Editing Code of Hammurabi (section)

==Underlying principles==
One principle widely accepted to underlie the Code is {{lang|la|[[lex talionis]]}}, or "eye for an eye". Laws 196 and 200 respectively prescribe an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth when one man destroys another's. Punishments determined by {{lang|la|lex talionis}} could be transferred to the sons of the wrongdoer.{{sfnp|Johns|1911}} For example, law 229 states that the death of a homeowner in a house collapse necessitates the death of the house's builder. The following law 230 states that if the homeowner's son died, the builder's son must die also.{{sfnp|Roth|1995a|p=125}}

Persons were not [[equal before the law]]; not just age and profession but also class and gender dictated the punishment or remedy they received. Three main kinds of person, {{lang|akk|awīlum}}, {{lang|akk|muškēnum}}, and {{lang|akk|wardum}} (male)/{{lang|akk|amtum}} (female), are mentioned throughout the Code. A {{lang|akk|wardum}}/{{lang|akk|amtum}} was a male/female slave. As for {{lang|akk|awīlum}} and {{lang|akk|muškēnum}}, though contentious, it seems likely that the difference was one of social class, with {{lang|akk|awīlum}} meaning something like "gentleman" and {{lang|akk|muškēnum}} something like "commoner".{{sfnp|Roth|1995a|pp=72–73}} The penalties were not necessarily stricter for a {{lang|akk|muškēnum}} than an {{lang|akk|awīlum}}: a {{lang|akk|muškēnum}}'s life may have been cheaper, but so were some of his fines.{{sfnp|Jenkins|1905|p=339}} There was also inequality within these classes: laws 200 and 202, for example, show that one {{lang|akk|awīlum}} could be of higher rank than another.{{sfnmp|1a1=Roth|1y=1995b|1pp=34ff.|2a1=Roth|2y=1995a|2p=121}}

The above principles are distant in spirit from modern systems of [[common law|common]] and [[civil law (legal system)|civil law]], but some may be more familiar. One such principle is the [[presumption of innocence]]; the first two laws of the stele prescribe punishments, determined by {{lang|la|lex talionis}}, for unsubstantiated accusations. Written evidence was valued highly,{{sfnmp|1a1=Johns|1y=1911|2a1=Roth|2y=1995a|2p=72}} especially in matters of [[contract]].{{sfnp|Horne|1915}} One crime was given only one punishment.{{sfnp|Prince|1904|p=607}} The laws also recognized the importance of the intentions of a defendant.{{sfnp|Johns|1911}} Lastly, the Code's establishment on public stelae was supposedly intended to increase access to justice. Whether or not this was true, suggesting that a wronged man have the stele read aloud to him (lines 3240'–3254')<ref group="note" name="CDLI and Roth" /> is a concrete measure in this direction, given the inaccessibility of scribal education in the Old Babylonian period.{{sfnp|George|2005|p=7}}

The prologue asserts that Hammurabi was chosen by the gods. Raymond Westbrook observed that in ancient Near Eastern law, "the king was the primary source of legislation".{{sfnp|Westbrook|2003|p=26}} However, they could delegate their god-given legal authority to judges.{{sfnp|Bottéro|1992|p=165}} However, as Owen B. Jenkins observed, the prescriptions themselves bear "an astonishing absence{{nbsp}}... of all theological or even ceremonial law".{{sfnp|Jenkins|1905|p=335}}