Many people believe that empathy is an essential aspect of moral decision-making. Yet Yale psychologist Paul Bloom in his controversial book Against Empathy argues that empathy is a poor tool for ethical decision-making. Yet this controversy is at least as old as Shakespeare. In Measure for Measure, Angelo is constantly criticized for his cold-heartedness and lack of empathy. Isabella, for one, argues he should put himself in her brother's position to judge his fate when she states that "If he had been as you, and you as he, / You would have slipped like him, but he like you / Would not have been so stern." (2.2. 8-86). Yet Angelo defends himself against such charges. He argues that we should also pity not only the people who are directly affected by the law, but also all the people who can be spared suffering by enforcing the law and deterring future crimes. " I show it [pity] most of all when I show justice, / For then I pity those I do not know," he argues (2.2128-9).
What is the play saying about empathy and judicial decision-making? Should we make decisions with our heads or our hearts? Is there any middle ground? Is one position shown to be correct given what you know about the play? What do you think about this controversay?
This play takes the side of the judge (Angelo) who is the least empathetic in the several different trials that occur. For one, Shakespeare comments on the ineffectiveness of having an empathetic character when Claudio is expecting to have a less harsh trial, he ends up having the most extreme punishment of all; death. If Isabella had not insisted that Angelo was giving Claudio too harsh of a punishment for the crime committed, the reader would not have seen Angelo's perspective of the cross of empathy, justice, and law. Angelo describes the law as being unforgiving, and that if you break the law, you must face the proper consequences correlating with your conviction and felony. Angelo gives his perspective on empathy when he describes that giving pity and empathy to those who have committed a crime is putting others in more danger in the future and that he pities those who pity convicts because they are unaware of their "foolishness". We can learn from this play to make decisions with our heads because when we make decisions with our hearts, we have tendencies to endure further unseen extreme consequences.
ReplyDeleteMeasure for Measure uses the contrasting forms of justice between Angelo and the Duke to support empathy in decision-making. Specifically in act 4, Angelo's realization of his wrong justice methods shows that the book suggests that the Duke's methods are right and most fair. This is shown after Claudio has supposedly died and when the Duke officially pronounces that he will return and resume his leadership. When Angelo hears of this, he finally becomes guilty that he had had sex out of marriage, broke his promise to spare Claudio's life if he did, and killed Claudio. Even though in reality he had not done any of this, Claudio comes to the realization that his methods of justice where wrong and sinful (4.5.22-37). From this realization, every character now is in favor for the Duke's ways of justice. The Duke’s way of justice is to see each case as its own and to take empathy and mercy into account as well. As a result, the book suggests that the best way to go about the justice system is to hear every case as much as possible and with empathy. I personally believe that there is a middle ground and that the middle ground is best for decision making. I believe empathy is important in fully understanding each case, however the consequences should be made based on what is known and not so much with empathy. This is because too much empathy can be abused and even ignore fair consequences are ignored, it will defeat the purpose of having a justice system.
ReplyDeleteShakespeare creates a message promoting empathy and mercy in his play Measure for Measure. A common means of conveying an argument in in Shakespeare’s plays is the combination of hypocrisy and irony. I predict that similarly to Merchant of Venice, the “tables will turn” and it will be Angelo who is begging for mercy at the end of the play. I think that the play means to convince readers that the law is not just black and white. Instead, each case needs to be handled individually, and thus, punishment should be determined by the severity and circumstances concerning the crime in practice, not in theory. Furthermore, the play favors the idea that there should be some element of human forgiveness and mercy when arbitrating in court cases. This is obvious through the positive light through which Escalus is portrayed. His character appeals to pathos in the audience. Escalus’ name is Latin for “scales,” which imply justice, thus creating a parallel between his character and an evenhanded judicial system. Contrarily, Angelo is portrayed as cold-hearted, lacking human emotions and desires, which makes it very hard for the reader to identify and create a connection with his character. However, his name does translate to “angel,” but that could be referring to his strong morals (so far) and virtuous intentions as temporary duke. Personally, I think that some empathy is definitely important in the judicial system. I do not actually believe in punishment as the go-to solution for crime. Rather than assigning jail time or death sentences, I feel rehabilitation and lessons in ethicality are much more productive. However, when punishment does need to be dealt, I think that one must absolutely look at all the specific details and circumstances in the case to assess its severity.
ReplyDeleteEmpathy is overrated. First and foremost, it's important to make a distinction between the terms which are being used and the terms which ought to be used. Empathy is roughly defined as being able to directly feel the pain felt by others, whereas sympathy is roughly defined at being able to feel for those experiencing pain. The subtle difference between the two is crucial. A judge obviously must be sympathetic, for a judge cannot adjourn properly unless he or she comprehends that the actions the criminal took have some effect on the victim or the victims family. This corresponds with what Isabella tells Antonio, because she essentially tells him to feel for her case. Moving from the general to the specific, Angelo should feel for the Claudio in this case. The reason being that if he were to understand Claudio's position that he didn't really do anything wrong given that he and Isabella are essentially already married, he might be more merciful in a case which demands mercy of a reasonable judge.
ReplyDeleteEmpathy on the other hand is overrated. Imagine a case where a murderer is about to be put away for life and the person representing the victim is a mother who doesn't love her son. In this case it is probable that the murderer might feel more emotional pain at the idea of getting sent away for life than the mother who had her detestable son taken from her. In this case we can reasonably say that the criminal is guilty, and as such should be sent away for life. If the judge were empathetic and were to decide his or her cases solely based on empathy, the judge would make the wrong decision and decide not to imprison the murderer. Dealing with empathy in criminal justice is dirty business, since the judge would be deciding one's guilt or innocence based only on how much emotion one displays in court. Sympathy instead, where one can comprehend and evaluate the points of view and suffering of others, is thus obviously preferable in a judge.
ReplyDeleteI would argue that it is important to use both our heads and our hearts to make important decisions. In Measure for Measure, both of these attributes are used to make decisions and can be considered equally important. It is the clashing of Isabella and Angelo that makes people question which side is correct. However, it is hard to reach a common standing point. In this situation in particular, Angelo has to make the tough decision to start punishing people for not following the law, but Isabella believes Claudio committed a one-time offense and should not be given such a harsh punishment. While I understand Isabella, I believe she may be slightly blinded by her love for her brother. In this scene I have to agree with Angelo, because it is true that sometimes people have to make the hard decision. The Duke was too lenient with the law and created a problem in Vienna, and someone had to clean up his mess. However, I would also argue that if Isabella were put into Angelo’s position she may have made a similar choice to Angelo regarding to cleaning up the law. She is blinded by her own desire for empathy and does not care that Angelo has been put into a difficult position. The message here indicates that while being stern and tough can be important to decision making, it’s not always a good idea to think without thinking of others because it can bend important decisions and create discord.
I would say that in making decisions it is important to use both our heads and our hearts. In Measure for Measure, Angelo only uses his head thus having no empathy for Claudio when he announces his punishment. Angelo sees the law as very black or white, therefore when he sentences Claudio to death Angelo doesn’t care about Claudio’s side of the story he just sees that the law has been broken. Isabella, on the other hand, begs for Claudio’s punishment to be less severe because she sees his crime to be a mistake or a one-time offense. While I agree that Angelo may have been a bit too harsh with his sentencing, he had been put in a tough situation when the Duke left leaving him in charge of a city where no one has any regard for the law. Angelo felt that he needed to punish Claudio to prove a point and set an example for all the other citizens. He was showing that as the new Duke, he will have no sympathy for any lawbreakers, thus if you break the law you will be punished. From what we have read I would say that so far using empathy in judicial decision making is not encouraged. I think that using a bit of empathy in your decision making is important because each case is different. Being able to hear someone’s side of the story and understand why they did what they did or if it was an honest mistake can help a judge come up with the best punishment for the crime.
ReplyDeleteI think that if using your head or heart are mutually exclusive, then I would argue that it is far better to use you head for the main reasons that Angelo does. The can fundamentally only save and protect people if it respected. Without deterrence, it is essentially useless. Thus as Angelo argues, by following the law now, you deter crimes in the future. However, I believe that the two are not mutually exclusive which leads me to also support many of the points Claudio makes when he argues that his sentence is too harsh. He basically argues that it is important to actually understand what happened rather than just the technicalities. In Claudio's case, he was essentially married, and was only missing one thing to be "officially" married. Thus, i would argue that his punishment should be less severe even though technically his situation is irrelevant because he did commit the crime. Thus, i find that escalus at this point is the best judge in the play because he uses both the law (head) and takes into consideration the situation (Heart) when deciding how to punish the offender. In general, I think the argument of each side has merit, which leads me to conclude that using both your head and heart is the superior method of judging.
ReplyDeleteI would argue that empathy is indeed overrated; however, sympathy is a necessary component of our judicial system. I feel that it is the best compromise between the use of both heart and head in the criminal justice system. Without heart, those in charge will become authoritarian, such as we see with Angelo. With only heart, the city will turn to anarchy as criminals begin to run the streets. The balance will always be key. However, in a place such as Vienna that has resided without law for so long, the message sent by the killing of a criminal who did not perpetrate a major crime may be the best thing for the city. As stated by the original Duke, “As Which for nineteen years we have let slip, Even like an o'ergrown lion in its cave.” They have let the cities criminals go unpunished for too long, leading to a sense of security for the worst people in Vienna. Though Claudio was a criminal, being put to death for premarital sex is far beyond what is necessary, therefore showing the real criminals of Vienna that crime will no longer be tolerated under Angelo’s rule.
ReplyDeleteIn the average society, empathy needs to be kept out of the judicial system as it swings the scales away from head towards heart. In Measure for Measure, it is even more imperative to the preservation of the cities safety that empathy is removed from the judicial system. Too long have criminals been able to run the city and it must be put to end by stricter rules.
Shakespeare has set up the perfect scenario of creating a crime that truly is not that big of a deal, but because Angelo’s persona is strict, we are able to question empathy in court. I think Shakespeare is making fun of certain judicial norms that goes on during his time, but it is very applicable to today. There are laws that there is no way around and has a set sentence, but there are laws that depends from case-to-case. I think that there are logical steps that a judge should take to see a case and use their heads to come to a conclusion. But there comes a time where the law is sometimes too harsh and there needs to be a little bit of empathy to make the outcome fair. However, I understand why there should be no heart making decisions in law because it can be ruled as unfair and unjust if there is more empathy than there needs to be. I believe that there is a middle ground with head and heart because we are humans and I feel that human nature is to also see things with empathy so you cannot make a decision without empathy. But its also up tot the judges. In Angelo’s case, he says to Isabella, “I show it most of all when I show justice,/ for when I pity those I do not know,/which a dismissed offense would after gall./ And do him right that answering one foul wrong,/lives not to act another.” Angelo here is trying to defend his strictness through saying that he is giving justice and pity to Claudio through giving him a fair trial. However, his view of fair is not the same as others and I thing that’s what makes this so controversial. People hold too many different opinions about things and that’s going to change from person to person.
ReplyDeleteLike many, I think empathy can be overrated. Actions are based often on circumstance, however I don't believe that many circumstance can transcend or override a law that is clear and uncontroversial. In other words I don't think that ones circumstances can make moral exceptions for individuals. Setting a precedent of a strong law is just as important as being a fair and righteous leader that seeks to bring out the good in the law. IN the judicial system circumstance is often a deciding factor in a cases outcome, and therefore often determines the fate of an individual whether we like it or not. in Measure for Measure the city of Vienna is overrun by borken laws and ignored social structure that Angelo is keen to fix. In my eyes this is commendable. However the manor in which he elects to do this may be harsh. Killing someone over a law that was ignored for 19 years seems unfair. Yet, it is the law and should be respected as such. In addition I also agree that Angelo not employing empathy sends a clear and resounding message to Vienna, criminals are not wanted. This sets a precedent that the law is expected to be followed with respect and without exception. I think that for the whole of Vienna this is good, the law is the law and should be as so. I think Angelo is not evil, simply practical. For these reason i think it is justified that Angelo toss empathy away and lean toward and authoritative stance to keep order in the kingdom he so recently received rule of. While Claudio may not be dangerous, what is the regularity of broken law. How can a society exist without rule of law safely and without crime. How can a society exist without a blanket expectation of goodness and virtue. For this reason, although harsh, I find Angelo's actions of the disregard of empathy are justifiable in the judicial system.
ReplyDeleteI think that the play is coming to the conclusion that we need to show empathy when enforcing the law, but we must have a clear grasp of its role in informing those judgements. This realization is modeled by the Duke throughout the entire play, as in act 1 he withdraws from power because he realizes that he is being too empathetic, and letting the smallest of sufferings deter him from enforcing the law. This is made clear with Barnadine, as we can see that the Duke had such a moral dilemma in release versus execution that it resulted in no judgment for nine years. Yet having seen Angelo, a judge without any empathy, the Duke is able to figure out how much is the "right" amount of compassion, and puts together a scheme to save Claudio and punish Angelo, a judgement he comes to through a better balance of the black and white. This all points to Shakespeare's conclusion that the law is ineffective if judgment is biased toward both empathy and lack thereof, and only when there is a balance is justice achieved.
ReplyDeleteTo answer the main question if empathy is overrated can be complicated. Empathy is not overrated, but it can be and is often over utilized. Human beings are naturally empathetic, and respond well to emotion (other than psychopaths and sociopaths - people who cannot form an emotional connection with others). Excluding these people, empathy and emotion, which are half the battle in law, are very persuasive. In Measure for Measure, there are two sides to an argument for Claudio. The people closest to Claudio believe Angelo should take an individualistic approach, with lots of empathy, while Angelo is set in stone about his approach with the iron-fisted law. It is extremely hard to distinguish the blurred line between using too much empathy versus not using enough. Angelo’s approach has no empathy at all, and doesn’t take into account his position, and if he was in Claudio’s shoes how someone else would treat him. There is a middle ground, but again, it is very individualistic. For example, if someone who grows up in an educated household and commits mass murder, there should be no question that they go to jail or are executed. However, if someone who is surrounded by violence their whole life unsurprisingly commits a non-violent crime, there should be a different approach taken to it. In summary, criminal cases are very individualized, as all human beings are so different in their morals and their ways. In the play, the empathy given to Claudio is given because of multiple reasons. First, Claudio was very close to marrying Juliette. Second, it was the first crime, one that was not very severe, under Angelo’s reign. Third, Claudio is being killed for something that the Duke himself has the intentions for doing. For those reasons, the case should be handled individually, and Claudio should be pardoned, or at the very least face some prison time with his soon-to-be wife.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think empathy is overrated when it comes to crimes and the judicial system. While Angelo’s view is seen as strict in the play, I believe he is right in his rulings. Isabella’s argument that Angelo would have made the same mistake if put in the same situation makes sense, but I do not think it matters for Claudio’s ruling because Angelo was not actually in the same situation. Angelo made his decision on Claudio’s ruling so quickly and without any empathy because he followed the law’s punishment. When it comes to judicial decision-making, decisions are made by unbiased judges because they follow the punishments required by law.
ReplyDeleteI think there is controversy with our judicial system because we do not have the strict, law following judges in our society like Angelo in Measure for Measure. Our judges are placed in the situations where they decide the punishments for criminals, but they do not always rule as unbiased and fair as Angelo. The middle ground between making the decision with our head or our heart is where many controversial judges find themselves, and being in that middle ground causes the issues we see today with unfair ruling. The bias that comes from making the decision with their head causes many judges to unfairly sentence many criminals. We all see in today’s society the criminals who are sentenced to very not proportional and harsh sentences for the crimes they committed. The judges who make these decisions rule partly from their heads, giving many people undeserved punishments and sentences.
The entire debate surrounding empathy and its usefulness in decision-making is ultimately pointless for one reason. It is impossible to factor it into a cost-benefit analysis of a decision whose impact is on society. Angelo makes his decision regarding Claudio on this basis. When Isabella asks Angelo why he condemns Claudio, he replies, “It is the law, not I, condemn your brother./Were he my kinsman, brother, or my son,/It should be thus with him. He must die tomorrow” (2.2.105-107). Angelo believes that is not just him but also the law that ultimately sentences Claudio to death. Similarly, he argues that even if Claudio were family, he would have the same fate. What Angelo is doing, is ultimately weighing the costs and benefits of upholding the law as written. To him the benefit of upholding the law is a signal of the renewed enforcement of the law, and thus the deterrence provided by law is renewed. The costs to society, however, are non-existent. While one could dispute whether these are the true costs and benefits that would be leveled upon society, empathy cannot be factored in because the suffering and death of one person does not have an overall effect on society. Cost-benefit analyses are basis for all justifications of actions that could affect society. Empathy, however, operates on an individual level, attempting to feel the feelings of someone else yourself. Because institutions and society are (despite being made up of individuals), ultimately separate and independent of individuals, costs and benefits affecting individuals must be dismissed. Because empathy cannot be used in a cost-benefit analysis of decisions towards society, it has no usefulness, and any concerns or debate surrounding it should be dismissed.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, Measure for Measure perfectly portrays the middle ground between empathy and the law to define the difficulties in defining justice. Both Angelo and Isabella make compelling arguments for the opposing sides, and it becomes impossible to say indefinitely whether the execution of Claudio is right or wrong. To start, Shakespeare builds up our passion towards Claudio throughout the play. These urges of human nature tilt our biases towards preserving the life of Claudio. What has Claudio done wrong? His offense is so minor, and this leads us to the debate between Isabella and Angelo. Isabella makes her case:
ReplyDelete“If he had been as you, and you as he,
You would have slipped like him, but he like you
Would not have been so stern.” (Act 2, scene 2, lines 84-86)
Clearly, if Angelo were in the same position as Claudio, he would not execute himself. In fact, we know that the same exact scenario occurs, and Angelo is portrayed as a hypocrite. Yet, Angelo still provides a compelling argument:
“I show it [pity] most of all when I show justice,
For then I pity those I do not know…
answering one foul wrong,
Lives not to act another.” (Act 2, scene 2, 128-132)
He is correct. It is the beginning of his thrown, and setting an example for the consequences of crime will undoubtedly carry through in the minds of individuals before they make the same mistakes. Therefore, if cracking down on Claudio prevents further people from committing crimes, Angelo is actually taking the pity of many individuals in the future. Yet, the conflict is still not resolved. Angelo becomes self-conflicted in the crisis as he begins to feel empathy towards Claudio.
“This deed unshapes me quite…
For my authority bears of a credent bulk…
But it confounds the breather. He should have lived…
Nothing goes right.” (Act 4, scene 5, 22-36)
Clearly, the indecisiveness in the issue proves that there is no right or wrong. Both sides are compelling, which summarizes many of the questions arising in our justice system.
I think that the play is stating that we should make decisions based on empathy, given how Shakespeare chooses to portray the trial of Claudio. Throughout the play, Shakespeare continues to drive the point that it is not fair that Claudio is going to be executed. He shows this by giving Claudio’s backstory, which proves that he and Juliet were nearly married; only monetary circumstances prevented them from actually being together, since Juliet did not have a dowry. Showing Claudio’s backstory proves that he is a reputable person, who only cares about Juliet, and is not just impregnating a whore at Mistress Overdone’s home (a crime which may have almost been committed by Froth). When Angelo orders Claudio to be executed, it is a decision based upon judicial decision-making, not using empathy at all (for if he had, most likely he would have realized that Claudio was not a bad person, and simply wanting to have sex with who was almost his wife, which is not a hideous crime). This play proves that empathetic decisions are best, because it proves Angelo to be a hypocritical cruel person, painting decisions that are purely judicial as evil. However, the Duke, who is very empathetic and tries to help save Angelo, is depicted as a hero, and a kind old man. Decisions made from empathy are shown throughout the play to be more humanitarian; an example being when they decided not to execute Barnardine when he pleaded not to be killed yet. This action of sparing a life shows that Shakespeare wanted to show the Duke’s empathetic tendencies as benevolent and more kind than the cold-hearted actions of Angelo.
ReplyDeleteIn the play, Measure for Measure, Shakespeare relays a message to the audience promoting empathy and mercy as a better way to handle a judicial system. Although I do agree with this to some extent, I also believe it is very hard to find a balance between making decisions with our heads and our hearts. For example, if someone is perhaps too empathetic when enforcing the laws, the laws will become “more mocked than feared”, leading to “liberty pluck[ing] justice by the nose, [and] the baby beating the nurse.” (Shakespeare 1.3 28-31) Shakespeare wants the audience to understand showing too much empathy will cause the people to make a mockery of the government. On the other hand, Shakespeare emphasizes even more his point that a lack of empathy in the judicial decision-making process could send everyone to prison. The two radical sides of this argument present in Measure for Measure make it obvious to the reader that Shakespeare believes it is important to find a compromise between the two. Although I do think Shakespeare will have Angelo begging for mercy himself at the end of the play to possibly show the hypocrisy of Angelo. Through Act 4 of Measure for Measure, Shakespeare almost seems to be setting Angelo up for failure in the end of the play so he can prove a point. I also think it is important to recognize the way the two viewpoints have worked together in the play: they haven’t! With the two radical forms of decision-making being enforced within the same city, the people are confused on how they should act. Will they break the law and have it swept under the rug, or will they break the law and be sentenced to prison for life or even killed? This is why once a happy medium is found between the opposing ideas, it is necessary to stay consistent with the happy medium. Consistency will force doubt out of the judicial decision-making branch of the government of Vienna, and bring justice to the system.
ReplyDeleteMeasure for Measure sides with Angelo, an unforgiving judge who has the least empathy out of the several characters we have met so far. Shakespeare exposes the ineffectiveness of having an empathetic character when describing Duke Vincentio as a dog who is all bark and little bite. This juxtaposes Angelo who gives Claudio an unexpectedly harsh trial, where Claudio ends with death. Claudio and Isabella insist that the punishment is too harsh for the crime he has committed, premarital sex, when Claudio’s would-be-wife Juliet is found pregnant. However, after hearing Angelo’s point of view, the reader can believe that if one commits a crime they must be prepared to receive the punishment. Angelo continues by stating that empathy does not mix with justice and law. The law is meant to be followed and unforgiving. Angelo tells Isabella that if he were to be lenient he would put others in danger and that is where he is empathetic. Releasing those that have done bad endangers the public of them repeating offenses or doing worse crimes. In conclusion, we can learn from Measure for Measure that following our heart rather than our head can lead to “Foolishness” that will result in unforeseen consequences.
ReplyDeleteShakespeare’s “Measure for Measure” makes it apparent throughout the story that it is in favor of using both logic and emotion to judge others through different trials that go on with varying degrees of cold reason and empathy for the accused in each. While it is true that each method of decision making, from logical to emotional and somewhat in between, is shown within the book, it seems as if the book heavily favors that emotion and empathy is used in choosing the fates of others. This is shown through the depictions of different characters and how they decide in their own situations. For example, Angelo is shown to be completely removed from emotion and uses what is written in the law and nothing else to decide on crime, but he is also depicted as cold-hearted and almost tyrannical. In contrast, a character like Escalus uses much more situational and empathetic thinking in order to decide and comes off as a less harsh character within the story. Because of these distinctions, it is easy to see that Shakespeare and this play specifically have a bias towards emotional thinking as opposed to logic. In my personal opinion, I think that there is a place for emotion and logic in decision making as long as they are in a proper balance (which should even vary based on situations) because they can both be helpful and have been shown to be helpful in the play and in society. I also think, however, that very specifically in the area of justice, emotion should not be used almost at all. I think that the argument within the play is the wrong argument and that instead of deciding whether emotion and empathy have a place in decision-making, there should be more concern about how punishments should vary by situation. While Angelo is a very logically minded person, always going by the book, his fault isn’t that he doesn’t empathize, it’s that he is completely blind to all of the nuances that made Claudio’s situation different from others’ which makes his decisions terrible.
ReplyDeleteMeasure for Measure is a great example of how Shakespeare uses satire to show the audience polarizing views of empathy in the legal system. When the judge (Angelo) is given the power to make judicial decisions on behalf of the Duke, he immediately takes a hardline approach to fornication in Vienna. From the very beginning, Angelo demonstrates that to him, the law is to be read, not interpreted. This policy immediately becomes unpopular with the citizens of Vienna, especially Isabella who goes as far as to say that, “O, it is excellent. To have a giant’s strength, but it is tyrannous. To use it like a giant (2.2 135-7)”. Isabella points out that although Angelo yields immeasurable powers, to actually use those powers would be tyrannous. Isabella implores Angelo to yield his powers, despite the fact he is legally allowed to use them. Isabella also implies that if Angelo were to explore the full bounds of his powers, he would be seen as a tyrant. The underlying theme is that although powers might be legally defined on paper, some customs are unwritten and if someone were to use those powers, they would suffer social consequences. In that sense, there is a middle ground. Angelo has the choice to not enforce the law, or to follow his plan and have Angelo hanged. Even though Angelo ultimately choose the latter, the possibility of Angelo letting Claudio go was not only the more common one, but the more popular one. If I were Angelo, I would not go as far as to hang Claudio, but use him as a public deterrent for future people considering fornication.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe characters in Shakespeare’s, Measure for Measure, display how empathy plays a major role in judicial decisions. The beginning of the play depicts a stubborn and confident Angelo left in the role as the duke in the real Duke’s leave of absence. Angelo steps into the role with a no nonsense attitude and is eager to make some changes to Vienna’s justice system. In the opening acts, there are numerous comments concerning the lack law enforcement and justice in the city:
ReplyDelete“We have strict statues and most biting laws,
The needful bits are curbs to headstrong weeds,
Which for this fourteen years we have let slip.” (1.3.20-22).
Angelo even goes as far as comparing laws to scarecrows, laws are there to instill fear, but after a while, the fear will dwindle and eventually completely diminish (2.1.2-4). However, Angelo’s hasty and non-empathetic decision making, concerning criminals and their sentences, develops into regretful thoughts in the later acts concerning “taking” Isabella’s virginity and killing Claudio.
“And by the eminent body that enforced
The law against it. But that her tender shame
Will not proclaim against her maidenloss…
But it confounds the breather. He should have lived,
Saved that his riotous youth with dangerous sense” (4.5.24-31).
The play shows judicial decisions can not only be made with the heart or the mind but a combination of both. When a person solely makes a decision based on their heart/empathy, the repercussions could be too lenient or not exist at all. In contrast, a person that merely relies on the mind can become too cruel for their own good. The mind does not fully take into account the emotions of the situation while the heart only focuses on the emotions in a situation. Both have proved to be flawed thinking methods of judicial decision making. A middle ground for this problem is communication. Having multiple perspectives instead of one will allow empathizers and rationalists to hear the ideas of their adversaries. No matter the scenario, the punishment will not always fit the crime, but making sure that a justice system looks at cases inside from a rational and empathetic perspective makes a major difference to make sure justice is just.
Shakespeare’s writing in Measure for Measure also poses a question regarding the importance of justice. Escalus asks, “Which is the wiser here, Justice or Iniquity?” (2.1.180). In other words, he is asking whether or not justice is more significant than sinful and immoral behavior. This implication that anything other than justice is reprehensible highlights the literary work’s stance that justice is a virtue. On the other hand, some of Shakespeare’s characters possess a tone that may lead readers to sympathize with Claudio. Multiple characters in the text express their disapproval of Angelo’s decision to have him executed, referring to the punishment as being harsh for Claudio’s particular situation. While Claudio did violate the law, Juliette is basically his wife. They have taken most of the steps needed for marriage, and all they are lacking is a dowry. The same character mentioned above in this post, Escalus, demonstrates both sides of this argument. He says, “Well, heaven forgive him and forgive us all… And some condemned for a fault alone” (2.1.41-44). In this quotation, Escalus expresses that he understands Claudio’s situation. He states that the prisoner should be pardoned and points out that he is being punished for an arguably minor crime. Despite being able to empathize with Claudio, Escalus ultimately decides that justice should be upheld following his debate with Angelo. While his conflicting opinions on the matter demonstrate that a middle ground does exist, Escalus’s final decision on the importance of justice leads me to conclude that Shakespeare’s stance in this play favors justice over empathy.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteEmpathy is an ineffective and subjective metric of judgment. Even though empathy is favorable in some instances, it should not be a tool that is regularly deployed by judges. In the context of the justice system, empathy could be used as a tool to reduce unwarranted and extreme decisions, but showing too much empathy creates a social condition where people view the law as a recommendation rather than a rule. This notion results in a culture of constant reoffense. When Isabella begs for mercy, Angelo replies “For then I pity those I do not know...Lives not to act another”(2.2 125-130). Angelo’s decision to not pardon Claudio is an example of utilitarianism calculus which prioritizes the benefit of the majority because if Angelo does not enforce laws that "have been sleeping", the victims would suffer greater amounts than Isabella. Empathy also strips the legitimacy of a decision. After Isabella leaves, Angelo is in a state of conflict with himself. He says, “Let her brother live...when judges steal themselves”(2.2 210-215). Even though people commit crimes, it does not mean that the law is nonexistent. Claudio’s sentencing would serve as a precedent and prevent others from committing the same crime. Being empathetic in this instance would result in the continuation of the status quo where criminals like Claudio believe that charges would eventually get reversed. There is no perfect balance, but limited incorporation of empathy could lead to the best middle ground. This especially true in controversial cases where there is skepticism regarding radical conclusions.
ReplyDeleteI believe there should be a middle ground between logical decisions and empathetic decisions. Many times the reason someone breaks the law is out of desperation, when they are backed into a corner. For example, Claudio was not officially married to the woman he impregnated since he was trying to avoid Juliet’s dowry. His circumstances are much different than men like Pompey or Froth, who run or visit one of the city’s brothels. As Pompey stated when speaking to Escalus, “If you head and hang all that offend that way but for ten year together, you’ll be glad to give out a commission for more heads.” (2.1.246) The rules cannot be unreasonable and they should benefit the society as a whole. Laws should be made with empathy in mind so that they can be enforced without the risk of seeming cruel. Unfortunately, this empathy could be taken advantage of similar to how the tapster was permitted to leave, yet Pompey was given a stern warning. The justice system should be fair, so that people among the likes of Angelo are not able to abuse their power in a hypocritical fashion. Though the previous points appear contradictory, it is important to remember that there should be a constant balancing act between the leniency of empathy and following the strict rules of logic. Both parts must be considered for a rational decision that will settle a criminal proceeding in an amicable manner for the perpetrator, victim, and community as a whole.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteShakespeare does a great job of demonstrating the moral dilemma of empathy in the judicial system. In the character Angelo, he portrays the argument that subjectivity in the law makes for an unjust system. His philosophy is that the law is final and is a separate entity from himself, meaning he cannot adjust it as he see fit. Angelo claims, “It is the law, not I, condemn your brother” (2.2. 105). If he took pity in every case, no one would be punished at all and the law would have no teeth. That is what Vienna has seen in the past – laws failing to be enforced due to empathy. The excuse ‘what is you were in their shoes’ cannot be used to justify the release of everyone who breaks the law even though Isabella begs Angelo to use this. Isabella, however, is the epitome of empathy. She brings up the point many times about harsh and badly enforced laws. The injustice in her brother's case is obvious to her and the rest of Vienna so she begs for mercy. Escalus joins in the fight for empathy by raising a very important question: since fornication is so commonly practiced in the streets of Vienna, why is it just to have the punishment be death in every case? If Angelo continues to be this harsh there will soon be no one left in the kingdom. But then comes the hypocrisy! Angelo asks Isabella to sleep with him – the crime he is so harshly enforcing on others. What it boils down to is twofold. First, too much empathy leads to a subjective, inconsistent judicial system where personal biases cloud the decisions of the judge thus making the system unjust. Second, too little empathy leads to the inability to see harsh, unfair laws thus making the system unjust. Looking to the words of Aristotle, justice is “to give each their due”. One isn’t due leniency in the law due to empathy, but one isn’t due over punishment due to a lack of empathy. In the case of the judicial system, one is due the correct punishment for the crime they have committed – thus the head and the heart must work together to assign just punishments on a case by case basis.
ReplyDeleteThe play employs that there is a thin line between intervening the law and one’s personal judgement. The societal norms at the time allowed people to have an unfair boundary between personal opinions to deciphering the laws. Shakespeare shows how Angelo is in the wrong to make this decision because he is a hypocrite when he evokes curiosity about Isabell. When Escalus analyzes Angelo’s true character by explaining, “I am sorry one so learned and so wise/ as you, Lord Angelo, have still appeared/ should slip so grossly, both in the heat of blood/ and lack of tempered judgment afterward” (5.1.539). Escalus sees how Angelo is corrupt, and he may be a hypocrite, but he has also never allowed himself to actually desire because it would hurt his alter ego. Overall, Isabell’s position and opinion is closest to just; she admits she understand why Claudio is to be punished, but she also explains how it is not right that he is being punished for such personal matters and desires. Angelo tries to justify his beliefs, but it is clear that he is only trying to enforce the penalties of breaking the law to have a respected authority for power. This is also how the play connects with our society today, by how we ignore empathy to scare people and keep our society in line. This is not a fair system, especially since it ruins one’s life by not giving someone a fair chance (in this case Claudio). The play also focuses on how the law is controversial given a circumstance, and that higher authorities can take advantage of their position, and justify their reasoning for punishment even if it is not truly fair. The current society in the play is all over the place itself; the people of Vienna do not respect the judicial system/laws because they are inappropriately used. The difference in opinion between Isabell and Angelo is a larger depiction of the way of life and decision-making: morals and empathy clash. In conclusion, when it comes to law and justice decision making should be implemented with both a heart/head decision; it brings a more practical and logical conclusion depending on the case. Using both empathy/sympathy for overlooking the circumstances, and using a smart moral decision depending on the severity in which the law that was broken.
ReplyDeleteShakespeare, with the use of juxtaposition in terms of dealings with the law, uses Angelo and the Duke to represent and display the negatives and positives of decision making with the use of empathy or lenience. Through the dramatic contrast between the two characters, what we find is that, in place of a solution, a middle ground must be found when interoperating the law: one must not be too empathetic/lenient or too harsh in order to stay rational and neutral. It is only in the scenario of extensive and equal consideration of both sides (what I personally believe is one of the most important concepts to punishment) that a fair result and equally fair punishment can be acquired. However, it is of note that such a perfect conclusion will hardly be the case (due to its difficulty and the many other factors that take place during a trial), but at least seeking the middle ground will keep one away from the irrational polar opposites of Angelo and the Duke. Discovering the irrationality first in Angelo, his character constantly bombards us with blind preaching of the law. In terms of the case with Claudio, he wishes to execute him for such a petty crime as fornication in the hopes of making a message. In this sense, Claudio is never given any real chance to defend himself and, as a result, even if the use of Claudio’s death a deterrent to crime is successful, the manner in which it was conducted disregards the validity of the law. The Duke, on the other hand, dirties the law in the complete opposite manor: through negligence and dramatic lenience the law enters a state of almost not existing before him, destroying its purpose entirely. In closing, and in a direct response to this pages title, empathy is not and will never be overrated due to the perspective that it provides, however, its use is only beneficial in correct proportions.
ReplyDeleteMeasure for Measure showcases that to effectively lead, one must use their head rather than their heart. The beginning of the play, shows Angelo, who is filling in for the duke while he is away, deciding on the fate of a few men. Angelo does make no attempt as to hide his point of view on the issue as he discusses the failure in which the court system has become. “We have strict statues and most biting laws, The needful bits are curbs to headstrong weeds, Which for this fourteen years we have let slip.” (1.3.20-22). Angelo feels that over the past decade and a half, the letter of the law has not been followed accordingly and makes it his own personal mission to bring them back to their glory. From this point on, Angelo rules with an iron fist, following the laws and deciding on punishment exactly how the law intended, leaving no room for morals to get involved. The most prominent example of this comes when Angelo refuses to pardon Escalus, who is charged with having a relationship with a woman outside of marriage. Angelo makes this decision with his head rather than his heart and refuses to consider any other option. He does this even though Escalus explains that him and his wife are almost married already, and are just a short while from completing the three step process. Regardless, Angelo refuses to listen and decided that Escalus is to be put to death because that is what the law states.
ReplyDeleteI think Measure to Measure shows a comparison between using your head and heart. The Duke is shown to be a very empathetic person, and makes more decisions with his heart, while Angelo is shown to be very serious and make decisions with his head, ignoring the context and emotional suffering. I think there needs to be some sort of middle ground. A society can’t function if empathy is the only thing that our leaders care about, because it allows people to take advantage of the leader. However, without empathy the citizens will become more and more disgruntled, and shown in the book. People like Lucio, Pompey and Mistress Overdone are shown to be fed up with the law, and Lucio specifically laments the harsh punishment given to Claudio. Escalus is shown to be the middle ground, taking account for context and empathizing with each criminal, but also making sure that the law is followed in the future. I don’t think one position is shown to be correct, rather that neither is correct. You can’t be over empathetic or have no empathy at all. I think the book is trying to show there needs to be a balance, and that Escalus represents that.
ReplyDeleteMeasure for Measure, uses the voice of three drastically different judges with different views on how empathy should be used in judicial decision-making. In Angelo’s trail of Claudio, it is obvious that he shows no empathy in his decision and does not consider any extenuating circumstance like the only action that would have made Claudio and Juliet’s marriage legal is providing a dowry. It is also show in Act 2 Scene 1, during Pompey and Elbow’s trail that Angelo does not want to understand why the criminals broke the law or under what circumstances; the only thing that Angelo cares about in the punishment of a broken law. This shows even further that Angelo’s lacks empathy in judicial decision-making. Shakespeare is putting the empathy-less Angelo in the spotlight of this play because he wants light shown on the justice in his society and the seemingly coldhearted decisions that some judges make. Little did he know—or maybe Shakespeare did know—that in today’s society there are still judges that only want to severely punish people for the laws that are broken no matter the circumstance or scale of the crime. On the other hand, the the polar opposite to Angelo’s cold-heartedness is the Duke. The Duke who’s law enforcement has “like unscored armor, hung by th’ wall / So long that nineteen zodiacs have gone round, / And none of them been worn” (1.2. 165-167). He does not enforce the law at all and it could even be said that he shows too much empathy because he lets everyone off the hook for many crimes. However, I do believe that there is a middle ground. Characters like Escalus provide a middle ground by using empathy to make judicial decisions, but unlike the Duke, he gives a punishment that is not as severe as Angelo’s is. Unlike some of my classmates, I do not believe that empathy in overrated; only that it should be used in proportion to the crime.
ReplyDeleteI think that there is a need for some empathy in the judicial system, for both the head and the heart. Both have their weaknesses in making sound, ethical decisions, which is why both are needed to counterbalance the limitations and weaknesses of the other. Firstly, it is important to note that empathy and sympathy are different, but both are important in the judicial system. Now, a major limitation of relying too much on empathy in making a judicial decision is impartiality. Empathy involves, as the saying goes, putting yourself in their shoes. This is important in being able to discern and take into account possible extenuating circumstances, as they can only properly be understood if looked at from the perspective of the individual underneath and/or affected by those circumstances. Sympathy too is important, however, empathy is a stronger force in understanding the individuality of the case brought before the judge. However, it is only natural to be easier to empathize, to put yourself in the shoes of individuals who are more similar to you. This creates a dilemma, as judges overemphasizing the importance of empathy in making a decision could favor those with whom they are more alike, for reasons such as a similar background or social class. This problem is shown in Measure for Measure, as Angelo emphasizes his belief in making decisions based on the law as written. Isabella highlights Angelo’s judicial process when she says, “O just but severe law!” (2.2.58). Angelo’s belief in applying the law to crimes the same way can be seen as just. However, on the flip side, a complete lack of empathy makes it impossible to always make the right judicial decision. The only way to make, or have a good chance of making, the right moral decision is by understanding that cases are individual and using both the head and the heart.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhile at first the play seems to be criticizing the use of empathy in decision making, the play continually stands by his decision. At the very beginning readers are confronted with an apathetic character in Angelo. In Angelo’s first trial he proves how strict he is on the law as Claudio is sentenced to death. While this may seem as a commentary on the lack of empathy used when concluding a trial, I think it is rather showing the strictness of Angelo. My reasoning is because there is another trial performed by Escalus. In Escalus’s trial, he did not show any empathy for the men being brought before him. He rather was less strict in the ruling and took into account other factors such as it was Pompey’s first time being brought. Neither of the Judges used empathy, but if Claudio took into account the other factors in the Claudio case, such as the fact that they were in the process and nearly finished with being married, then the trial would have finished very differently.
ReplyDeleteIn the play Measure for Measure, I believe that Shakespeare puts forth the message that empathy is better compared to judicial decision-making for the cases that were dealt with in this play. This is especially apparent when we are given the background to Claudio’s situation. He was nearly married to his fiancé and the only thing holding them back was a financial issue. Given this information, we as the readers understand why it is not a big deal that Claudio and his fiancé had sex, but Angelo had other thoughts. Staying strict to the laws and not looking at all the circumstances forces him to sentence Claudio to death. If Angelo had any sort of empathy, a different, more reasonable punishment could have been determined. Nonetheless, Isabella makes her case by saying, “If he had been as you, and you as he, / You would have slipped like him, but he like you / Would not have been so stern." (2.2. 8-86). Angelo would not sentence himself to death and we are sure of this because of the situation he is put in later in the play. Despite this, Angelo judges by the belief that, " I show it [pity] most of all when I show justice, / For then I pity those I do not know" (2.2128-9). This makes a lot of sense when you pair it with empathy, but the crime Claudio committed was a victimless crime. For cases like murder this idea makes perfect sense because people can be hurt if a murdered is set free, but in the instance of Claudio, no one is put in danger by not executing him. Overall, empathy paired with judicial decision-making is ideal, but empathy is more important in the eyes of this play.
ReplyDeleteIn Measure for Measure the Duke is the judge with a lot of empathy, maybe too much, and Angelo is on the other end of the spectrum with little to no empathy. In The Duke’s case, his tremendous empathy is actually his greatest downfall. He struggles to punish citizens properly or even at all for their crimes. The result of this is a situation where people do not fear the law, or more importantly the consequences of breaking it. On the other side in Angelo’s case, his complete disregard for empathy also ends up hurting him. He is blinded by the laws and is unable to see through them and make an informed decision based on all the circumstances. Angelo also states that his punishments should deter future crimes which could be another reason he is so empathetic. All of that said though, how much empathy does a judge really need to make the best decisions possible. Certainly more than Angelo and less than the Duke, but I actually think it leans more towards less empathy rather than a perfect balance. This is because I believe it is possible to see every side, understand the circumstances and context of the specific crime, and come to a reasonable conclusion with quite honestly very little empathy. I don’t really have a way of quantifying empathy, but I think that as long as you can imagine yourself in someone else’s shoes long enough to understand the crime, that is enough evidence. A judge should not be using empathy to feel bad for a criminal or understand what they are going through, simply to better understand the case.
ReplyDelete