"If anyone brings an accusation against a man, and the accused goes to the river and leaps into the river, if he sinks in the river his accuser shall take possession of his house. But if the river proves that the accused is not guilty, and he escapes unhurt, then he who had brought the accusation shall be put to death, while he who leaped into the river shall take possession of the house that had belonged to his accuser."

Because this, amongst others, certainly makes sense in a modern society!

Here is the debate rephrased: Shall our modern government follow a set of laws written over 4,000 years ago for a society with these three classes?

1. the gentlemen: which includes the house-holders, property owners, the wealthy and upper classes.

2. the freemen: also known as the pauper, poor man, or serf. They could own property and slaves.

3. male and female slaves.

Here are a couple of the laws we would be obliged to follow:

209: "If a man strike a man’s daughter and bring about a miscarriage, he shall pay ten shekels of silver for her miscarriage."

210: "If that woman die, they shall put his daughter to death."

I think the answer is obvious. We do not want a society like this. We do not want laws like this. We would not have laws like this, unless the King demands it.

What say our King?

Read the The Code of Hammurabi for yourself: http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile;=show.php?title=1276&Itemid;=27

The Code of Hammurabi is ancient law, and for the U.S. government, there is no need because even though the current law may have unfair practices and just, it doesn't mean that we resort to eye for eye law. Eye for eye law is outdated and brutal for today's society.

Example of Code of Hammurabi

* If a man puts out the eye of an equal, his eye shall be put out.