Angelo defends his conviction and execution of Claudio in Act 2 in the face of Escalus' protests that he himself might one day find himself in the same situation. He argues that
I do not deny
The jury passing on the prisoner's life
May in the sworn twelve have a thief or two
Guiltier than him they try. . . . [But]
You may not so extenuate his offense
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 (2.1.19-21;29-33).
In this speech he argues that empathy has no place in jurisprudence and that a judge's own vice and guilt should play no role in her rulings. Yet, is this ideal of consistency too difficult to achieve? Isn't this a recipe for hypocrisy? After all, even the virtuous Angelo (his name suggests virtuous perfection) fails to live up to his own strict standards. Yet, on the other hand, when his crime (the very same act of fornication he convicts Claudio of committing) he clings to his ideal of consistency and retribution: "But let my trial be mine own confession./ Immediate sentence then and sequent death / Is all the grace I beg." (5.1.418-20).
What is this play telling us about such things as hypocrisy and consistency?
I will argue that consistency is an important aspect to fair adjudication of the law. First of all, I think it is important to separate Angelo’s character in the play Measure for Measure from the ideal of judicial consistency. While Angelo claims, and is claimed, to be a consistent character throughout the play in his morality, this is clearly not really the case, insofar as he commits the acts that he finds so reprehensible. In some ways he redeems himself by asking to receive the same punishment he sought to inflict, but even this act seems to be somewhat corrupt, as he only does this while he is no longer in power, after his sins had been exposed. We could argue about this for some time, but what is important is that whether or not Angelo is a consistent character, and even more so whether or not Angelo is a moral or good character, has no bearing on the value of consistency in justice. Now, why do I say that consistency is good in a judicial system? Let us take the most basic example: imagine we have two hypothetical defendants who have committed the same crime, who fall into the same demographic groups in terms of race, gender, sex, wealth, etc., and for whom the details of their crimes are essentially equivalent. How could we possibly justify these two people getting different sentences? If all relevant details to the crime and criminal are the same, no matter if you believe in retributive or rehabilitative justice, there is no justification whatsoever. Justice is, in its essence, the process of figuring out how to respond to immoral acts and make the world more moral. The goal of laws, in that case, is essentially to approximate the most moral response to a given situation. In the case where two people in precisely the same situations have different responses, something has gone wrong, as one of those two responses is, in a sense, incorrect. For example, in a system of retributive justice, if there is inconsistency in punishment between two equivalent defendants, then someone didn’t get what they “deserved.” To conclude, it is good to have consistency in a judicial system, because the lack of consistency is a clear sign of a problematic system that does not properly respond to immoral action.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteIn the play Measure for Measure the themes of hypocrisy and consistency are a constant. They are often demonstrated through Angelo and in relation to the justice system. This play makes a mockery of Angelo for being super hypocritical in his decision making process. While Angelo is not a particularly likable person this is one of his more detestable qualities. This is shown through his actions toward Claudio and Isabella, and then again when he commits the same crime and pleads that he deserves mercy. It also shows not just the issue in relation to human character, but the justice system as a whole. Lack of hypocrisy and a presence of consistency are a very important thing when being a judge, and in Angelo's case that is exactly what he was not. Being a good ruler and demonstrating mercy and compassion for your subjects is incredibly important, and I would argue that it goes hand in hand with consistency. The Duke consistently treats each situation the same and adjusts accordingly while always trying to achieve justice. Angelo however, only consistently thinks of himself. One example of this is when he changes rules that he very strictly enforces for others,but not for himself. Showing his hypocrisy and narcissism throughout the play. Angelo believes that empathy makes one weak because it allows a ruler to follow their “own vice and guilt”, but in reality consistent empathy for others was the main reason that the Duke was loved and Angelo was not.