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?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhile the main focus of the large contrast between the Duke’s and Angelo’s judging style (lenient and strict) seem to be hinting that fairness can be found between the two opposites, we also get the impression that it is ultimately up to the judge furthering that laws, even if unjust, is better than no laws at all. From this, we are also displayed with the substantial power that a judge holds (at least in the case of Measure for Measure) and shown how their interpretation of the law alone decide the fate and state of that society. In the scenario of Measure of Measure, both Angelo and the Duke supposedly fail in their position as judges. When they respectively hand over their positions (the Duke at the start and Angelo at the end), they are either dissatisfied in themselves, or the people are dissatisfied in them. However, in either case, while one side might be dissatisfied or oppose the handling of the law, there are beneficiaries on the other ends: when the Duke rules, the people (not all) are happy to be without law, and when Angelo rules, Angelo reaps the benefit of power, but the people suffer. This tells us of the complexities of the law: there is no scenario where everyone truly loses and there is no scenario where everyone truly wins, therefore, it is important that a balance must be made between both leniency and harshness, and loss and gain: true justice. When a judge is corrupt, such as the case of Angelo, they themselves are reaping all the gains of the law (reaping through abuse of the system), while the majority is at a loss, and at the ‘short end of the stick’. In this scenario it is clear that the issue hindering the efficiency of the law is the judge, however, in an opposite scenario, where the majority are benefiting through neglect of the law (the Dukes rule), the summation is much more difficult (summation as in, determining if the scenario is good, moral, fair or logical). In the end, the one who decides whether true justice is being dealt is the judge and, as long as the people are not revolting, the respective society will be affected and molded by that one person’s morals/opinions (the judges). In fairness though, a judge’s word means nothing if the people don’t follow it, and so it relies on the fact that the people respect such binding because, if not, the society and system become functional altogether.
ReplyDeleteFinding a balance between being too harsh and too lenient has been a constant struggle in judicial systems. Measure for Measure does a fantastic job at illustrating the pros and cons of both extremes. The Duke is far too lenient, and even though he knows it, he has too much empathy to change his ways. This allows for the humanization of the accused to ensure that each case is treated with care. However, the punishments are inconsistent and unfair. Angelo sees this flaw and attempts to fix it by being extremely harsh and to the book. The issue with this is that unjust, far too cruel laws cannot be changed and each case is not treated differently under the different circumstances. Escalus attempts to be the balance between the two, hence the name Escalus. Judges have the main goal is to treat each case fairly and objectively. This means that they cannot care too much about who is on trial and be lenient, but they also can’t just assign punishment without taking into account the difference in situations that require different punishments. There needs to be a balance. You cannot disregard the law, but the law cannot be some huge, unchangeable power. Judicial philosophies are important – but I do not believe that this play proves one is better than the other. What it does prove is that whatever judicial philosophy is chosen must be consistent or else different judges will give different punishments which is unjust and unfair. Punishments and the ideology behind each punishment must be consistent in a judicial system.
ReplyDeleteIn Measure for Measure, Shakespeare highlights the importance of justice and how difficult adjudication can be. Angelo, the temporary ruler of a city, has decided to put a civilian, Claudio, to death for having an affair with his soon to be wife. It is widely known that having sex outside of marriage is illegal, but the Duke had been very lax when enforcing such laws. While in temporary power however, Angelo decides to finally enforce the law in a situation where it applies, but the severity of the crime creates a moral dilemma for the reader. While this technically is illegal, is Angelo’s judgement to have Claudio executed appropriate? I agree with Angelo’s aspirations for consistency because a society is unable to function if existing laws are not enforced. Angelo may be a more effective ruler than the Duke due to his firm belief in law, but I strongly disagree with his judgement on punishment. Yes, Claudio broke a law and whether or not he was about to get married is irrelevant, but this does not justify Angelo’s death sentence. It is completely understandable why such a drastic change in ruling style must start by setting examples, but on the other hand, a death sentence will do nothing except enrage and instill fear in other citizens. The best remedy for this situation would be for Angelo to maintain his belief in consistency but to tone down his overly harsh judgement. Justice in the legal sense requires both logic and emotion, the latter being something that Angelo is lacking. Angelo’s inability to use both in his adjudication is perfectly described by Shakespeare and shows that achieving justice is possible, but requires a balance between ethics and logic that does not come without an advanced understanding of the law, as well as an open mind.
ReplyDeleteThe play portrays the two extremes on the opposite sides of the spectrum regarding judicial punishment. Neither are sufficient in promoting justice, leading us to conclude that we must find a new balance between the two. On one side, the Duke argues for proportionality over deterrence, as people should not be punished beyond the severity of their punishments. On the other side, Angelo argues that by implementing strict rules, it will deter people from committing the crimes in the first place. In the play, we learn that neither extreme is sufficient. Regarding strict punishment, we realize that complete deterrence is impossible. Angelo concedes as he both admits the weakness of mankind and commits fornication. In act 2, scene 4, lines 141-144, he says:
ReplyDelete“I think it well.
And from this testimony of your own sex,
Since I suppose we are made to be no stronger
Than faults may shake our frames”
Clearly, this is problematic as strict punishments on the inevitable are unjust, specifically where Claudio is forced into the death penalty upon committing fornication. However, the other extreme is unjust as well. The Duke essentially pardons every character at the end of the play, which creates a happy ending, but fails in terms of deterrence. At least in my opinion, I do not see the role of deterrence whatsoever and thus this role of punishment fails as well. Instead, we must find a balance between the two. This is critical, as it will serve both roles in the judicial system, solving the problems previously addressed.
The play is telling us that there are two sides of spectrum for justice: the judge that treats the law as more important than all (Angelo), and the judge that is afraid to act on it (Vincentio). While each believes in their own way and believes the other is completely wrong, in reality, neither of the efforts made by the dukes’ are correct. If the judge, jury and executioner do not impose the law at all and let criminals off the hook every time as Vincentio had been doing, the government would no longer have any sort of reign over the people. On the opposite side of the spectrum, however, if the government poses a tyrannical threat over the people, they will not learn to respect them and live their lives in fear, which is a terrible way of living and having a horrible relationship with the people. Rather than being strict or lenient, the judge should be both. The example of Escalus proved to be the most effective: for three men with relatively minor cases, he gave them all a warning but let them go. Not only did this show that he empathizes with the men, but it subconsciously makes the men think higher of him and respect him, but also raises a little bit of fear that they would be punished next time. This is exactly what a leader should do – it has changed and is not as simple now, but the mindset of earning respect on both sides would help massively in solving difficult cases. These decisions would establish communities of trust, especially in the justice system, where cases are complicated. By doing this, a judge defends their own honor as well the honor of the justice system as they seek to do what is right.
ReplyDeleteThe course of the play tells us that it is best to stand somewhere in between harshness and leniency. A judge should understand the circumstances of the accused when imposing a punishment. The Duke falls on the side of being a very passive ruler, allowing for many crimes to occur and go unpunished. His inability to establish order and enforce the law resulted in a lack of respect from his subjects. This contempt can be seen in Lucio’s negative attitude and determination to tarnish the Duke’s name, an offense that we determined was slander during our class discussion. Angelo falls on the other side of this spectrum, imposing harsh rules and enforcement as a ruler. Like the Duke’s leniency, this strict style of enforcement is also unfit for the needs of the kingdom. Angelo is in favor of following rules so closely that is impossible to abide by all of his expectations as a judge. Even he is incapable of meeting his own expectations, finding himself guilty of the same crime he had Claudio condemned for. Upon the Duke’s return, one would think that he has learned from his mistakes and reached the balance between strictness and leniency. This, however, is not the case. The Duke is just as lost as before, offering pardons and lessening the punishments of those he is judging. He has no more experience or knowledge than before he took leave from his position and is operating on his power rather than his qualifications for the job, something that we see all too often in modern politics. A balance must be reached between harshness and leniency, with judges who are capable of understanding and empathizing with the accused. A judge should be able to defend their decisions with their qualifications rather than the power they have been handed, and, in many cases, not earned for themselves.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Shakespeare was not trying to portray three different people with distinct personalities but rather, each judge personifies a school of thought. The Duke is a politician who would like to remain compassionate in the eyes of his constituents; therefore, he tries his best to be a passive and forgiving leader. His empathy showed that his focus was on the long term. This was problematic since the laws were not abided by, causing the Duke to put Angelo in charge. On the other hand, Angelo is much more short tempered and is only thinking about the present. “It is the law, not I, that condemn your brother… The law hath not been dead, though it hath slept. Those many had not dared to do that evil.” (2.2.105) His judgement was by the book, though there were different circumstances for the offenders of fornication, he tried to threaten the citizens of Vienna with the same punishment, death. Escalus is arguably the least scandalous of them all; he utilizes the threat of punishment similar to Angelo while giving the offenders a second chance similar to the Duke. This is evident when he is deciding on how to resolve the issue between Froth, Pompey, and Elbow. “I advised you let me not find you before me again upon any complaint whatsoever… In plain dealing, Pompey, I shall have you whipped.” (2.1.253) It is clear that a combination of empathy and severity is required to ensure order and deterrence.
ReplyDeleteThe play Measure for Measure shows two extremes of the judicial spectrum. The Duke is on the lenient side, letting most laws pass while Angelo is shown to be very harsh and enforce the laws fully. Escalus is shown to be in between, in fact his name implies scales, or a balance between the two. We never get a clear picture where exactly Escalus is on the scale, but he seems to vehemently oppose Angelo’s strict rules, while also agreeing that the Duke was too lenient and that rules should be enforced. Angelo hides behind a guise of supporting the law, saying that “It is the law, not I, condemn your brother. Were he my kinsman, brother, or my son, It should thus be with him. He must die tomorrow (2.2.104-107). While interpreting the law directly as written may be fair in some situations, I think the importance of looking at the circumstances of the case is also important. That’s where Escalus comes in. Escalus still has some of the judicial fervor Angelo has, but also is willing to look at the circumstances and make fairer punishments. The Duke failed to interpret the law at all, which is also clearly not a good way to run a judicial system. I think the book is trying to show that Escalus is the best judge due to his balance between Angelo and the Duke, in that he respects the law like Angelo but still looks at the circumstances of the case instead of solely obeying the law to the word.
ReplyDeleteShakespeare’s Measure for Measure presents different trials with two different judges to determine outcomes and punishments for the trials. Angelo’s strict punishments and rulings prioritize the deterrence of future crimes, while the Duke’s more lenient approach to ruling focuses mostly on the circumstances of the crime and the proportional punishment for the crime. The play presents two opposites that, in the end, both fail to be effective. I believe the play is creating a scenario where the audience easily finds themselves between sides, forced to decide for themselves how the law should be enforced. I think this was to force the audience to think like a judge during a trial; it shows the audience that there is no specific way in the book that rules can be enforced, and that is why we have human beings who rule as judges. When, at the end of the play, the Duke sentences Angelo to marriage and death, I believe that Shakespeare makes the argument that judges follow their own philosophies for ruling; there is no specific one, but punishments can also be enforced if judges do not rule fairly. After leaving Angelo in power, the Duke carefully observes his methods. He sees that Angelo not only rules harshly for Claudio’s case, not taking in account the circumstances of their premarital sex, and the Duke punishes Angelo for that and for his fornication. Because a judge following his own philosophies and rules can cause issues and controversy, there should be a power strong enough to rule against a judge if need be.
ReplyDeleteIn Measure for Measure, Shakespeare shows three ways to interpret the law. The first interpretation is of Angelo who consistently applies the law with the ascribed punishment. The main example in the play is the trial of Claudio. Claudio is convicted of fornication. However, he is convicted on only a technicality because his partner was essentially his wife. Angelo’s judiciary technique is simple. Claudio committed the crime and therefore shall be punished with death as the law states. Angelo’s style ideally forces people to follow the law in fear of the punishments. Shakespeare disagrees with Angelo’s philosophy, which is evident because in the end Angelo is thoroughly embarrassed and his reputation is ruined. The second philosophy is of Escalus. Escalus is the most balanced judge. As suggested by his name, he weighs both the situation and the law to find a balanced solution. His prominent example comes with the trial of Pompey and Froth. Escalus chooses to let Pompey go because it was a first time offense. Shakespeare shows his favor for this philosophy by portraying Escalus as a wise honorable advisor throughout the story. Moreover, his advice is consistently right. The final judge is the Duke. The duke’s philosophy is to essentially use the law as a scare tactic without ever enforcing it. His key trial is in the final scene of the play where he chooses to pardon every crime committed with only punishments of marriage. Shakespeare shows that just like Angelo’s, the dukes philosophy is too extreme by showing the Duke’s hypocrisy and obliviousness. His hypocrisy starts when he puts Angelo is charge to assess the law. However after doing so, he ignores anything he learned from Angelo and simply goes back to his old ways. Finally, he is shown to be oblivious to the fact that Escalus is clearly the fairest judge. He even says at the beginning that Escalus is an extremely honorable person. Moreover, there are countless examples of Escalus offering wise advice. In the end, Shakespeare throughout the play shows that he favors a balanced approach to justice that considers the whole picture as well as what is written into law.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Shakespeare never clearly portrays to the audience his beliefs on jurisprudence, he does make it evident to the reader that jurisprudence cannot be neither super strict nor lenient, but instead find a compromise. As was said by the Duke at the beginning of Measure for Measure, “We have strict statutes and most biting laws… which for this fourteen years we have let slip” which are made more “For terror, not to use…” (Shakespeare 1.3 20-27) The original problem introduced in Measure for Measure is a direct result of the judges’ inability to enforce the law sufficiently. So instead of trying to make small changes to their jurisprudence system, the Duke decided to appoint Angelo to the head of the system. Although the Duke may have seen this as the right thing to do, he did not really solve anything. The only thing he did was shift the enforcement of laws in Vienna to the other side of the spectrum, too strict. After this promotion occurs, it is still obvious to the audience that the problem with the jurisprudence system in Vienna was far from solved. Now instead of having someone in charge of law enforcement who would let people get away with anything, Angelo believed people had zero excuse to break the law and would immediately rule guilty in any case. Throughout the play, Escalus was never given a chance to do what he could to improve the system. Escalus is also depicted as the most reasonable judge of the three, leading the audience to believe Shakespeare’s ideal jurisprudence system would have a specific philosophy to it that would find a happy medium.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, Shakespeare tries to bring three different styles of judging to the audience. On the one hand, we have the Duke, who is (according to Angelo) too lenient and does not enforce the law with the strength it needs to be enforced. In the play, we never get to know if this is really the case and if people really do whatever they want without the fear of being prosecuted, as Angelo describes it. During the play, we also have two other prisoners, one of them already dead and one soon to be killed. This fact speaks against Angelo's point that the law is not well enforced. When three people in a small town are about to get the highest imagine able punishment in the matter of days, it does not seem like the law is weakly enforced. Angelo argues that this style of judging harms the public body as criminals do not get the sentence they deserve.
Angelo, on the other hand, is not lenient at all. He strictly enforces the law and does not hear Claudio in that case, but simply sentences him to death without long overthinking. He legally does nothing wrong, but morally he seems to act falsely. Angelo clearly is the 'bad guy' in this case, although he could defend himself by saying 'I just did what the law said'. Still, in a world where his style of judging would be enforced everywhere, many people would go to prison or be sentenced to death even for minimal crimes. He sees the Duke as the bad guy and argues that being lenient towards a criminal can hurt others more than it helps the criminal. He definitely has a point with that and so the race towards being the best judge is still open.
The third judge the audience is about to see performing is Escalus. He is portrayed by an old, wise and calm man, different from the Duke and Angelo. Escalus makes rational decisions and tries to interpret the law so it makes the most sense. He tries to make a fair trial and hear everybody's view before deciding what should happen. Also, he is very patient and does not jump to conclusions. Escalus, in my opinion, come closest to being the 'perfect judge', a mix between the lenient Duke and the aggressive Angelo.
Although the play does not show what the best way to judge is, it gives a strong emphasis towards the style of Escalus and the Duke. They 'win' the play and the Duke punishes Angelo as he himself would have punished somebody else for the same crime.
In summary, all of those judging style can be defended easily and can be said to be the most effective. I think, that there is no perfect style of judging. Being more like the Duke can have as much negative effects as being as harsh as Angelo. Justice is not a yes or no thing, but more a weighting of different aspects and picking the measure which seems most fitting. This is why even in our modern society there is still people judging and not machines. Laws give a set way of judging while the final decision is always up to the Judicative Body. This system is not perfect because of human flaws, but it is close to the justice we are capable of achieving.
The play tells us that the law needs to be lenient and understanding while not being overly unenforced grey but not passive. The Duke as the first judge is too passive. There is no respect for law, and chaos is everywhere. Thus, the Duke calls on someone who was more respected than him to take his place; Angelo. As his name would suggest, people thought he was going to be an angel and a beacon of hope for the kingdom. Unfortunately, he was not the prince that was promised and was instead a wolf in sheep’s clothing. While Angelo was stricter than the Duke, Angelo was too strict. This is shown in the case of Claudio, where he thought of the law as an absolute binary of zeros and ones, where even if Claudio’s innocence is in the spirit of the law, Claudio is still guilty on a technicality. From this example we are supposed to learn that the law needs some to have some subjectivity and good jurisprudence requires compassion and sympathy. Now we move to Escalus who, as the name suggests, is much more balanced and measured than his two counterparts. During his trial he recognizes the uniqueness of each case and adjudicates accordingly. He is in general lenient with Elbow, Pompey, and Froth, although he makes sure to articulate that if they offend again they will be punished. This is more lenient than Angelo because he is showing mercy, and yet he is more strict than the Duke since he is ensuring they will respect the law the second time around. This paradigm of the three judges is exemplified best at the end of the play when the Duke changes how he decides cases. Whereas previously he would have done nothing even if the accused were slightly guilty, in this case he forces Angelo to get married and has Lucio whipped for disrespecting the Duke and thus the Dukes authority as a judge. This demonstrates the change in the Duke’s mindset during the tale of three judges. The fact that at the end of the story the Duke governs most closely Escalus is proof positive that the judging system the Duke thinks is best at the end of Measure for Measure is Escalus’s.
ReplyDeleteI think that the play is telling us that, like most things, the law is best performed in moderation. It should neither be an iron grip that strangles the citizens nor should it be so loose that the rules are never followed. The best practice of enforcing the law would be fluid and dependent upon each case. A prime example of this would be the case Escalus handled himself. In said case, he was presented with two people that were involved in a Brothel. At the time, brothels were not legal in Vienna. The way that Escalus handles this is interesting as he says “and in requital of your prophecy, hark you: I advise you let me not find you before me again upon any complaint whatsoever; no, not for dwelling where you do. if I do Pompey, I shall beat you to your tent and prove a shrewd Caesar to you. In plain dealing, Pompey, I shall have you whipped. So, for this time, Pompey, fare you well”(Act 2 Scene 1, 252- 259). This is completely different from how either Angelo or the Duke would have handled the situation. Angelo would have probably sentenced both to death while the Duke would have let them both go. Escalus handles this the most appropriate as he looks at the circumstances that this case was brought before him. He is fluid in the fact that he focuses on the aspects of this case rather than the crimes they have committed. In this case, Escalus sentences just a warning but tells that next time the punishment would be much more serious. In this way, Escalus does not have to punish someone but gives an incentive to not make another mistake. In this way, Escalus would continue to be fluid in his sentencing as the next time would receive a harsher penalization. This kind of ruling would still enforce rules, like Angelo, but also be liked by the general public, like the Duke. Therefore it shows to be the best way to serve justice.
ReplyDeleteThe play is advocating for a middle ground form of judgement, the form that Escalus used to judge the crimes brought before him. When we look to the names of the judges, their judgment and punishment style, and the outcomes, they bring to the city; the middle ground approach is clearly the best. Angelo, meaning angel, and his pristine black and white sense of crime brought much misery to the citizens of Vienna. With harsh punishments for minor crimes, the system carried out by Angelo was clearly not what was best for the people. Angelo’s name, which implies that he is above the people, hinted at his demise. The Duke otherwise known as Vincentio, and his forgiving style of government was also wrong for the people of Vienna. He himself admitted that the laws had gone lax and people no longer respected them, however at the end of the play, he pardoned almost every criminal. His name, meaning victor, implies that he is the champion of the people, something that a true leader cannot be. Escalus on the other hand, is proven the best judge for Vienna. He properly enforces the law when need be, but he also carries sympathy for the criminals and forgives those necessary. His philosophy that lies between the two extremes is by far the best for the people of Vienna. After all, his name means scales; he can weigh the right and the wrong and design the fitting punishment.
ReplyDeleteMeasure for Measure does a great job contrasting two extreme styles of judging. The Duke’s style, which is more lenient and unique for each case depending on the circumstances, and Angelo’s, which is a strict interpretation of the laws no matter the circumstances. The play doesn’t really answer the question of which style is better though. I think that this is because there is no one style that is better because, on their own, they are both poor. They need to complement one another in order to maintain the correct balance of context and strictness. A judge needs to be strict, but they also have to understand the circumstances of each specific case and understand how not all crimes are the same. For example stealing a chocolate bar is far less important than stealing a phone for example. And while both of these crimes may be theft and possibly of the same type, one is vastly different than the other and should be punished differently as well. This is where Escalus comes in. He is a sort of middle ground between Angelo and The Duke. Another important aspect to this is punishment being a deterrent. Obviously punishments should not be made harsher in order to deter others from committing similar crimes, but it is important to be somewhat strict as if there is no obvious punishment, why not commit the crime. That is why we need a proper balance. I think a lot of people get caught up with the fact that Angelo is too harsh, and don’t see how detrimental a lenient judge can also be to society.
ReplyDelete