch live.
False witness was brought under this principle. If it imperilled life, it was punished by death (§ 3) ; if it endangered property, it was punished by equivalent loss (§ 4). False claim to property, in- volving peril of life to accused, was capital (§ 5).
Slander against a respectable woman (§ 127) was punished by degradation to slavery. Overreaching (§ 126), unjustifiable distraint (§§ 114, 241), fraudu- lent claim, undisclosed defects of sale (§ 278), were fined. ‘Self-help’ was forbidden, even when most reasonable (§§ 49, 113).
Breach of contract had to be made good (§§ 42, 43, 62, 65, 125), and was further often penalized ($§ 44, 124). Evasion or falsification was strictly forbidden (§ 52). Denial of deposit (§ 124); sub- _ stitution of a changeling (§ 194); breach of trust ($§ 253-256) ; neglect of entrusted flocks or herds (§§ 263-267) ; bad workmanship in building a house or ship ($§ 229, 235); neglect of hired animals (§ 45 ff.), were all penalized.
Neglect of duty was severely punished, due regard being had to the degree of responsibility of the offender. Levy-masters, constables, beer-sellers, governors, magistrates, were severely punished for breach of duty. Riparian owners were held respon- sible for repairs to canals and for all damage due to neglect. Neglect of reasonable precautions was penalized (§§ 251, 252).
Oppression, bribery, misappropriation of public property, were capital offences In governors and magistrates (§§ 33, 34). Cruelty to or neglect of a hostage for debt was punished (§ 116).
All disputed cases were left at the decision of the king, or decided according to statutory tariffs (§ 51). All contracts were to be duly drawn up and attested, or were invalid (§§ 105, 122).
Extenuating circumstances were admitted in some cases. A woman left without provision by her husband might remarry (§ 134). A man who could not hold the slave he had caught was free ($ 20). Desertion excused bigamy (§ 136). Bear- ing children to her master, so far excused a maid’s insolence to her mistress that she could not be sold as a slave (§ 146). Refloating a ship partly excused sinking it (§ 238). Deception excused a brander’s illegally rebranding a slave (§ 227).
Accident, the stroke of God, a thunderstorm, the attack of wild beasts, robbery by the enemy (§§ 45, 48, 103, 244, 249, 266), relieved a man of responsibility for damage to trust, or debt. A sudden charge on the part of an ox did not involve his owner (§ 250). The natural death in a creditor’s employ of a hostage for debt did not render the creditor liable (§ 115). Buta depositary was liable for damage done to goods deposited with him, even if he could not help it, because he was under contract, and charged a fee for safe keeping