Angelo defends his conviction and execution of Claudio in Act 2 in the face of Escalus' protests that he himself might one day find himself in the same situation. He argues that
I do not deny
The jury passing on the prisoner's life
May in the sworn twelve have a thief or two
Guiltier than him they try. . . . [But]
You may not so extenuate his offense
For I have had such faults; but rather tell me,
When I that censure him do so offend,
Let mine own judgment pattern out my death,
And nothing come in partial (2.1.19-21;29-33).
In this speech he argues that empathy has no place in jurisprudence and that a judge's own vice and guilt should play no role in her rulings. Yet, is this ideal of consistency too difficult to achieve? Isn't this a recipe for hypocrisy? After all, even the virtuous Angelo (his name suggests virtuous perfection) fails to live up to his own strict standards. Yet, on the other hand, when his crime (the very same act of fornication he convicts Claudio of committing) he clings to his ideal of consistency and retribution: "But let my trial be mine own confession./ Immediate sentence then and sequent death / Is all the grace I beg." (5.1.418-20).
What is this play telling us about such things as hypocrisy, consistency and empathy?
Consistency and integrity in the law can only be achieved if the justice system ensures that a) criminals receive a proportionate punishment and b) the punisher is legitimate. Venetian Law delivered by Angelo completely undermine these two principles, as the punishment of a death sentence for fornication is excessive and thus unjust. Moreover, the punisher Angelo is an illegitimate actor for he commits the same acts of fornication and then demands a bending of the law. Such illegitimacy in the punisher not only is an injustice to the punished, it also invites subjective regulation, which defeats the purpose of an objective justice system. Such subjectivity risks a collapse in the legitimacy of law, as people will not respect a law that arbitrarily treats its citizens. Essentially, this play conveys to us that Venetians disregard their law because the law is doubly compromised: the law itself is unjust with excessive punishments, moreover the administrators of the law are unjust with subjective regulation. The remedy for such begins with creating a law that proportionately punishes its criminals. This is because hypocrisy in the law arises when the positions of the punisher and the punished are switched. The punisher has nothing to lose no matter how harsh the punishment is, so they blind themselves from the excessive punishment. However, if the punisher becomes the punished, they will inevitably abuse their power to avoid the excessive punishment. If the punishment were to be just in the first place, the potential for hypocrisy would decrease as well. In other words, if the law did not punish fornicators with a death sentence, both Angelo and Claudio would be more willing to accept the punishment as dictated by the law, thus room for hypocrisy and selective bending of the law would reasonably decrease as well, protecting the consistency and integrity of the justice system as a whole.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIdeally, a judicial system is both consistent and maintains integrity within the law to ensure justice is not favorable to one demographic or party versus another. In the status quo, this is not successful in even the most progressive governments because of empathy. Though nowhere near perfection, the current justice system of the United States consists of Judges who are elected and are qualified for their position. Beyond that, they empathize with the defendents by accounting for all extenuating circumstances and other factors that resulted in the criminal deed. The opposite side of the spectrum is where Angelo and his beliefs lie where empathy is thought to weaken the legitimacy of the law and those who violate a specific law should be subjected to the same punishment. While this is unethical in many practices, ignoring the idea "innocent until proven guilty", it can best illustrated by a scenario. Let's say that in an unfortunate circumstance, John is being mugged. In attempt to defend himself, he kills the mugger before any more damage could be done. In the current justice system in the United States as well as many other countries, this would be considered self defense and the defendant would be innocent of the crime of manslaughter. However, Angelo would quickly dismiss anything else and determine, similar to Angelo's case, that this person should be subjected to death (considering that fornication results in death, the laws must be strict). Though Angelo appeared to show Escalus that he is a smart man with strong morals and virtues, he, similar to Claudio, will accept their punishment until they fully grasp what it means to die and the lack of knowing where they will end up. Although there is more to unravel from Shakespeare's Measure for Measure, the ideas of hypocrisy, consistency, and empathy as presented by Angelo will be violated when Angelo faces his punishment and understands how it is to be on the other side of the table (as a defendant).
ReplyDeleteThrough the conflicting forces of hypocrisy, consistency, and empathy in the execution of the law, Measure for Measure conveys an extremely delicate balancing act to maintain effective rule of law. The law is necessary to impose restrictions that serve society’s overall interests but alone lacks the teeth to mean anything. That is why punishment is inextricably linked with the law. By attaching a disincentive to the law, the rule of law can be properly enforced. This severely complicates the execution of the law as there is now the question of how stringently or leniently should the law be enforced to maintain its legitimacy. On one side, an overly consistent law can deal undue punishment as it does not judge all facts of the matter. This is evident in Angelo’s avoidance of the particulars of Claudio’s fornication by erring on consistently enforcing the law of Venice. In addition, extreme consistency in the law can expose institutional faults in the law as the arbiters under the law can be exposed as hypocrites like Angelo. When an individual passes consistent judgment while selectively ignoring their own abuses, this degrades the legitimacy of the law severely. Through this, consistency ironically seems inconsistent. On the opposite side, an overly empathetic law can be perceived as being far too lenient in the matters of law. The law loses the aforementioned teeth necessary to ensure the effective execution of the law which renders society effectively lawless. Even when a judgment is passed under an empathy framework, it will likely be perceived as deviating from the rule of law to arbitrarily judge a person. In either scenario, there is a severe risk of the law losing its legitimacy that is central to its enforcement. When this question on how to achieve a balance in consistency or empathy cannot be answered, maybe the question should be approached from a different angle. Maybe the question should ask whether the law should even exist in the first place. Ironically, the fool of the play, Pompey, may best answer the balancing question by questioning whether the law should exist in the first place. Pompey frequently argues that the law should not exist in the first place as the law would kill every person in Vienna and that it is impossible to ban fornication just as it is impossible to ban eating and drinking. Overall, Measure for Measure is a commentary on balancing consistency and empathy of the law to maintain its legitimacy while also questioning if that balance is even achievable.
ReplyDeleteThere is never a way to serve justice and punishment that will not receive criticism for at least one aspect. The Duke is too loose, yet there is an element of consistency, the lack of justice. Angelo holds consistency of punishment as the highest ideal, yet fails to recognize the fault in his logic. You wouldn't want to execute someone who killed the person trying to murder them. Escalus seems to be the best option out of all three, yet with Escalus' method, he is the sole hand for justice and allows for no wiggle room, even if he is being fair. I think that when it comes to law, there is never a way to make the system full-proof but I think, especially in the case of Measure for Measure, Escalus had the best system. While it is unfair to have one person call the shots, their system lacks different levels of severity as our modern one does. They lack a jury and varying punishments and varying severity. As with my example, the victim is a self-defense killer, not charged with the severity that they would receive given they had no reason. Even the justest, most virtuous, fairest, and most honest man would fall victim to his own biases and lose any sense of consistency. I think that within a justice system, consistency cannot be achieved. As seen with Angelo, while he holds true to his wish for consistency against himself, he broke his ideal of consistency in the first place to land him on trial. Empathy, in Escalus' case, is seen as the correct route, but with personal bias (like Escalus defending the Duke to Lucio) empathy is a trap leaving the system again broken.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteIt is impossible for the law to always be applied fairly. Even if all laws and their corresponding punishments were perfectly just, there would always be those who were caught and punished, and those who got away. As those who enforce the law, whether directly (judges, police officers, etc.) or indirectly (jurors, lawyers), have the potential to themselves be perpetrators of the same crimes they attempt to stop, hypocrisy within the criminal justice system is impossible to eliminate completely. However, as the events of Measure for Measure demonstrate, consistency with the law is the best way to ensure that fairness is achieved to the greatest degree possible. First is the issue of hypocrisy. The greatest example of this in the play is Angelo’s insistence on punishing Claudio though he himself has committed the same crime of fornication. However, if the punishment given were contingent on the moral state of the judge, a more hypocritical society would flourish. Say for example that one city was presided over by a infamously corrupt government. Would it then be permissible for all citizens of that city to be acquitted for crimes committed by the government? Of course not; they still deserve to be punished, regardless of the guilt of the lawmakers. The crimes of the lawmakers deserve to be punished as well, but this should have no bearing on the city’s justice system, especially when one considers the alternative. If a city is ruled by the just, why should their citizens be the only ones subjected to punishment? Thus, though Angelo is a hypocrite who deserves punishment, arbitrarily pardoning Claudio while enforcing other laws would be a hypocritical action as well; Angelo cannot pick and choose which laws to enforce solely by his own vices.
On the issue of consistency, abiding by the law by its letter is important due to the confusion and problems that occur without order. When Angelo decided to introduce new issues to the punishment of Claudio, extreme disorder in the legal system occurred, from coerced sex to faked execution of punishments. As all citizens are equal, they deserve to be treated equally by the criminal justice system. Thus, law enforcement must be equal for all citizens. Having precise law eliminates arbitrary inconsistencies, and thus removes the possibility for abuses of power, such as Angelo’s attempt to coerce Isabella into sex. Furthermore, having a clear code of law (albeit, one that is genuinely fair to the citizens and reasonably enforceable) permits a normative manner of problem solving. Having a measure for a measure within the play clearly matters. Without legal consistency and universalized laws, these measures will never be balanced.
Though the issue may arise that many laws of Measure for Measure are unjust, this begs for a call to empathy, not a rejection of the law overall. If there is a problem with one of the laws (such as the punishment not fitting the crime), the solution is to change the law, not to ignore it. To ignore it is to call back to the problems of consistency; if the law truly is unjust, it is inconsistent and unfair to pardon some while freeing others. Thus, due to the huge level of conflicts that occurred as a result of attempted ways of escaping unfair laws, it is clear that a better measure would have been for the Duke to change the law prohibiting fornication. Essentially, all of the conflict of the play was caused by attempts to work against the law, and it could easily have been resolved by 1) changing injustice in the law, and 2) then, accurately applying these law. Yes, Angelo was corrupt, as are many rulers. He does deserve punishment, but his guilt does not reason an entire rejection of the mechanisms of the criminal justice system. However, without using due process and fair assessment of and under the law, conflict and injustice are inevitable.
The play Measure for Measure takes an interesting approach to how they critique the delicate balance between hypocrisy, consistency, and empathy while enforcing the law. The play portrays three different judges, Angelo, Escalus, and the Duke, to all represent different extremes when enforcing the law. Angelo is very strict and punishes every crime with capital punishment; the Duke is very lenient and does not punish any crimes that are committed; Escalus is the middle ground between Angelo and the Duke, where he determines the severity of the crime before deciding on a suitable punishment. The play then continues to prove that no matter how the rule of law is enforced, there is no possible way, either fictional or practical, that there will be a completely consistent rule of law. For instance, all three of these men have proven to be inconsistent or hypocritical when enforcing the law; however, this play has shown that a strict ruler is not inconsistent with the law. There is a direct relationship between subjectivity and inconsistency, where more subjectivity leaves room for more inconsistency. Taking Escalus for example, he uses his judgement to evaluate the severity of every crime, giving criminals second chances to change their habits. However, with the Duke, he does not even enforce the laws, leaving no chance for him to even be inconsistent with enforcing the laws. Angelo is the model ruler to follow, even though he punishes Claudio for fornication and commits the same exact crime, he ultimately abides by the laws and accepts his punishment. Although, Angelo is not able to rule on his own since his hypocritical actions resulted in his own death. Vienna would then have to employ multiple rulers, with the same ideologies, to maintain consistency with enforcing the laws, as a system of check to make sure no single rule is hypocritical while enforcing the laws. Although, in a practical situation, most people will not think like Angelo, but instead be more like Escalus. Since Escalus has proven to not be consistent with the law, it will be impossible to ever achieve consistency within the laws.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn Measure for Measure, Angelo’s interpretation of the law depicts the inconsistencies of enforcing Christian moral code, as legitimate governments require at least some degree of flexibility to preserve fairness. Angelo is portrayed as prideful of his own moral accountability, as this is what determines him as a proper representative for leading Vienna. This interaction between morality and law implies that the law is bound to being moral, leading to a corrupt government that oversteps its boundaries of providing for citizens. Retributive justice begins to be overextended beyond the purpose of a fair government, which must definitely hold government officials to the same standard. However, Angelo proves that he cannot be a consistent leader under any standards, as he essentially bribes Isabella that he will free her brother as long as she has sex with him. Claudio’s punishment of execution is for having sex before marriage, and this application of the law disregards good intent. Angelo’s sexual harassment of Isabella is a crime that is objectively worse than Claudio’s because it lacks good intent through its coercive. With a position of power, Angelo’s nature allows him to perpetuate a morally inconsistent government by failing to enforce equally. Within a government that has a strict foundation of retributive justice, Angelo would not receive retribution. This sends a message to citizens that people in power are above the law and regular citizens are below the law. As Escalus states in his conversation with Angelo, “Some rise by sin and some by virtue fall” (2.1.42). This reality of unjust governments means that enforcement of the law will be arbitrary as long as the people in power are morally inconsistent. Unjustifiable standards to preserve Christian morals work in accordance with authoritative figures that naturally have separate interests. Thus, in most circumstances, it is unrealistically difficult to uphold such ideals of consistency over the well-being of the people.
ReplyDeleteMeasure for Measure tells us the importance of consistency in the application of law and the impact of empathy on the ability to consistently apply the law. Angelo highlights the importance of the consistency of law in his exchange with Escalus (2.1.1-44). Angelo says, “We must not make a scarecrow of the law, setting it up to fear the birds of prey, and let it keep one shape till custom make it their perch and not their terror”. This idea of the law being set up as a scarecrow represents that if the law is not applied consistently with full force, the law will be ignored or “perched” by those on which it applies instead of incentivizing them from following it or, in other words, be their “terror”. Escalus responds to this by requesting that Angelo empathize with Claudio’s situation. Escalus says, “In the workings of your own affections, Had time cohered with place, or place with wishing, or that the resolute acting of your blood could have attained th’ effect of your own purpose, Whether you had not sometimes in your life Erred in this point which now you censure him, And pulled the law upon you”. Escalus, in short, is asking Angelo to put himself in Claudio’s shoes and see what effect an application of empathy may have upon his judgement. Angelo quickly answers this point by stating, “When I that censure him do offend, Let mine own judgement pattern out my death, And nothing come in partial. Sir, he must die”. Angelo attacks the effect of the subjectivity brought out by empathy by linking empathy with “coming in partial” or succumbing to bias. By allowing a theoretical precedent to apply to himself, Angelo shows his determination to pursue consistency in law. As suggested by the play, empathy is the enemy of consistency as it is a subjective value that requires a new interpretation for each case, and thus it must be rejected in favor of consistency to prevent the law from becoming a “scarecrow”.
ReplyDeleteDespite the theoretical example made by Angelo, he exhibits hypocrisy by violating the same law as Claudio had, yet expecting to avoid punishment. Part of the reason Angelo, who is known as a very respectable man, succumbs to this hypocrisy is because of the protection that he believes his power and reputation provide him. He believes if someone tries to rat him out, no one will believe said individual due to Angelo’s immense reputation. This part of the play suggests that power plays an important role in feeding hypocrisy.