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?
In Measure for Measure, Shakespeare offers three perspectives on the spectrum of defining the law: justice based on mercy, justice without mercy, and a middle ground between the two. The three judges, the Duke, Angelo, and Escalus, respectively, each exhibit different philosophies of justice in their trials and sentences. The Duke's lenient principles of justice required recruiting another figure into power to clean up his mess, so we know that while Shakespeare emphasizes the importance of mercy, he also understands the weakness of not having a backbone when enforcing the law and keeping a city safe. Angelo, on the other hand, plays the merciless antagonist of the play who cannot hold himself to his own strict standards per his relations with Isabella. While Angelo's no discretion policy works as a deterrent for future crimes, the corruption in his judgement reveals that Shakespeare does not believe in an entirely black and white code for judges to follow to keep their society's just. Instead, Shakespeare argues that in order to defend justice fairly, it is necessary to have a judge that can enforce the principles of the law adequately while still exercising proportionality where he or she sees fit. Our third judge, Escalus, operates in this middle ground between the Duke's leniency and Angelo's strictness. When Pompey is tried for being a pimp, Escalus concludes: "I advise you, let me not find you before me again upon any complaint whatsoever ... I shall have you whipped" (II.i.242). This judgement is representative of the term proportionality: while the judgement is harsh enough to act as a deterrent, Escalus still demonstrates empathy in his enforcement. Measure for Measure exhibits the danger of judgement drifting too far to one extreme or another, and therefore emphasizes the importance of synthesizing both the extremes of Angelo and the Duke to make a fair judgement.
ReplyDeleteThroughout Measure for Measure, Shakespeare implies to the readers that, although there are laws, it is the duty of a judge to understand the specific case and provide discretion, only when necessary. Although Shakespeare never blatantly says that Escalus is the best judge, he implies that he is the most successful at the position and the wisest, which is portrayed in the movie version as he is the oldest and has a sage demeanor. Additionally, Escalus is characterized as wise through his clear connection and understanding of God when he prays, “Well, heaven forgive him and forgive us all” (2.1.41). Angelo and the Duke, both who have the more extreme philosophies about justice, utterly fail in their roles as a judge. The Duke’s leniency and lack of justice cause the entire problem, and Angelo’s earnest attempt at rectifying the issues results in death and chaos. Escalus is the only judge who not only had no problems with his own case but also saw the fault in the big situation unfolding around him. Due to Shakespeare’s strong characterization of Escalus as the most reasonable and dependable judge, the audience gets a strong sense that his philosophy of providing appropriate discretion is the correct way that the law should be applied. Measure for Measure emphasizes the need for judges and rulers, but when they reach extremes like Angelo and the Duke, that is where the problems occur. Although the title of the book is Measure for Measure, in reality, that is not what Shakespeare is endorsing. Measure for Measure is like saying an eye for an eye, which is more related to Angelo’s philosophy. Still, Shakespeare uses this title to highlight the issues with this idea, and instead show the correct response through Escalus.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Measure for Measure is telling us that the punishment needs to fit the crime. Fornication should not be punished by death, but murder should. When using the idea of the punishment fitting the crime, there is less stress put on the judge. If we think of judging on a spectrum with extreme strictness and lenience being on opposite sides, the judge should fall wherever necessary for the situation. Ideally, if two people committed the same exact crime, they should receive the same punishment whether or not one of them is more charismatic than the other. A case such as rape or murder might require extreme strictness while a crime like stealing a lighter from a gas station might have more lenience. Overall, I don’t think a judge should pick one spot on the spectrum and use it across all types of punishment. Escalus is the representation of the middle while the Duke and Angelo represent lenience and strictness respectfully. While Escalus seems like the fairest judge out of the three, sometimes the judge needs to lean towards one end of the spectrum or another. One example of this is from the Duke who is usually extremely lenient with his rulings. When speaking to the provost, he tells him “Barnardine must die this afternoon” (157). He spares no effort in assisting Claudio, but when it comes to someone convicted of murder, he sentences Barnardine to death with no second thought. The play displays the dangers of being overly strict or overly lenient, therefore a case by case basis should ensure people receive judgments that consider all of their circumstances.
ReplyDeleteIn Measure for Measure, Shakespeare tells us that there is no perfect justice system, however within the play, the only system without consequences is a balance of mercy and rules. Within the play, we can see that neither ruling with lax with rules (as portrayed by the Duke), nor ruling with an iron fist (as portrayed by Angelo) is effective, but rather ruling must be judged on a case-by-case scenario (as portrayed by Escalus). Firstly with the Duke, we can see that ruling with absolute mercy is ineffective since his merciful ruling allowed his people fall into a state of constant rebellion, forcing him to choose Angelo to fix his problems. The Duke states, "Sith'twas my fault to give the people scope... When evil deeds have their permissive pass And not the punishment." (I.iii.36-39) The Duke apologizes for his sins, that it was "my fault" for being too lax, but in reality it is just an excuse for his inaction, disguised in a cloak of "mercy". The Duke does not know how to deal with the results of his negligence of upholding the law, and so as a consequence he had to go into hiding while Angelo steps in. Though Angelo's rules with an iron fist to disincentivize evildoers, unfortunately, it falls through as humans are not perfect. Cludio stated, "You may not so extenuate his offence / For I have had such faults; but rather tell me, / When I, that censure him, do so offend, / Let mine own judgment pattern out my death, / And nothing come in partial. Sir, he must die. (2.1.28-33)." Claudio never saw himself as someone who was capable of breaking the law, stating that he would judge himself just as harshly, even to die if he were to make the same mistakes as Claudio. However, Claudio's harsh rulings eventually fall through, as he chooses to make a worse crime than Claudio: trying to make love with Isabella forcibly. Claudio, in an ideal world, would be the perfect system, but as a consequence, due to human nature, his system falls apart. In the end, only Escalus's "court case" seems to be the most effective. Within the play, he gave Froth and Pompey fair trials, listening to each of their stories and giving punishments that were "just". As Escalus stated, it is better to reform the tree than to burn the entire thing down, this balance of mercy and rulekeeping seems to be the best method of enforcing justice.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteShakespeare presents a very Kantian interpretation of how the law should be used in a civil society. For Kant, justice exists to be consistently retributive, in that if someone causes harm to someone else, they in turn must have harm placed unto them. In that way, Measure for Measure takes justice at its most basic and primitive form. Regardless of circumstance, position, or ideology, each judge must uphold the basic idea that harming someone else, or society for that matter, warrants punishment. That dichotomy is best presented in the punishments given to Claudio and Angelo for fornication. The agreed upon punishment in Vienna for fornication is death, so Angelo distributes such decree to Claudio for violating it. Angelo says, “Ha Fie…false one” (2.4.44-51) for his reasoning, essentially saying that Claudio has inflicted the same amount of harm on society as someone who murders by bringing in illegitimate offspring into the world and thus must be punished accordingly. He is so deadest in his conviction that he even offers the same punishment unto himself “I do…in partial” (2.1.19-21, 29-33). However, when the poetic irony hits that Angelo himself has committed the same crime, He willingly submits himself to his punishment and agrees with the Duke that he must be put to death “Immediate sentence…I beg” (5.1.420-421). One might think that is strange that a man so resigns himself to fate, but that is where the message of Shakespeare resides. No matter what position someone holds, their status, or their wealth, Kant argues that punishment must be given consistently when harm is committed. As the duke later says, “An Angelo for a Claudio, death for death” (5.1.465), symbolizing the idea that justice is absolute and consistent, with no regard for circumstance or mercy.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteIn Measure for Measure, Shakespeare advocates for a balance between leniency and punishment, and argues the importance of proportionality. Throughout the book, he presents multiple views on the administration of justice. For example, the Duke does not punish anyone even if they disobey the law, and he believes that this is the best strategy for “controlling” society. However, Angelo is the antithesis of this; even if an individual commits a minor offense, he believes that they should still carry a large punishment, as we saw in the case of Claudio. Angelo sentenced Claudio to death for having sex with a woman who was extremely close to being his wife, and although they were not officially married, they had this type of relationship. However, Angelo’s case was completely different, as he raped his ex-fiancé. When the Duke learns of Angelo’s offense, he embraces a "Hammurabi's Code" type of system, stating that, "The very mercy of the law cries out/Most audible, even from his proper tongue,/'An Angelo for Claudio, death for death'" (5.1.463-465). This is the only time where the audience sees the Duke administering a harsh punishment, and he believes that after Angelo’s extreme hypocrisy, he deserves to die. He does not show Angelo the mercy that he showed Claudio, due to the contrasts in their individual experiences. Because Shakespeare presents multiple examples of the crime of fornication, it is evident that he hopes to prompt a thoughtful analysis of the concept of proportionality. Evidently, he wants readers, as well as the audience, to see that the specific cases of the same crime can always be different, and that these circumstantial caveats should prompt a separate punishment.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that the play takes one definitive stance on what a judge should or should not look like. Instead, I think the play does a very good job of showing three different types of judges, thus allowing the reader to come to a conclusion about which they think is best. That being said, I do think that the play makes a very strong case in favor of the concept of ‘eye for an eye.’ This is most evident in the Duke’s speech at the end of Act 5,
ReplyDelete“The very mercy of the law cries out most audible, even from his proper tongue… haste still pays haste, and leisure answers leisure, like doth quit like, and Measure still for Measure” (5.1. 405-409).
I think that this quote is a good representation of what the play is trying to say about justice and how to enforce it. I do not think that there is one way to correctly enforce justice, and I do not think that Shakespeare thinks that either, but this monologue does a good job of describing the best option. If you punish a criminal with something that is equivalent to the crime that they committed, that is the most fair and just way to handle the situation. Even though the Duke doesn’t end up following through with that eye for an eye punishment, he still set that as a baseline. No matter what the ‘correct’ way to punish criminals is, not all judges will actually enforce it. That is why it’s good to set a baseline that can be built off of, and that is what I believe the Duke is doing. Though I don’t believe the play makes one case for how crimes should be punished, I think the most reasonable and fair one is the idea of having the punishment perfectly fit the crime.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn Measure for Measure we are provided with different philosophies of justice, all positioned on a sliding scale. The Duke represents the most lenient interpretation of the law, not actually enforcing the law but instead letting fear enforce it for him. Escalus also represents a more lenient interpretation, however not as lenient as the Duke. Escalus instead follows the idea that laws must be punished but does not follow the same interpretation of punishment as the law, sometimes letting people go for offenses or making their punishment more relaxed. Finally, Angelo represents the harshest interpretation of the law, punishing to its full affect and punishing every time. By showing us these three judges Shakespeare attempts to make a statement that the strictest interpretation of the law is not necessarily the best. The first way he shows us this is through Angelo. Shakespeare describes Angelo as almost holy, even going so far as to insinuate he isn’t human. After this, however, he gives Angelo a key flaw: he lusts after Isabella. Through doing this Shakespeare seems to be trying to communicate that if you take the harshest interpretation of the law it won’t work out because no matter how hard you try you can’t be above other men. Even though Angelo seems holy, Shakespeare reminds us that he too is just a man and therefore cannot interpret the law extremely harsh because he too has flaws so he cannot act above other man. One key example of this is Angelo’s punishment of Claudio, as he says “He should have lived…might in the times to come have ta’en revenge…” (4.5 30-33), showing us that the only reason he is still punishing Claudio is because of his own misdeeds. Shakespeare also shows us that lenient punishment is best through the character of the Duke. Like Angelo, the duke has many flaws, although the Duke’s flaws are not hidden. The duke is described as “A very superficial, ignorant, unweighing fellow” (3.2 141). However, despite his flaws the Duke is still seen as morally good because his punishments are more lenient as he recognizes he too has flaws and therefore should not treat anyone better than himself. Shakespeare has the Duke be shown as the most morally right character because he is the one who ends up most happy at the end of the play. Because of this we know that Shakespeare thinks a lenient punishment is best because we must forgive others as we forgive ourselves.
ReplyDeleteIn the play Measure for Measure, Shakespeare provides examples of judges with varying degrees of discretion and leniency versus strictness and severity. Throughout the play, the characters Angelo, The Duke, and Escalus demonstrate three very different takes on justice, and the repercussions they all face from the society they live in.. Escalus is the perfect example of a judge that is proportional and consistent through his views, being strict or lenient when necessary. An example of this is when he sentences Pompey, saying, “"I advise you let me not find you before me again upon any complaint whatsoever; no, not for dwelling where you do… I shall have you whipped…so for this time, Pompey, fare you well" (2.1.253-259). Escalus’ proper use of leniency and severity combined is what makes his sentence the most successful. Unlike Angelo or The Duke, Escalus proves his validity by balancing the level of empathy and harshness, and receives a better reaction from the individuals living in the town. Angelo uses his power as a judge to make an example of the law, claiming that without a proper illustration of the consequences the law will go unfollowed. He then faces repercussions from the citizens, mainly Isabella, due to his stringency towards her brother and how unjust it is. On the other hand, The Duke used his leniency and extreme empathy to judge, also resulting in backlash from the citizens. After making his case to trade Claudio’s death for Angelo’s, he ends up changing his mind and letting him live even after Angelo begs to be killed for his crime. He also pardons other’s sentences, including those of Lucio, the Provost, and Barnadine. In the end, Shakespeare demonstrates all forms of justice in the play, but proves that proportionality and a balance between empathy and sternness is the most viable option for the justice system.
ReplyDeleteI think the play clearly advocates that Escalus’s strategy of finding a middle ground between leniency and strictness and making judgement on a case my case basis is the best way to achieve justice. In the play, the Duke condemns his own strategy of extreme leniency at the very beginning of the story when he appoints Angelo to replace him, admitting that his relaxed stance on justice has led to crime running rampant and has removed all “morality and mercy from Vienna” (1.1.47). However, Angelo’s strategy is also a failure, as he devolves into corruption and law breaking when he attempts to blackmail Isabella into having sex with him in exchange for her brother’s life. Angelo’s severe moral strictness not only led to overly severe punishments for people like Claudio and failed to act as a deterrent, but was too severe for even him to obey, leading to the justice system collapsing on itself from within. The only justice strategy that is never indicted is that of Escalus, who chooses to take a middle ground between the two. The best evidence of Escalus’s justice in action comes during the trial of Pompey and Froth. With the Duke not present and Angelo too bored to enact proper justice (he just wants to whip them and be done), Escalus chooses to hear everyone’s side of the story and make a well-informed decision. Ultimately, he chooses to let Froth and Pompey go with a warning that he “shall have [Pompey] whipped” and act “as a shrewd Caesar to him” if he returns (the Caesar reference acts as a thinly veiled threat since his most famous victory ended with him defeating Pompey at war) (2.1.256). Escalus’s decision proves to be the most successful of any in the play, as neither Pompey or Froth return to court and are seemingly somewhat reformed. Since morality is so inherently murky and subjective, the best and probably only way for a judge to decide if their justice is successful is to look at crime rates and feedback from the people. Since crime rates soared under the Duke and citizens were incensed under Claudio, it is clear that Escalus’s idea of fairness is by far the most justifiable. It seems pretty clear that Escalus’s style and choices as a judge worked by far the best of anyone in the play. This success shows that judges should not be overly strict or lenient, or attach themselves to one specific style of justice for each case. Instead, the should act like Escalus and mold themselves to each individual trial, take extenuating circumstances into account, and make an informed decision that lies somewhere between absolute strictness or leniency. This would help ensure that judges do not over punish too often, while still maintaining a strong enough deterrent effect to prevent crime.
ReplyDeleteIn Measure for Measure, there are two extremes that are explored: extremely strictly upholding the laws and consistently applying them to all offenders, and being so empathetic that punishments are rarely enforced. Angelo explores the first extreme, while Claudio explores the second. The first approach is extremely harsh. Rather than trying to improve society by improving individuals which break the rules, those individuals are just gotten rid of (whether it is prison or death). This is the eye for an eye approach. Although it seems fair, it is not at all the best way to improve society. “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.” (5.1.462-468). This direct punishment system might deliver equal revenge to the offender, but it does not help the victims, as stated in the play. On the other extreme, crimes would go almost un-noticed. The punishments for crimes would be negligible because the justice system would be empathetic enough to see past the incident and give the offender the benefit of the doubt. This is needed in some cases, but this can be a dangerous way of dealing with criminals in other cases. Measure for Measure portrays both of these extremes, which leads me to believe that the play is telling us that a middle ground is needed, such as a case by case basis; each case should be investigated individually and then punishment should be applied reasonably in order to result in the best outcome for the victims, society, and even the offenders. The judicial duty is not to apply punishments equally for everyone, but to give the people equity: making sure that each individual situation is resolved, whether it means being empathetic or assigning a necessarily harsh punishment.
ReplyDeleteIn Measure for Measure, we observe three different judges who all differ in the way they enforce the law. Angelo’s judicial philosophy is to apply the full penalty of the law without any consideration towards the offender. Angelo is also hypocritical in his actions as he goes on to commit the same crimes as Claudio. The Duke’s philosophy is to be very lenient in enforcing laws and allowing offenders crimes to go unpunished. Escalus is the middle ground between the other two judges as he believes in enforcing the law but not being excessively harsh in punishing the offenders. Following one specific judicial philosophy, as demonstrated throughout the book, leads to the judges to be ridged in their decisions. This judicial rigidness is observed in Angelo, who believes in strict interpretation and enforcement of the law which results in punishments that do not fit the crime. Furthermore, the judges in their rulings set a precedent in how the law is to be enforced. Under the Duke, the precedent for fornication was that no one would be penalized, while under Angelo, the precedent became a death sentence. The judges have the duty to uphold the law, and while they are not in charge of creating the rules, they are the final say in enforcing them, which gives them great discretion in how the law affects the public. The Judges need to enforce the laws enough that it sets the precedent that there are consequences for violating the law but the punishment must fit the crime. In sentencing Claudio to death for fornication Angelo certainly made it clear to people not to break this law, but this punishment while an effective deterrence was overly harsh. Overall, Judges should not be rigid in their judicial philosophy and must uphold the law in a way that people are deterred from breaking it but have the punishment fit the crime.
ReplyDelete