The penalty for injuring a woman bystander:
Here we are again dealing with a passage that some have abused. Some claim that God doesn’t recognize the humanity of a fetus, because the punishment is not death for the death of the infant. Consider, once again, the situation here is not the premeditated killing of the unborn, but a woman being injured unintentionally as a result of the fighting of others. She was probably trying to break up the fight..
The husband is to set the penalty, in the case of the miscarriage, but notice this is resolved before the judges, so that the demand is not unreasonable due to the desire for revenge.
Additionally, if a women is injured beyond the loss of the child, then the guilty will be judged based on the extent of the injury. Again because the injury was unintentional, the law prevented a punishment that was greater that warranted. The punishment was to fit the crime. This was a unique concept for that day. For example, according to the Code of Hammurabi, if the finger of noble was lost then the perpetrator could lose his hand. Also, it should be noted that the concept of “an eye for an eye” didn’t necessitate the literal lose of an eye, for a penalty often could be paid in lieu of this judgment, but the concept is that the punishment was to be fair and just.
Again the idea is that one is responsible for ones own actions and behavior should be considered in relation to its consequences.