Measure for Measure features three judges with dramatically different styles and philosophies of jurisprudence. The Duke has failed to enforce the "strict statutes and most biting laws" and as a result "our decrees / dead to infliction, to themselves are dead"(1.3.20;28-9). Angelo, who has been chosen by the Duke to fix his mess, advocates that all the laws, however harsh, be enforced. He argues to Isabella that the law
Now 'tis wake,
Takes note of what is done, and like a prophet,
Looks in a glass that shows what future evils--
Either now , or by remissness new-conceived,
And so in progress to be hatched and born --
Are now to have no successive degrees
But, ere they live, to end. (2.2.120-26)
Escalus finds himself disagreeing with both. He questions Angelo's harsh sentence of Claudio but nonetheless does not excuse or pardon the offenses that the Duke ignored.
What is this play telling us about enforcing the law and imposing punishments? Should a judge be strict or lenient (and what do these terms mean in terms of sentencing or punishment)? Is there a judicial philosophy judges should embrace -- or is following a rule itself problematic? What effects do these decisions have on the society at large? How does a judge defend justice?
The play Measure for Measure by Shakespeare compares two styles of justice, a strict and lenient system, by showing the disadvantages of each. Near the story's beginning, Angelo steps in for the Duke because the Duke had been too lenient with punishing criminals, setting a precedent that people can get away with crimes. Before going into disguise as Friar Lodowick, the Duke confides in Friar Thomas his reason for appointing Angelo. He says, “For terror, not to use, in time the rod becomes more mock’d than fear’d; so our decrees. Dead to infliction to themselves are dead; and liberty plucks justice by the nose; the baby beats the nurse, and quite athwart goes all decorum.” This quote by the Duke reveals that he now has realized that by not enforcing the laws in the past, he has created a precedent that people can get away with crimes, which has caused Vienna to be plagued by rampant crime. He says that the excessive freedom given to the citizens has allowed the role between government and citizens to become flipped and they no longer have control over the people. By appointing Angelo, laws can start to be enforced which will bring order to Vienna, without hurting the Duke’s name.
ReplyDeleteNear the start of Lord Angelo’s time as a substitute, it is discovered that a man named Claudio has impregnated Juliet out of wedlock, a crime that is punishable by death. Lord Angelo takes a very strict stance that Claudio gets the death penalty. At many points up until his execution, different citizens, including Claudio’s sister Isabella, plead and debate Lord Angelo to spare Claudio. Isabella tries to convince him by appealing to his humanity and getting him to empathize with Claudio. She asks him to consider what it would be like if he were in his situation and how he would want to be spared. Lord Angelo responds to this stating that he is showing mercy by enforcing the law. “I show it most of all when I show justice; for then I pity those I do not know, which a dismiss’d offence would after gall; and do him right that, answering one foul wrong. Lives not to act another. Be satisfied; your brother dies to-morrow; be content.” This quote shows that Lord Angelo believes that he is showing mercy and that he is saving lives by enforcing the law on Claudio. Although he may be correct that his strict justice may save future lives, it is also at the cost of Claudio’s life.
In conclusion, Measure for Measure masterfully reveals the consequences of both a lenient and strict justice system. A lenient justice system results in rampant crime throughout the city but a strict justice system results in multiple criminals being sentenced to death, but it reduces the crime in the city. Both just systems have their benefits and disadvantages but the final decision would boil down to a widely expressed ethical dilemma; is killing ever justified?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn the play Measure for Measure, Shakespeare makes the point that the law can be served and people can be punished in a litany of ways, each having both positive and negative effects on the government and those being convicted. Two of the main characters that take a strong stance as “judges” in the play are Angelo and the Duke. Both men take very different approaches to enforcing the law, with one being a near antithesis of the other. Angelo constructs his form of enforcement in response to the lax enforcement imposed by the Duke. Angelo reflects throughout the play on the malaise that weak enforcement has brought upon the town of Vienna. He reflects saying,
ReplyDelete“The law hath not been dead, though it hath slept—
Take note of what is done, and , like a prophet
Looks in a glass that shows what future evils—
Either now, or by remissness new-conceived,
And so in progress to be hatched and born—” (Act 2. 121-135).
Angelo directly argues that the physical law is still in-place, but it has not been followed by saying the law “hath slept”. He makes the argument that because of this erosion of law, that future crimes will not be deterred and that “future evils” will be “hatched and born”. His first case, Claudio, complicates the issue as Claudio has sex with his soon-to-be wife, Juliette. Angelo enforces the law through deterrence. He believes that through utilising harsh sentences, he can prevent the crime from happening in the first place. His absolute resolve in deterrence is seen in despite acknowledging the special circumstances of Claudio, being engaged, he still proceeds with the punishment. He believes this is the only way to strengthen the rule of law and deter from future ignorance. Hypothetically, if Angelo’s way had been seen through, cases of fornucation would definitely have lowered, as many of those involved but yet to be sentenced, like the Bawd, are quite scared for their future. Unfortunately, the downside of deterrence places an unfair burden on the first case who’s punishment gets seen through. Claudio is the unfortunate soul who has to bear the weight of his decisions. Additionally, because deterrence predicates off of harsh punishments, the enforcement usually develops a bad reputation, as seen by the townspeople’s critiques of Angelo.
On the other hand, the Duke utilizes the idea of retribution. Despite his methods leading towards lax enforcement of the law, the Duke seemingly is liked by the people. The Duke taps into this idea of empathy and is able to deal a fairer sentence than Angelo. At the end of the play the Duke gets rid of every death sentence and instead forces Claudio, Angelo, and Lucio to all get married with the women they have sex with. This in some way remedies the moral and perceptual issues of premarital sex and morally make more sense. However, as Angelo highlights, the Duke’s enforcement did and will probably further erode the rule of law as there is no form of punishment that large.
While Angelo is able to strengthen the credibility of the law and deter future violations, his form of deterrence comes at the expense of his likeability and empathetic and fair decisions. Whereas while the Duke is able to find a more logical and moral punishment, crime will still run rampant and future crime might even intensify as his form of enforcement is lax. In conclusion, Shakespeare highlights both the positives and negatives of lax and strict law enforcement.
Shakespeare’s Measure for Measure adequately addresses the pros and cons of strict and lenient judicial systems. The Duke, more lenient, guides the law with empathy and understanding for the situation of the convicts. In other words, the Duke is more gentle. However, it is accepted that the Duke’s rule led to a more disorderly state of Vienna, and therefore his manner of rule could not have been ideal. On the contrary, Angelo is a harsh and law-abiding judge intended to fix the disorderly state of Vienna imposed by the Duke. In theory, Angelo’s form of rule would seem objectively better than that of the Duke—proper punishment would lead to deterrence and ultimately a better state of life and order. However, Angelo’s enforcement of the law certainly created unnecessary issues within the state. For example, a system that was intended to deliver order caused the exact opposite following the sentencing of Claudio to death after fornication. Isabella, Lucio, and the Duke were extremely upset by the sentence. Even characters who viewed the situation from an objective lens decided that it was indeed an unfair situation. This fact suggests that there is a better way to go about justice not only in this case, but in the broader scope of the state. The Duke’s soft rule leads to a sort of anarchy, while Angelo’s rule leads to disorder and a general disgust with the system.
ReplyDeleteUltimately, Measure for Measure intends to show that the ideal form of justice lies somewhere between that of the Duke and that of Angelo. Shakespeare would argue that, as Angelo says, the law should “[look] in a glass that shows what future evils… be hatched and born”. But these evils should be carefully evaluated and the severity of a crime’s harm should correspond with its punishment. If there was a judicial system that sentenced people to death for common misdemeanors, the rate of these crimes would drop significantly, restoring “order” to the state. Evaluating the judicial system would seem extremely effective. However, any sensible person would recognize that this is not an ideal system. On the contrary, if a judicial system was far too lenient and empathetic for convicts, there would be no deterrence against crime and the state would fall apart. Measure for Measure does not dive into how exactly an ideal judicial system should operate, but it makes the fact clear that a state must exist somewhere between the two poles.
By contrasting how Escalus and the Duke use proportionality to guide their decisions, Measure for Measure suggests a balanced and individualized approach to justice is best. First, Escalus’s lenient treatment of Pompey shows the benefits of a proportional but empathetic approach to justice. Although Elbow accuses Pompey of being a bawd (among other shenanigans), Escalus lets Pompey go because it is his first time being accused, and because of his forthright opinions on the ineffectiveness of law enforcement in stopping brothels. Escalus says, “In requital of your prophecy, hark you: I advise you let me not find you before me again upon any complaint whatsoever” (2.1.252-55). Although Vienna’s laws ban sex crimes, Escalus uses his interpretive power as a judge to decide punishments on a case-by-case basis and recognizes that every individual situation is different, so a single method of enforcement won’t work in every case.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, the Duke uses an objective and impersonal method of retributive justice in the final scene, where he says, “The very mercy of the law cries out…death for death…measure still for measure.” (5.1.463-8). This judicial philosophy results in him initially sentencing Angelo to death, but then pardoning him when he discovers Claudio is still alive, and only giving him the punishment of having to marry Mariana. While this method is also proportional, it fails at actually delivering justice. Angelo gets virtually no punishment, despite sexually assaulting Isabel. On the other hand, Lucio is sentenced to death for slander, but this is clearly a subjective decision by the Duke to weigh that crime more harshly. This failure of an objective standard of justice shows that the best justice system is one that can balance the scales of empathy and principles.
Measure for Measure argues that a judge should consider more than just empathy or the laws themselves. While these two parts are of critical importance to maintaining order (one of the primary jobs of a judicial system) they are not the only factors that have importance. Each “conviction” in a judicial system sends a message to people. The Duke with his far too lenient sentencing allowed crime to flourish and sent a message to criminals that they would not face repercussions if they were caught. While the Duke’s empathy is to be admired it should not be replicated (at least not in judicial proceedings). He failed to consider the consequences of his inaction which effectively made the judicial system a failure. The trial Escalus oversaw took place after the Duke had “disappeared.” When he was making his decision, he had to account for the fact that the crime situation was dire, people did not think they would face punishment and what was right for the victim. In the case of Pompey there were no victims as people consented to working in/ being in a brothel. Escalus then had to manage preventing future crimes and being kind to someone who did not think they were doing anything wrong. Escalus allowed Pompey to walk free but threatened him with a harsher punishment if he commits further crimes. This worked well since it did the job of preventing crimes while not punishing someone who hurt no one. On the contrary Angelo wanted to prevent the risk of criminals further committing crimes by executing those who committed crimes. While this would stop many people from committing crimes in the future, it does nothing to stop what has already happened. The man at the center of attention for his execution Claudio committing the crime of sleeping with his soon to be official wife. No one was harmed during this crime, yet Claudio gets the death sentence anyways. Juliet, having committed the same crime receives no punishment possible because she was pregnant. The sole focus on prevention of further crimes stops Angelo from considering what “victim” wants and the consequences of his decision (the child not having a father). Only Escalus makes a decision that takes into consideration more than one factor and that comprehensive look at the trial results in the best outcome for all involved.
ReplyDelete