Lawrence has asked about Hammurabi's Code in relation to what I wrote about earlier, with the Sumerians and their first writings on law.
The Sumerians existed much earlier (ca. 3500 BC) than Hammurabi, and their cuneiform writings appeared during their early dynastic period (ca. 3100 BC). Their concepts of law tended toward their own business dealings with other peoples in the Mesopotamia region. They did recognize "morality" in their writings, and as such, their notions of "Law" are more comprehensive. They dealt with "right" and "wrong" -- and this is remarkable in such an early society.
Hammurabi was the sixth king of the Babylonian Empire, and he lived from 1792 - 1750 BC.
He was, indeed, more harsh in his approach toward his people (he had endured a series of wars with neighboring peoples), and the famous "Hammurabi Code" involved "retaliation" over any legal or moral truths. Because of this, it was really more a "codification" of harsh penalties for wrongs committed. These included things like mutilation, drowning, and sometimes even impalement. Things like theivery or false accusations were dealt with in severe extremes. For example, a man who accuses another might be forced to jump into a river... if he did not drown, the accusations were assumed to be true.
Hammurabi's Code makes for a long and detailed text, and as king he was able to excercise great control over the people in his realms. It is interesting that his codes (nearly 300 of them) were inscribed in stone and then put on display for his people -- many of whom could not read.
So, LK, what I will say is that the Sumerians came first, and their notions of "Law" were far more advanced than Hammurabi's "Codes." I do have a soft-spot in my heart for the Sumerians, but I won't let that taint my historical approach or judgement (ha!). I find the Sumerians fascinating... and Hamm's Code, well, not so much.