In the final trial of Measure for Measure (in Act 5), the Duke as the presiding judge condemns Angelo for the death of Claudio and imposes the death penalty. He summarizes his judicial reasoning when he proclaims (alluding to the name of the play):
The very mercy of the law cries out
Most audible, even from his proper tongue,
"An Angelo for Claudio, death for death."
Haste still pays haste, and leisure answers leisure;
Like doth quit like, and measure still for measure.-- (5.1.463-7).
What kind of argument is he making? Is this a key idea of the Duke's jurisprudence or is he trying to mock it (after all he does pardon Angelo later in the scene)? Does the play make a comment on this kind of judicial reasoning? What is the measure of "measure for measure"?
This part of the Duke’s speech in act V is not only important because it was the coolest part of the play and has the title of the play present within the dialogue, but it also reflects a central theme of the play. When the Duke says “An Angelo for Claudio, death for death. Haste still pays haste, and leisure answers leisure; like doth quit like, and measure still for measure,” he uses a number of repetitions to state the play’s central argument, emphasizing the idea that justice should be delivered in a balanced manner (5.1.463-7). His speech argues that Angelo should suffer the same fate he intended for Claudio, “death for death,” just as “haste still pays haste, and leisure answers leisure” (5.1.463-7). The key idea of the Duke’s jurisprudence is that there should be retributive justice, where the severity of the punishment should match that of the crime. Throughout the play, the Duke’s use of manipulation, followed by the punishments he gives to characters at the end of the play reveals that he believes this argument to be the case. An example is when he sentences both Angelo and Lucio to marry the women with whom they slept, a punishment that reflects the crime of fornication more than the punishment of death, which evidently leaves an imbalance between punishment and crime. The very reason for the play’s title “Measure for Measure” is revealed in this dialogue, alluding to how justice should be balanced. Only with the punishment being measured to truly reflect the crime can moral order be restored. The play’s conclusion favors this form of justice, but whether or not this is truly the best form of judicial philosophy is a topic to be debated.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteIn the final scene of Measure for Measure, the Duke highlights how he believes that restorative justice is good. This is clearly shown when he said:
“The very mercy of the law cries out
Most audible, even from his proper tongue,
‘Angelo for Claudio, death for death…
and measure still for measure’” (5.1 463-467).
He is explaining that the law itself calls for a death to be punished with another death, in this case Claudio’s life for Angelo’s. This is retributive justice, as he believes that Angelo should die so that Claudio can have retribution for the life he lost. The only situation where this excerpt doesn’t show the Duke’s support for retributive justice is if he was just putting on an act. Even though the Duke later pardons Angelo, it is clear that he was being completely serious when he calls for retribution for a death. As Isabella pleads to the Duke, “Look, if it please you, on this man condemn’d, as if my brother lived…Let him not die…His act did not o’ertake his bad intent, and must be buried as an intent” (5.1 494-502). Isabella makes the case that no bad impacts happened because of Angelo’s actions. While I disagree with this sentiment in most scenarios (ex. attempted murder is still a crime) in this case, where Claudio isn’t dead, then it isn’t necessary to kill the perpetrator to even the moral scales. Additionally, the entire play focuses on this idea of balanced justice. Even after allowing Angelo to live, the Duke forces Angelo and Lucio to marry the women they either slept with/were supposed to marry. In the end, the Duke believes in retributive justice even if he doesn’t trade a life for a life in the play.
ReplyDeleteIn this quote the Duke is condemning Angelo because he sentenced Claudio to death for a crime he also had committed which in this scenario is the “measure for measure”. It is similar to the common saying of an eye for an eye and because Angelo and Claudio are being accused of the same crime, they will receive the same sentence. Now although this system of justice can be seen as flawed because it completely ignores the circumstances of a situation as it does in this case. As although they both did have premarital sex which is viewed as fornication they were in completely different circumstances and the book agrees with this as although the Duke asks they be given the same punishment, the book ends with them in completely different circumstances. As in the case of Claudio he had sex with his fiance who was basically his wife at that point, but it was still considered a crime and he was supposed to be sentenced to death. Meanwhile, Angelo said, “This deed unshapes me quite, makes me pregnant And dull to all proceedings. A deflowered maid,And by an eminent body that enforced The law against it.” Angelo basically admitted to the crime of rape and fornication in this quote and he acknowledged his crimes and the fact that he likely should have been living a “dishonored life With ransom of such shame” (4.4.21-36). So although at first in the eyes of the Duke, a measure for measure, or a death for a death, was necessary because he believed Claudio to be dead and that the death of Angelo was the only way for justice to be restored. However, upon learning about the real condition of Claudio, the Duke decided on a different punishment for each as he basically exonerated Claudio and Angelo was sentenced to marry the woman he committed his crime against. Although the Duke was at first inclined to agree with the measure for measure system of justice, once he learned the true details of each situation he opted for a more fair course of action.
One can tell from Duke’s lines above and even just the title of this play, Measure for Measure, that an important subject within it is retributive justice. This form of justice is characterized by punishments similar to or proportional to the offense. A common term coined in many ancient and modern texts to describe it is “an eye for an eye.” This type of justice focuses less on restoration, or rehabilitation of offenders with the hope of improving overall society and instead uses the threat of equal punishment to deter crime.
ReplyDeleteThe Duke says these lines, calling for retributive justice, with much gusto and passion, yet in a lovely show of dramatic irony, we readers know the Duke has a plan in mind. He never intends to kill Angelo, just to scare and punish him for his poor leadership. Some argue that this clearly shows that the Duke is scorning retributive justice, play-acting how ridiculous it is practice, but I think it’s not the Duke who is mocking the system, but Shakespeare. What’s the difference, you may ask, between an author’s and a character’s intent? To answer this question, I would point out how throughout the play, Shakespeare has used characters to exemplify certain leadership philosophies. We have Angelo who uses no empathy, extenuating circumstances, or feeling in his decision, Escalus who uses a balance of sympathy and logic of the law, and the Duke, who uses too much empathy and emotion to make his decisions. Shakespeare writes both Angelo and the Duke as characters who are rash, and not necessarily to be trusted. The Duke does mean what he’s saying (the only reason he didn’t kill Angelo was because Claudio lived on), but what he’s saying, Shakespeare suggests, is wrong. I think the Duke firmly believes in retribution and Shakespeare has him say these things on purpose to point out that it is the most emotional and illogical response to crime.
During this whole play, Shakespeare has had Angelo lie and take advantage of others, discrediting his type of ruling, and the Duke hide and dramatize things, making his style seem rather ridiculous. The only character who is left unscathed is Escalus, who stands for the balance of serval types of justice, and between empathy and the letter of the law. Clearly, this choice was intentional, revealing Shakespeare’s opinion on how best to govern oneself and others. The title could mean many things, maybe it’s retribution, maybe it's the repetition of how our society works, but I think it means that we must measure each response against the effect it could have. It’s a warning that we must be balanced and not too rash like many characters in this work.
In the final scene of Measure for Measure, the Duke sentences Angelo to death, stating, “An Angelo for Claudio, death for death." The sentencing aimed to hold Angelo to the same standards he held others. Angelo’s ideology was very clear cut and did not factor in any outside factors therefore, the Duke did the same for Angelo. This philosophy is as old as the idea of justice, as it was a key point in the Hammurabi Code. Though the line of thought of ‘an eye for an eye’ or ‘death for death’ is common, I do not think this is the Duke's personal jurisprudence. Instead, I believe the Duke did this to highlight the flaws in Angelo's sentencing. Throughout the play, the Duke is shown to be incredibly sympathetic to those he sentenced to the point where Angelo's states that the Duke's government is comparable to “an o’ergrown lion in a cave That goes not out to prey” (1.3 23-24). Due to this, Angelo believes it was his job to make an example out of Claudio, but, in the process, he succumb to the same temptations as Claudio. Knowing this, the Duke purposefully gave Angelo an extremely harsh sentence as he knew Isabella, Claudio's sister, would show forgiveness as he spent much time with her disguised as a friar. He knew that his actions would lead to her begging for Angelo's life to be spared, leading to not only the people respecting him for showing he is a fair and kind leader but also making it so that Angelo was indebted to Isabel.
ReplyDeleteThe Duke is making a clear statement against retributive justice in the final act of Measure for Measure. The Duke initially sentences Lord Angelo to death for ordering the death of Claudio for just barely meeting the definition of fornication. The significance of the Duke's actions is that he has collective knowledge of the situation that no one else has. He knew Claudio was still alive and he knew that Angelo had attempted to coerce Isabella into having sex with him. Despite this, the Duke states: "An Angelo for Claudio, death for death." (5.1.463-7). He makes a point to show how each involved party would be punished if Angelo's vision of justice was to be carried out. This is no accident -- the Duke aims to show the negative end of retributive justice through this situation that he effectively engineered through his constant meddling as "Friar Lodowick". Later in the act, the Duke will reveal his secret identity, along with some of the unknown facts in the case (Claudio is alive, Angelo actually took the virginity of Mariana). Now, the Duke takes a completely different approach to his punishments. He goes back on Angelo's execution by pardoning him, and instead has him finalize his marriage with Mariana. The Duke's "punishment" of Angelo seems to focus more on Mariana than any other of his circumstances. Since Angelo had used the loss of the dowry to escape the marriage with Mariana, the Duke aimed to "make things right" between the two of them by forcing Angelo to fix his wrongdoings. However, Angelo does not really face any punishment for how he treated Isabella. (Likely because he had sex with Mariana rather than Isabella, which put him in a legal gray zone. I'm assuming there being little conversation surrounding coercion is due to the period in which this was written) So, it seems as if there was no purpose for the Duke to even make his initial judgment of Angelo. Therefore, it is abundantly clear that Shakespeare included examples of both styles of justice in order to compare the ideologies of retributive justice and the Duke's own (almost restorative/rehabilitative?) style of justice.
ReplyDeleteIn his speech, the Duke playfully alludes to retributive justice, while later discarding it, implying that a “measure for measure” approach to jurisprudence was never part of the Duke’s repertoire. After reclaiming the throne, the Duke appears to adjudicate on Angelo’s case, decreeing, “‘An Angelo for Claudio, death for death.’ / Haste still pays haste, and leisure answers leisure; / Like doth quit like, and measure still for measure” (5.1.465-7). Yet, the Duke’s lack of solemnity is conveyed just a few lines later, as he says, “We do condemn thee [Angelo] to the very block / Where Claudio stooped to death, and with like haste” (5.1.472-4). At this moment, the Duke reveals that sentence is merely part of his facade, knowing that Claudio was still alive, and had not, in fact, “stooped to death,” invalidating the philosophical application of retributive justice, as killing Angelo wouldn’t align with the “death for [a] death” doctrine, and thus the proportionality axiom of retributive justice would be violated. The Duke’s speech is likely satirical in nature, and the Duke readily pardons Angelo after revealing Claudio’s “death” had been faked, which points to Angelo’s sentence being more symbolic than a serious consequence, evident once the Duke “unmasks” the situation and adjusts the sentences of Angelo, the Provost, Lucio, and Claudio according to his empathic approach to judicial decision-making and conceptually aligning most with the concept of restorative/rehabilitative justice. Shakespeare criticizes the “measure for measure”/retributive justice approach through the Duke’s satirical speech, and instead opts for measures of restorative justice, although one may attribute the restorative approach more to Measure for Measure’s comedic ending, as opposed to a serious plea for such an approach to criminal justice.
ReplyDeleteThe final trial of Measure for Measure is very significant to the plot as we see the Duke a very empathetic judicial-making judge sentence Angelo for his hypocrisy shown through Viena. As the Duke states “An Angelo for Claudio, death for death – Like doth quit like, and measure still for measure” –-(5.1.463-7) the Duke is sentencing Angelo to death and believes that Angelo should understand his decision. This is evident because Angelo was very strict when making judicial decisions and lacked empathy and the Duke is giving Angelo a taste of his own medicine to prove to Angelo that even though a person breaks the law their intentions should always be evaluated to come to a fair and conclusive judicial decision. Even though the Duke pardons Angelo later in the scene the argument in which the Duke is conveying proves to Angelo that punishments need to fit the crime and that there needs to be a balance to judicial-making decisions. However, neither the Duke nor Angelo makes balanced decisions as the Duke is too empathic with the lead crisis throughout Vienne. Additionally, the Duke’s argument to Angelo makes Angelo re-evaluate the way he has been ruling Viena. As later in the scene Angelo states “I am sorry that such sorrow I procure – that I crave death more willingly that” – (5.1. 544-7). Not only does Angelo recognize his cowardly jurisprudence but has come to accept what the Duke may do to punish him. Lastly, the Duke’s argument to Angelo is very significant to the play because not only does it make Angelo take accountability for what he has done in Vienna, but his idea of jurisprudence has also changed.
ReplyDeleteThroughout the novel, the play doesn’t make specific remarks regarding the judicial reasoning that the Duke has shown Angelo in Act 5. However, an inference can be made that the play suggests the Duke’s reasoning is just since empathy plays a role when making the verdict. On the contrary, the Duke’s decision would be very different had he not conveyed empathy towards Angelo. Prior to this act, the audience has never witnessed a trial from the Duke, and it’s assumed that he is a very empathetic judge causing the judicial system to fail in Vienna. Lastly, I believe that act 5 of Measure for Measure concludes with the fact that in order to have a fair trial a balance of empathy needs to be implemented in trials.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SdTGT4rel4F2KphE8HcwRYvlMxWj5pHNVIEDYjq8m50/edit?usp=sharing
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteIn the quote, and the final scene of the play, the Duke argues and comes to the conclusion that both Claudio’s and Angelo’s punishments were to be equivalent. In the scenario, Angelo has already in fact sentenced Claudio to death for a crime that Angelo himself committed. While the two men had different outliers, different women involved, and most importantly different reasoning and situations, in reality, the pair did commit the same unlawful act. The argument, and speech, created and performed by Duke in this scene is by far the most powerful and important one from the character throughout the play. The Duke was the character I was “rooting” for throughout the work we did with Measure for Measure, and I got to see him be the one who finally stood up to Angelo’s corrupt behaviors. When the Duke says “death for death,” it further examines his emphasis on empathy and equality, something that the Duke favors heavily while making his own political decisions (5.1.465). The message also portrays Angelo and Claudio as the same, even though Angelo had frequently acted as if he was more than Claudio throughout the play, yet in the final scene, they are totally equal in the eyes of the Duke. With this being said, the Duke also says “haste still pays haste, and leisure answers leisure,” showing that death was not the only option, and that the exact punishment was not the most important piece of the speech nor was it (5.1.466). The message and reasoning for the Duke’s speech was to get the point across that both men, who committed the same offense, were to face the same punishment, and nothing was going to get in the way of that.
In Act 5, Scene 1 of “Measure for Measure,” the Duke makes a decision rooted in the idea of retributive justice: the principle that punishment should be proportional to the offense committed. In sentencing Angelo to death for the execution of Claudio, the Duke invokes the phrase “measure for measure,” arguing that the fairest way to punish Angelo was by giving him a taste of his own medicine.
ReplyDeleteThe Duke’s statement, “An Angelo for Claudio, death for death,” (5.1.464) asserts that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction; in this case, Angelo’s sentencing of Claudio to death warrants a comparable penalty for Angelo himself. The Duke further reinforces this notion with the lines, “Haste still pays haste, and leisure answers leisure; / Like doth quit like, and measure still for / measure” (5.1.463-7) However, the Duke's subsequent actions complicate this “eye for eye” approach. Later in the scene, he pardons Angelo, which appears to contradict the strict retributive philosophy he just articulated. This pardon could be interpreted in many different ways: as a demonstration of mercy over strict justice, a critique of the rigidity of retributive justice, or even a strategic move by the Duke to restore order and mercy within Vienna.
Still, the Duke’s initial ruling and subsequent pardon make the play’s stance on judicial reasoning nuanced and complex. By showcasing the limitations and potential harshness of a strict “measure for measure” approach while also revealing the necessity of mercy, Shakespeare seems to advocate for a balanced system of justice. One that recognizes the importance of proportionality in punishment but also values mercy and second chances.