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 tells society there is a line between strictness and leniency with the laws and punishments for breaking the law. If a judicial judge has to decide what the punishment is for involuntary manslaughter and the case is a pedestrian J- walked on a snowy day and the driver swerved but hit the pedestrian. The judge is now able to make a ruling of the punishment. Will the judge’s punishment be lenient and let the person off with community service or will they face the death penalty for killing someone? Is it justice if someone sits in a jail cell for their life for something that really was not all their fault? However, is it fair that someone just accidentally killed another person and no justice is served? Another example of problems of being too lenient or too strict is taking the lenient path for example if a teenager is charged with sexual- assault and all they have to do is community service or go to classes. The judge may have done this to “not ruin the person's life” and be lenient but that will cause trouble since the person that caused this assault faced no real punishment, and what is stopping the person to do it again and be a predator? On the other hand, if a judge is too strict the media may bash them and the person's family claiming they didn’t do it. Overall, this leaves a tricky situation in judicial courts. Not every case has happened before and different judges may have different opinions on justice, but there are laws in place to show if someone has broken the law which will then cause justice to be served. In conclusion, it is hard for judges to deliver justice in some cases because someone is always going to have other thoughts about the ruling and disagree with the justice given.
ReplyDeleteThe play Measure for Measure tells us that laws are simply means to achieving justice: if they are not enforced then they are not effective, but if they are upheld by judges without thought for their purpose then they lose their value. Laws are created in the first place by governments/the forming of people in order to protect people’s rights. It is the duty of the government/the government appointed judges to interpret and enforce these laws. In order for laws to be effective there must be some sort of consequence for violating them or else they become redundant. The play demonstrates this with the character of the Duke. The Duke as a judge is incredibly forgiving and lenient. Under his rule the laws become nothing but words and people ran rampant doing whatever they wanted. The Duke forgives Angelo and does not ascribe a harsh punishment for anyone in the play.
ReplyDeleteThe opposite of this is represented by Angelo. Angelo believes there is no flexibility in the interpretation of laws and they should always be carried out regardless of context. He believes that the laws in of themselves are just. This idea is also problematic as it does not acknowledge the purpose of laws in the first place. Angelo is shown repeatedly to not care about the context of cases and simply hands out punishments. He does not care about how the context of Claudio’s infidelity is clearly very different than other cases of infidelity and sentences him to death.
Escalus represents the just union of these ideas. Judges best achieve justice for society when they enforce laws, but they also consider context and are able to look at the laws critically. Escalus listens to everyone’s story and punishes people for their actions even if the law said to enforce it more strictly.
The play Measure for Measure shows us that laws that are enforced and laws that are not enforced can both be broken. There will always be laws broken, no matter how strict the enforcers might be. The play also shows us different approaches to justice and that some work while others don't. There are many different situations of people getting off the hook for harsh crimes while others get much more intense rulings for less harmful crimes. The play portrays the Duke as a somewhat lenient judge whose laws aren't being enforced at the beginning of the play. At the end of the play when he reveals himself as the Duke and not a Friar, he hands out punishments to Angelo and Lucio. Just a few moments after the punishments were given, the Duke takes them back because he was convinced otherwise. He lets his emotions take over by saving Angelo because Marianna and Isabella asked him to. Even though Angelo had ruled carelessly and his actions were immoral, the Duke saves him because he is persuaded by the two girls, one of which he later proposes marriage to. The play shows us that by taking emotions and other people's opinions into account, the verdict of someone can be switched, no matter how bad of a crime they committed. We are shown that consistency is key when working in the judicial department and that if you are not consistent with punishments then it creates an unfair advantage/disadvantage for certain people. One day someone could be given community service for something and then the next day another person who committed the same crime could be sentenced to the death penalty all because the judge listened to outside influence or had more compassion for one person and not the other. Judges defend justice by being consistent and having steps and a process they follow for everyone. Being influenced by other factors during a case makes for unequal sentencing and ultimately an unequal judicial system.
ReplyDeleteThe play Measure for Measure demonstrates how strict judges can be unnecessary while lenient judges can be more just. Angelo condemns Claudio to death for the crime of fornication outside of marriage, however, Claudio had sex with his fiance. Despite this, Angelo follows the sentencing guidelines exactly. While the death penalty for sex outside of marriage is unjust in itself, imposing that law to its fullest onto someone who remained in a committed relationship is especially unjust. A lenient judge like the Duke is the more just judge because he considered the fact that Claudio remained in his relationship while also holding Angelo accountable and punishing him for such a harsh sentence. Judges should follow a judicial philosophy like that of the Duke’s. He takes every detail into consideration and treats each case differently even if they regard the same crime. Angelo, on the other hand, treats everything like it is black and white. He sentences each offender of certain crimes to the same punishment each time no matter the circumstances. Judges following a judicial philosophy is not problematic because it ensures they will consider each individual and motive rather than having a set punishment for each crime. This helps a judge defend justice because it stops them from overlooking cases and neglecting to understand the specifics of each case. Additionally, such set punishment could be problematic because, in cases such as Claudio’s, the crime may be simple but the intent and background may prove vital in understanding the case and punishing the offender.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMeasure for Measure makes the argument that a merciful approach to punishment is optimal for society through its conclusion that sees the archetype of mercy, the Duke, triumph over Angelo, the manifestation of strict law enforcement. Angelo believes that the law is eternal. He relays this belief to Isabella when he says, “the law hath not been dead, though it hath slept” (2.2.117). To him, the law has existed forever and will exist forever, and it is up to figures like him to simply enforce the laws that are before him. Angelo continues explaining his views on justice by claiming that harsh punishment is a necessary evil that deters future crime. Furthermore, Angelo pities those he punishes, but he cannot show mercy as that would defeat the purpose of the law’s existence (2.2.118-129). On the opposite end of the spectrum, the Duke views punishment as an option, whose enforcement is never clear-cut. When the Duke leaves Vienna in the hands of Angelo, he claims, “I love the people, but do not like to stage me to their eyes” (1.1.73-74). This goes to show that the Duke prefers to leave power before he would be forced to punish his people. Furthermore, throughout the play, the Duke goes to incredible lengths to save Claudio, who he believes is too harshly sentenced. This play relies on these two characters as archetypes for different interpretations of punishment in order to get across its message in the end. The message of the play is on the side of mercy given that the Duke, the manifestation of mercy, is portrayed as the hero who saved Claudio from the gallows. As viewers watch the Duke initially sentence Angelo to death, they might view it as just, because retributive justice has been ingrained into our minds as reasonable. However, the Duke’s pardoning of not only Angelo but Lucio and the Provost reminds us of the preferable alternative. In addition, the play ends with Isabella taking the Duke’s hand and the citizens of Vienna clapping and cheering. This is the first time in the play viewers have been visibly happy, and it is after the merciful ruling of the Duke to the man who struck fear into his citizens during his “leave”. This goes to show that retributive punishment (Angelo being executed) isn’t needed for resolution, and mercy can keep society properly running, contrary to what Angelo believed.
ReplyDeleteThe play measure for measure displays the extremes of both harsh and lenient punishment and the consequences that come with them. When the law is inadequately enforced people are likely to uphold the law no longer, and its value ceases. On the hand when the law is absolute with harsh punishment individual laws lose meaning, and are reduced to harsh punishments for all infractions. The majority of all conflicts are complex, and in a grey area, with no clear right and wrong. It is ineffective and harmful to approach justice with a black-and-white ideology. An example of this is the complete disregard for the law at the beginning of the story. The absence of law enforcement corrupted the people of Vienna’s sense of justice by conditioning them to believe they are above the law. There is no one right way to practice justice because justice looks different to each individual. However common law must still exist or else there would be no control and chaos. The use of common laws is not inherently problematic when applied fairly to all people. A prime example of this abuse of the system is Claudio. The lack of research into Claudio's case, and a push to make him an example diminished all chances of him having a fair trial. The opposite can be stated for the murderer who was pardoned by the duke at the end of the book. For cases where there is room for interpretation, it is of utmost importance that a judge sees all sides of the story, and makes educated decisions in order to prevent innocent people from getting harmed.
ReplyDeleteWhile Measure for Measure does hold three judges, arguably the most thought-provoking question within it is how a person judges themself, whether through the lens of their own consciousness or the belief they will at some point be judged by a higher being. Isabella, when asked to yield herself to Angelo, replies that “Better it were a brother died at once, Than that a sister, by redeeming him, Should die forever,” revealing that she believes a crime to be a crime, no matter the motive or the outcome. She believes that if she shames herself in saving her brother’s life, she will die an eternal death whereas his mortal death for fornication will be only a temporary death as he will live on in heaven. However, she states that if she only had to die a mortal death, she would “throw it down … As frankly as a pin.” This begs the question: which is the better action? Doing that which, all else being equal, gives you the moral high ground? Or laying down your own morality to save either another’s morality, or their very life?
ReplyDeleteUltimately, the message of Measure for Measure is that the law (moral or legal) is set. The interpretation of it is up to the individual, meaning that world-wide, forever, there can never be consistency as each person brings a unique perspective to the table and what they are willing to condemn or pardon is possible, but unlikely to be swayed. Strict or lenient can’t be defined in a legal textbook, at least not fully and accurately, and the best way to ensure a righteous outcome (righteous being a word that defies explanation as well) is to provide a well-rounded, thoughtful judge and let them judge a case based on its own merits. Through Angelo’s hypocrisy, the duke’s vanity, and Escalus’ status as more important than those he judges, Measure for Measure does not actually provide an example of a trial in which all parties are understood and logically provided for. In short, there is really no way to determine what is right except for that which feels right, and even a moral compass can be easily led astray if one does not understand the question they are trying to answer.
Measure for Measure draws a distinct line between strict and lenient punishments using three judges: Angelo, Escalus, and the Duke. Angelo is the primary judge throughout Measure for Measure and is known for giving harsh punishments for crimes with little impact. He sentences Claudio to death for sleeping with his almost-wife. On the other hand, the Duke is known for being lenient with the law and giving everyone the benefit of the doubt. Since he does not use the law to persecute people, it becomes a “scarecrow” that crows “make it their perch and not their terror” (2.1.1-4). Then finally, there is Esculus, who is not as lenient as the Duke but sees the harm in the harsh punishments of Angelo. He uses the promise of ‘if you do this again, I will punish you myself’ as a deterrence for some he judges. Through these three judges, Measure for Measure shows us that the best way to judge someone is to be like Escalus. He does not ignore the law, yet he gives people the benefit of the doubt when it comes down to the final decision.
ReplyDeleteJudges should use the law and the evidence presented to them to make the best decision. Should everyone get a punishment? Should everyone get excused? Well, it depends on case to case. Someone who intentionally killed eight people should be sentenced to prison, but someone struggling with drug use should be sent to a rehabilitation center to get the help they need. We must embrace the idea that some people must be in jail while others need help and guidance. These differences can be hard to differentiate sometimes. To help decision-making, judges should take a course in philosophy about the judicial system to better understand how to use the law to its fullest extent. From there, each individual can make their judicial philosophies, but everyone will have the same or similar philosophical foundations. This way, everyone will be consistent, and there will be less biased judging.
In the play, Shakespeare presents two extremes of how a society should dole out justice. He presents these extremes in the form of the Duke, and Angelo, the Duke’s replacement. The Duke’s justice is overly lenient, while Angelo’s is very strict and harsh. The play makes an argument that both these approaches are insufficient. For the Duke, his lenient punishments have led many not to respect the rule of law. Once Angelo takes charge, he describes a Vienna that has abandoned itself to debauchery and lawlessness. He describes the law as “sleeping” and a scarecrow that no longer frightens the birds due to the Duke’s lax approach to punishments. A society that does not respect the law or the government that creates only invites instability. However, Angelo’s alternative of the harshest punishments and strictest interpretations of the law is no better. The play often alludes that these harsh punishments are a fruitless effort to deter crime. Pompey’s part in the play explains that the criminalization of sex that Angelo enforced is impossible as sex will always be something young people pursue. Many other characters share this opinion, as seemly nobody wants to go forward with the execution of Claudio but Angelo. These punishments might not succeed in deterrence, but they absolutely succeed in inflicting suffering on others. Isabella is particularly emotionally affected by her brother’s “execution” at the hands of Angelo, and her part shows the emotional impact the harsh punishments can have on the accused.
ReplyDeleteThe play shows these two extremes to demonstrate that neither works, so there must be some middle ground. The play presents this middle ground as Escalus. His trial of Pompy shows a certain fairness that is absent in both the Duke and Angelo. In this trial, he still hands out punishments to the perpetrators but scales it to the crime committed and in what context. He allows mercy to those arrested because the law enforcer who made the arrest could not be trusted to carry out their duties correctly. What is interesting is that despite the play’s displaying of Escalus’s approach as the fairest out of any other approaches, it leaves him mostly out of the final responsibility of delivering the verdict in the final trial of Angelo. Perhaps Shakespeare is trying to argue that although Escalus is the fairest of the three judges, society would ultimately prefer a more lenient judge like the Duke. In addition, despite his approach being the helpful middle ground needed in law, reality poses problems to this philosophy. Applying this type of case-by-case fairness into law is very difficult. It is simply impossible for the law to account for the exact situation in which a person commits a crime and whether that situation should be a less or greater punishment than other scenarios. However, it does not mean that it should not be an attempt to reach this fairness equilibrium. It requires a particular person, like Escalus, who knows the law and understands their role in society. They should uphold justice but not crush people under it, nor should they let the law lie dormant and allow for it to be abused and neglected. Measure for Measure argues that it is not just the law that can make a society but the judge who delivers it.
The play Measure for Measure explores the complicated relationship between justice, law, and morality. It implies that strict enforcement of the law can lead to harsh punishments that are unreasonable considering the crime. This was seen in Angelo's approach. At the same time, ignoring the law entirely can lead to a lack of accountability, as seen in the Duke's approach. Escalus represents a middle ground, questioning the harsh sentence given to Angelo's while still acknowledging the need for enforcement of the law to an extent. The play suggests that a judge should balance the need for justice with a sense of compassion/mercy. There is no universal approach to judging, and the right decision depends on the individual circumstances of each case. A judge must take into account the consequences of their decisions, both for the individual being punished and for society as a whole. The play suggests that a judge must weigh and balance the demands of justice with a sense of compassion and mercy in order to fairly deliver a punishment. The play suggests that blindly following a rule or guideline is problematic and that a judge must use their discretion and moral judgment to make fair decisions. The effects of a judge's decisions on society as a whole are also important to consider as harsh punishments can lead to social un rests and possibly protests, while leniancy can weaken the law and lead to a breakdown in society..
ReplyDeleteIn the play Measure for Measure it shows us how inconsistent judges are in the judicial system. Including how they choose to proceed with different cases. Some may be more lenient than others, in this case the Duke. This causes problems later on when someone else is in higher control. This is a difficult position because the judge decides the outcome of the trial, they have a set of “rules” to follow however they still have a lot of control over what the final verdict is. In the play we can observe that Angelo is the opposite of the Duke. When a judge like Angelo is determining what someone's outcome is he does not have any empathy. Nor does he make exceptions to any given situation. This has to have a major effect on the society when a judge like Angelo takes over after the Duke. Thinking on a larger scale this happens pretty frequently, judges are persuaded by the public's actions toward cases. Therefore not necessarily doing what they know is right, they just do it for the public eye to be content with the trial. I would imagine this is how it was like during this play as well. Consistency is important but is not at all shown in the play. Escalus admits that one is too hard and one is too lenient. Every judge is different but consistency is key. If the Duke had been more strict since the beginning and if Angelo were to pick up where the Duke left off, this would have been such a drastic change as they made it out to be.
ReplyDelete