But there is still another respect in which the recedence of the principle of retaliation gradually led to an advance beyond the legal conceptions characteristic of the heroic age. The command for strict retribution takes into consideration merely the _objective_ injury in which a deed results; to it, it is immaterial whether a person destroys another's eye accidentally or intentionally. The same injury that he has caused must befall him. Whoever kills a man must, according to the law of Hammurabi, himself suffer death; if he kills a woman, he is to be punished by the death of his daughter. If a house collapses, the builder who constructed it must suffer death. For a successful operation, the physician receives a compensation; if the operation fails, the hand that has performed it is cut off. The same law determines both reward and punishment. Moreover, it includes within its scope even intellectual and moral transgressions. The judge who commits an error is to be dismissed from office in disgrace; the owner who neglects his field is to be deprived of it.
10. THE DIFFERENTIATION OF LEGAL FUNCTIONS.
The direct impetus to overcoming the defects that were inherent in penal justice as a result of its having originated in the conflicts of individuals, did not come from a clear recognition of differences in the character of the crimes themselves, but primarily from the fact of a gradual _division of judicial functions_. This is shown particularly by the development of Græco-Roman as well as of Germanic law. It is in the criminal court, which supersedes blood-revenge, that public authority is most directly conscious of its power over the individual. Hence the criminal court appears to be the highest of the courts, and the one that most deeply affects the natural rights of man. Its authority is vested solely in the ruler, or in a particularly sacred tribunal. This is due, not so much to the specific character of the crimes over which it has jurisdiction, as to the respect which it receives because it assumes both the ancient duty of blood-revenge and the function of exacting a requital for religious guilt. Similarly, other offences also gradually pass from the sphere of personally executed revenge or from that of the strife of individuals, and become subject to the penal authority of the State. The division of judicial authority, to which these tendencies lead, is promoted by the differentiation of public power, as a result of which the administration of justice is apportioned to various officials and magistrates, as well as are the other tasks of the State. It is for this reason that, if we consider their civilization as a whole, the constitutional States of the Occidental world were led to differentiate judicial functions much earlier than were the great despotic monarchies of the Orient. These monarchies, as the code of Hammurabi shows, possessed a highly developed husbandry and a correspondingly advanced commercial and monetary system, whereas they centralized all judicial functions in the ruler.