Measure for Measure features three judges with dramatically different styles and philosophies of jurisprudence. The Duke has failed to enforce the "strict statutes and most biting laws" and as a result "our decrees / dead to infliction, to themselves are dead"(1.3.20;28-9). Angelo, who has been chosen by the Duke to fix his mess, advocates that all the laws, however harsh, be enforced. He argues to Isabella that the law
Now 'tis wake,
Takes note of what is done, and like a prophet,
Looks in a glass that shows what future evils--
Either now , or by remissness new-conceived,
And so in progress to be hatched and born --
Are now to have no successive degrees
But, ere they live, to end. (2.2.120-26)
Escalus finds himself disagreeing with both. He questions Angelo's harsh sentence of Claudio but nonetheless does not excuse or pardon the offenses that the Duke ignored.
What is this play telling us about enforcing the law and imposing punishments? Should a judge be strict or lenient? Is there a judicial philosophy judges should embrace -- or is following a rule itself problematic? What effects do these decisions have on the society at large? How does a judge defend justice?
The ruling of both Angelo and the Duke illustrate just some of the issues that are associated with a dictatorship in which the people have no say and actions are deemed to be just by one individual. Angelo is too strict, believing that each law should be held to the highest possible manner whereas the Duke is reluctant to see his laws through by not enforcing them. Thus, Escalus, who is essentially the advisor to both, realizes that neither are capable of ruling the people with the lack of a balance between right and wrong. It almost appears that Escalus represents the people and Angelo and the Duke are what is wrong with society. In this scenario, it starts from the top. Under Angelo's rule, people will be afraid to do anything whether it be considered legal or not for threat of being targeted. Under the Duke's rule, the people are free to do whatever knowing that the Duke will take no such action against them despite having rules in place. This consistently lop-sided authority confuses the people and ignores the need for equal yet fair treatment for all. To answer the question, a judge should be strict to a certain extent if it is a severe crime whereas they may be in the middle of both strict and lenient for a less severe one (such as speeding 10 over the limit). While it is quite impossible to account for every potential situation with a specific crime, having a broad punishment that can belongs to a specific category based on the type can help judges uphold justice. So long as they are within the boundaries of what they designate is a proper crime, they are able to deliver a punishment fit for the crime and the situation. A brief example would be the different categories for Manslaughter (involuntary vs voluntary; direct vs indirect).
ReplyDeleteThe play, regarding law and its enforcement, I believe, very heavily focuses on the enforcement of law. I believe Shakespeare is trying to convey the unimportance of the relationship between an offense and the level of the offender’s conviction and subsequent punishment. What Shakespeare wants his reader to understand is that if one does wrong, one must pay for whatever he did, no matter the magnitude of the offense. For example, in seventeenth century Vienna, theft and adultery are two very different offenses, but however, are two things for which one could and should be punished; also both offenders should be punished similarly, despite their having committed two entirely different crimes. Law and governance, according to Shakespeare, I believe, must take into account the history of those governed, such as whether in the past certain laws have been followed or defied. An example of this would be the level of tolerance to weapons at schools. Obviously, a school which has sustained a shooting would have a smaller tolerance for things gun-related than a school which has not had a shooting. Therefore, according to Shakespeare, law, governance and a judge’s level of leniency or strictness has much to do with history. I do not believe that according to Shakespeare there is a judicial philosophy to which a judge should or must adhere, because, as earlier mentioned, a judge bases the strictness of his governance off things that have occurred in the past, something different for each judge. Individuals being punished similarly for different offenses is most problematic because someone who stole a small amount of money is obviously far less guilty than a successfully notorious bank robber who has been in the business for ten years; these two offenders deserve different punishment. I believe judges, as a whole, view and defend justice based off local laws and their personal beliefs, otherwise known as judicial philosophy. While I believe Shakespeare thinks there is no judicial philosophy, I do because I most definitely think that judges have their own ideas as to what is just and what is not.
ReplyDeleteThe play is saying through the actions and judgement of Angelo that just because the law is strictly enforced does not necessarily mean that it will deter people from committing crimes. Angelo is an example of this because he commits the same crime that he sentenced a man to death for, so being extremely strict and following the law exactly isn’t the most effective way to rule. Through the judgement of the Duke however, the reader can see that being too lenient can lead to a crime-ridden city with citizens that don’t respect the law at all. Escalus is the perfect example of what a judge/ruler should be – a judge needs to apply their wisdom to any situation and not follow the law blindly, because some situations have extenuating circumstances or the law doesn’t necessarily fit the crime. The purpose of a judge is to interpret the law and to apply it as it seems fit, so if they are blindly following the law, anyone could hypothetically be a judge and give out punishments because the only skill they would need is basic literacy. Following a rule itself can often be problematic because a law doesn’t always consider motive or how the crime was committed, and this is evident with the sentencing of Claudio whose punishment was extreme and unfitting for the crime he committed and the circumstances under which it happened. The decisions that the ruler/judge makes can affect how the citizens uphold and respect the law, so being too strict or too lenient can both cause people to not respect the law.
ReplyDeleteEscalus’s thoughts of this patriarchy is what is expected during this time period because no one challenges the power above them. This play tells us time and time again that the power lies within those who have the power positions. Especially if one is a woman because the men won’t believe that anything wrong has happened to you. This play is telling us that one should enforce the laws no matter how strict they are because if you break a law you must obey the punishment. This play isn’t telling us that there are any philosophical judicial preceding’s because the Duke, Escalus, and Angelo all have a lack of judgment throughout the play. These decisions effect society very much so because if one does something that interferes with the law then they will be prosecuted to the highest standard of whatever that punishment is. This is a huge problem for society because no one wants to live in a society where having sex with the women you love and are basically married to lead to your own execution. This has led to many social problems today because people are prosecuted differently in our society based on there race and religion. There are many African Americans in jail today because the offense against crack cocaine is much higher than that of just cocaine because one is associated with the black community, and the white officals in power choose to prosecute those who are different than them more severely. These decisions effect the society at large because once it effects one person then you have to inforce that severity to every other person.
ReplyDeleteIn Measure for Measure, Shakespeare comments on a variety of issues from his time, everything ranging from French “piles” to Sisters’ lack of autonomy. The most important subject of the play though, is the idea of law, both in theory and practicality. Throughout his five acts, Shakespeare’s most prominent comment on the judicial system is that consistency is a wonderful ideal, but its implementation is impossible. This idea is never directly stated by Shakespeare in the text, rather the idea is emphasized through the character of Angelo. Before Angelo’s first line, the audience is already aware that he embodies virtuousness. This is obvious from his name, which has the root “Angel”; and from Escalus’ description, “If any in Vienna be of worth…It is Lord Angelo.” (1.1.22-25) As the play progresses, the audience learns that Angelo, supposedly idyllically virtuous, believes in the consistency of the law to the point where he would sentence himself to death for breaking the law, “Let mine own judgement pattern out my death, and nothing come impartial.”(2.1.32-33) After Shakespeare establishes Angelo as representative of the personification of consistency; Shakespeare destroys Angelo’s virtuous idealism. Virtue, what used to make Angelo just, attracts Angelo to Isabella, forcing him to act immorally. Shakespeare, by writing that even the most virtuous leader, cannot consistently implement the law, is telling the audience that consistent justice is impossible, even from the most ideal judges.
ReplyDeleteThe justice for which Shakespeare advocates is a balance between consistency and mercy. This is exemplified by three major characters of the play; Angelo, Escalus, and the Duke. Let Angelo represent strict consistency, Escalus balanced justice and the Duke represent extremely lax mercy. Angelo is deemed immoral for his act of fornication. The Duke seems distinctly without morals as he leaves his job of ruling Vienna, only to sacrilegiously pose as a friar, with the end goal of coercing Isabella into marriage. Escalus is the only truly moral character in the play, committing no crimes and coercing no women. Shakespeare, through Escalus, agrees with a definition of justice written centuries before by Aristotle, “To give each his due”. Every crime must be looked at the individual level, with the right amount of punishment and mercy given on a case to case basis. The (E)scales of justice must be weighed.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis play suggests that enforcing the law and punishments should be strict. Individuals who have broken laws are sentenced to harsh punishments. In saying this, the play centers around the theme that consistency in enforcing the law and punishment is crucial; however, often times, it grows increasingly difficult to implement and enforce these laws and punishments amongst society. Furthermore, despite rulers believing strict and harsh punishment is necessary upon a disobeying individual, it often does not deter individuals from carrying out the crimes due to the difficulty the rulers obtain of actually implementing the punishment. The play also suggests that people who commit different crimes often receive similar punishments; however, the problem with this is that those who commit crimes of lesser levels should not deserve the death penalty, per say, as some serial killers are believed to. Moreover, each individual crime should be reviewed on its own basis so that just punishments are handed out to each member inflicting a crime rather than a broad sentence for merely every crime committed, no matter the level. Escalus proves to be a good model for the correct way to inflict punishment. Escalus typically reviews each situation in its own manner, how a good judge and leader should act. Judges are supposed to interpret the law, assess evidence of the supposed committed crimes, and aid in the decision making of a punishment depending on the hearing. Applying all of the aspects of a judge's duty, I believe that a judge should serve fair punishments to involved individuals rather than a broad scape automatic punishment.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn Measure to Measure, the focus tends to be law enforcement and also how people challenge the higher power and the people who have control. Even though people may disagree with the laws put in place or the choices made, it tells us as readers that you should just follow the laws because if you don't there could be serious consequences. The choices that the judges and law officials have to make, should be based off the law and if they think the normal punishment for the crime is necessary. Furthermore, I believe that the judge should base there decision off personal belief or opinion. They have there views and if they are put in that job, why shouldn't there opinion and beliefs matter too? Angelo, the Duke, and Escalus all play important roles in this play but this play shows us that all 3 of these characters have bad judgement throughout the play. They don't realize that decisions that they make or are apart of can affect someones life tremendously and or they could possibly end it. An example of a law/rule that results in death is having sex with a women that you are together with but not fully married. This law is not right and it ends of breaking people apart and causing a big problem in this society. The judges in this play should be more lenient and more on beliefs rather than the law. Every decision made by that judge can completely ruin the life of someone and that someones loved ones. These powerful figures and the law system play a tremendous role in peoples lives and it isn't good.
ReplyDeleteThis play shows us different points of view on justice. I find the Angelo’s view on justice the most interesting, yet also the most angering. Angelo is very strict with his law and tries to impose fear on people through his punishment of Claudio. Even though Angelo is strict about his law, he does attempts to commit the same crime as Claudio. This shows that even though on paper law might be strict but even Angelo himself is imperfect. The knowledge that no one can be perfect means that no judicial system can be perfect. You can try but it will not work. I believe law should be approached with more empathy rather than attempting to impose fear and strictness. This imperfect judicial system in the play is caused by the lack of diversity in it. The path to a perfect judicial system has to start with diversity of the judges (men and women, different races, different upbringings) and a more empathetic approach. The play is shows us we should not focus on harsh and severe punishments but should focus more on the rehabilitation and improvement of people. These harsh punishments in the play relate to America’s incarceration crisis. This crisis stems from the same things I listed before, lack of diversity and lack of empathy. In America, the judicial system has prosecuted many people for crimes related to marijuana for example. Marijuana is now legal medically or recreational in many states in the United States. The people prosecuted for these crimes could have been sent to rehabilitation centers and been given probation rather than jail time. In other words, this play teaches us that we should approach the judicial system with empathy.
ReplyDeleteShakespeare beautifully illustrates the extreme ruling methods of both Angelo and the Duke, but also provides the reader with a character who takes his stance in the middle. I found it interesting that Shakespeare chose to write the play showing the three different ways to enforce the law. Each method has its benefits and flaws but out of the three, Escalus’s method of evaluating each situation separately and enforcing punishment based off of those findings, works the best. In a society there will always be individuals who break laws, but how they break the law can vary. I think that the purpose of this play was to express the necessity for having a well thought out and un-wavering set of laws. The Duke chose to ignore all of the punishments that were set by the law and this led to more chaos in Vienna. Angelo chose to enforce the law “word for word” and this led to unethical and unfair punishment. These opposing enforcement methods sparked curiosity as to how both could feel content with their decisions. In Angelo’s defense, he showed consistency. In the Duke’s defense he chose to not be cruel. Shakespeare is trying to show that the law of the land needs to be fully thought out and evaluated before it can be enforced. If there were no problems with the law to begin with, neither Angelo nor the Duke would have trouble enforcing the law “word for word”. The problem in a society is that advancements are always being made and morals change over time, so fully developing a “perfect” set of laws is seemingly impossible. This is where Escalus’s methodology works the best. He recognizes the problems in both the laws themselves and with their corresponding punishments. Laws should always be enforced, however within each law there needs to be different degrees of punishment. Laws provide structure and guidelines in a society to keep the inhabitants safe. The philosophy that should be embraced by all judges, is to fully evaluate the ways and intentions that a crime was committed and to have preset punishments that are pyramided from most severe to fully lenient, and enforce the law according to this. By following this methodology, pure cruelty and pure dismissal are avoided entirely.
ReplyDeleteIn his Measure for Measure, Shakespeare illustrates the importance and difficulty that is justice. Angelo, the temporary ruler of a city, has decided to put a civilian, Claudio, to death for consensually fornicating with his soon-to-be wife. It has long been illegal to have sex outside of marriage, 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 just? I agree with Angelo’s aspirations for consistency because a society cannot function if laws are not enforced as they are written. Angelo, in my opinion, is a better 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 soon-to-be wed does not matter, but this does not justify Angelo’s sentencing of death. It is understandable why such a drastic change in ruling style must start by setting examples, but a death sentence will do nothing except enrage and instill fear in other citizens. The best form of justice in this situation would be for Angelo to maintain his belief in consistency but to tone down his harsh judgement. Justice in itself requires a both logic and emotion, the latter being something that Angelo clearly lacks. Angelo’s inability to use both his brain and heart 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 experience and an open mind.
ReplyDelete