Measuring "Measure for Measure"

 In the final trial of Measure for Measure (in Act 5), the Duke as the presiding judge condemns Angelo for the death of Claudio and imposes the death penalty.  He summarizes his judicial reasoning when he proclaims (alluding to the name of the play):

The very mercy of the law cries out
Most audible, even from his proper tongue,
"An Angelo for Claudio, death for death."
Haste still pays haste, and leisure answers leisure;
Like doth quit like, and measure still for measure.-- (5.1.463-7).

What kind of argument is he making?  Is this a key idea of the Duke's jurisprudence or is he trying to mock it (after all he does pardon Angelo later in the scene)?  Does the play make a comment on this kind of judicial reasoning?  What is the measure of  "measure for measure"?

Here Come The Judge(s)

  Measure for Measure features three judges with dramatically different styles and philosophies of jurisprudence.  The Duke has failed to enforce the "strict statutes and most biting laws" and as a result "our decrees / dead to infliction, to themselves are dead"(1.3.20;28-9).  Angelo, who has been chosen by the Duke to fix his mess, advocates that all the laws, however harsh, be enforced.   He argues to Isabella that the law

Now 'tis wake,
Takes note of what is done, and like a prophet,
Looks in a glass that shows what future evils--
Either now , or by remissness new-conceived,
And so in progress to be hatched and born --
Are now to have no successive degrees
But, ere they live, to end.  (2.2.120-26)

Escalus finds himself disagreeing with both.  He questions Angelo's harsh sentence of Claudio but nonetheless does not excuse or pardon the offenses that the Duke ignored.

What is this play telling us about enforcing the law and imposing punishments?  Should a judge be strict or lenient (and what do these terms mean in terms of sentencing or punishment)?  Is there a judicial philosophy judges should embrace -- or is following a rule itself problematic? What effects do these decisions have on the society at large?  How does a judge defend justice?

"Guiltier Than Him They Try": Hypocrisy and Consistency

 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 and consistency?

Lions, and Ravens and Rats, Oh My!

Claudio, arrested for fornication with his almost-wife, claims his problem was "too much liberty"(1.2.121).  He elaborates "Our natures do pursue, / Like rats that raven down their proper bane, / A thirsty evil, and when we drink, we die." (1.2.125-7). In other words, his animal appetites, unrestrained, undisciplined and unguided, led to his misfortune.  Later the Duke makes a similar claim about the harmful effects of failing to strenuously enforce the law: Because he did enforce the law, the law became "Even like an o'ergrown lion in a cave / That goes not out to prey." (1.3.23-4).  Even later Angelo takes about laws without penalties as

[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.  (2.2.1-4)

What's all this animal imagery about?  What, according the play, is the proper role of the law when it comes to our appetites?  Does the play get it right?

Is Empathy Overrated?

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 controversy?