Final answer:
Classical civilizations' laws differed from Hammurabi's Code mainly in the more uniform application of laws, with less emphasis on social status and generally less severe punishments. Hammurabi's Code was known for its 'eye for an eye' principle within the same social classes, whereas classical legal systems moved towards a more egalitarian legal framework.
Step-by-step explanation:
The laws in most classical civilizations differed from Hammurabi's Code in that the application of laws and their penalties were more uniform, regardless of social class, while Hammurabi's Code identified different punishments and expectations for people based on their social status.
Hammurabi's laws were based on the principle of 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,' but crucially, this was applied mostly within the same social classes. Aristocrats could expect to pay fines for offenses that would cost a commoner their life or limb.
Over time, societies like ancient Greece and Rome developed legal systems that, while still not perfectly equitable, tended to apply laws more evenly across classes, with less severe punishments compared to the harsh ones in Hammurabi's Code.
Additionally, the concept of 'presumption of innocence' and the use of evidence which were identified in Hammurabi's Code, may have influenced later legal systems. This contrasts with Hammurabi's approach, which varied the severity of punishment not just based on the crime, but also on the perpetrator's and victim’s social class.
In many classical legal systems, legal distinctions based on class were less pronounced when it came to the application of justice, and over time, the evolution towards a more egalitarian approach to law became evident.