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?
Measure for Measure tells us that both extremes are unacceptable. If one were to be too empathetic, then nothing would get done as in the case of the Duke. However, if one were too systematic with prosecutions, like Angelo, then too much would get done. Too many people would get falsely prosecuted, and would ultimately lead to a judicial system like we have today. However, a perfect medium between the two (perhaps leaning more towards legality then empathy) would be ideal. That way, it's impossible to turn a court into an autonomous and emotionless state. Keeping the empathy is important, as certain extenuating circumstances are definitely possible (see the murder of Jeff Doucet), however following laws is still important to keep the system consistent. A panel of judges would probably be better, much like a jury system, a variety of judges could help broaden the discussion of punishment. If there was just one judge, then they could easily be biased, but a panel of judges would mediate these troubles.
ReplyDeleteThis play shows the very different styles and perspectives that many judges can have. In the book, the Duke is shown to be too lenient and letting too many crimes go unpunished while Angelo is the polar opposite and upholds the law too much and always gives the harshest punishment. I think that there needs to be a middle ground between these two judges and that a judge should be able to give harsh punishments when deserved but also have a bit of lenience and empathy with criminals that are in for lesser crimes. I think that this play relates to our modern day world and shows us that every judge is different on where they stand and how they give sentences. I think it’s only fair for judges to be in the exact middle and have the same amount of strictness and lenience, however I know that that is impossible. It’s simply human nature for people to be a bit more empathetic than others and no judge can be the same because not every person has the same values. Even if we were to have a rulebook that stated how to punish people, I feel that some judges would still stray for that as they will use their own judgement as to what they think is right. It’s also impossible for a book like that to cover every situation. In a way, this makes so many trials very unfair because some people may get away with some crimes while others are given a harsh punishment. This shows the flaws that we have in our government, as justice is not always served fairly.
ReplyDeleteMeasure for Measure declares that when it comes to judicial decision-making, a judge should be neither just strict nor lenient, but rather somewhere in the middle. The play explains that all aspects of a case should be considered before deciding how punishments should be imposed, or in other words using empathy in judicial decision-making. The play captures this idea by utilizing three trials with three different forms of decision-making that get more and more progressive each time.
ReplyDeleteIn the first trial Lord Angelo is the judge, he judges very strictly with principal and believes punishment is used to prevent future crime. Angelo sentenced Claudio to death for partaking in an act of fornication. Angelo did not once take into consideration that other individual that partook in this act, Juliet, and Claudio were essentially married, all they needed to make it official was a dowry that was already on its way. When asked to consider Claudio’s point of view Angelo responds with, “’Tis one thing to be tempted, Escalus,/Another thing to fall.” (2.1.18-19). Angelo believes there is a law for a reason and it must be followed as it is written, no matter what the circumstance is.
In the next trial Escalus is the judge, he believes in empathy and proportionality. In Escalus’s trial, he determines what to do with Pompey and Froth. Pompey is a first time offender of being a bawd, or pimp, and Froth is a first time offender of soliciting prostitution. Escalus considers these aspects of their cases when giving Pompey a punishment of a warming, “I advise you let me not/ find you before me again upon any complaint/whatsoever;” (2.1. 253-55), and when he allows Froth to leave as a free man, “Get you gone, and let me hear no/ more of you.” (2.1.214-15). Escalus took them time to understand each case before giving a suitable punishment.
The play’s last trial involves the Duke being the judge in which he has to determine what will be done with Angelo, Lucio, and Claudio. Different from Angelo and similar to Escalus, the Duke considered all aspects of each individual’s case before producing each individual’s punishment. When creating each punishment the Duke used empathy, but also considered what would be best for the victim by using restorative justice. Using this technique in Angelo’s punishment resulted in Angelo having to get back together with his ex-fiancé, Mariana, “Love her, Angelo.”(5.1.600). Though it is not stated, it can be inferred that Angelo and Mariana were to be married. Similarly, in Lucio’s case he was to be married to the mother of his child, Kate, “Upon mine honor, thou shalt marry her.”(5.1.592). Lastly, Claudio was ordered to marry the mother of his soon to be child, Juliet, “She, Claudio, that you wronged, look you restore.” (5.1.599). Each punishment given is based off of what would positively impact the victim. In Mariana’s situation it is getting back together with Angelo, in Kate’s it is marrying Lucio so he can help support their child, and in Juliet’s it is marrying Claudio so he can help support their future child.
Measure for Measure tells us that when enforcing the law, empathy should be used as the play portrayed this idea through empathy becoming more progressive in each trial.