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"?
The argument made with "measure for measure" reminds me of the well known and commonly seen "eye for an eye" in our own judicial system. Eye for an eye is basically getting "even" and inflicting the same punishment to someone that they did in hopes of balancing the crime or at least having a punishment that satisfies the crime. I, however, think this philosophy drives too much vengeance and justifies too harsh of punishments. Most of the time this idea is practiced (for what I have seen) it either just seems like someone wants to get revenge on the perpetrator or there are unreasonable punishments for crime (i.e. death for fornication- a natural thing that does not harm or threaten society). I think that "measure for measure" gives too much leeway to persuading punishments for crimes because of emotional opinions. Finding a fair and just punishment to a crime involves firstly unpacking the harm that it has done not only how severe, but in what scenario/ setting. Once there has been a reasonable plan for justice, then the judge can examine personal cases and decide its fitting based on the specifics without just trying to "get even".
ReplyDeleteBy this, the Duke means that punishments must be of equal value (or similar "measure") to the wrong which was done to earn the punishment. It seems the Duke never truly adopted this "measure of measure" mentality. Had he truly intended to kill Angelo, he would not have given him to Mariana as a husband mere moments before his execution. Rather, his intention was to make a point to the people of Vienna regarding the difference between justice which is proportional and constructive, and retributive punishment. The "punishments" he inflicts on Lucio, Claudio, and Angelo for their shared crime of fornication are proportional in that they fit the crime. Further, they are just in that they fix the problem was caused by the offense- restoring the honor of the women with whom the men in question fornicated. A retributive punishment that might seem fitting of the crime would be gelding (in the context of the time period), however this punishment is not incurred because it does not offer a solution. Similarly, the punishment of death for Angelo for his murder of Claudio would have been fitting, though it would not have been just in that Claudio's supposed fate would not be corrected and those who his death impacted would not have been compensated. Therefore, one might say that the play advocates for justice to focus on solutions and righting wrongs, as opposed to punishment for the sake of retribution. This approach offers both compassion for the criminal and compassion for those who have been wronged, answering the play's earlier question of how we balance reason and empathy in judicial decision making.
ReplyDeleteThe Duke is seen by Angelo as a weak law enforcer given his empathetic jurisprudence, but then, his judgment seemed to have gotten harsher during the final trial when he utilized the imperfect “eye for an eye” judgment on Angelo. When sentencing Angelo for his hypocritical act of fornication with Marianna, the Duke claimed, "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). The Duke's main argument is that any punishment should be met with an equal cost, or essentially the idea of "an eye for an eye." This idea demonstrates not the Duke's actual, more empathetic, and lenient judicial reasoning but rather his keen eye of Angelo's jurisprudence. For the same reason he initially sentenced Angelo to death, he demonstrates Angelo's "eye for an eye" judicial reasoning by using Angelo's own harsh, unforgiving judgment. The Duke eventually reverts to his usual judicial reasoning and pardons everyone who committed wrongdoing when he was disguised as a friar. The play's comment on this type of judgment is that it does not work. If it did shine a positive light on the "eye for an eye" judgment, Angelo would be regarded as a successful and fair leader, and the Duke, with his empathetic jurisprudence, would not have been regarded as such. However, the Duke's empathy eventually beats out Angelo's harshness in the play, creating the notion that when measuring "measure for measure," "an eye for an eye" is an imperfect means of punishment.
ReplyDeleteIn the final scene scene the Duke, before revealing himself to be Friar Lodowick, uses a form of retributive justice to decide Angelo’s fate. Retributive justice is a principal based on punishing the criminal with a similar pain to that was inflicted upon the victim. A very common and well-known historic example of this type of justice was outlined in Hammurabi’s Code. One of his laws roughly translated to mean that if someone were to put out an eye of another, then the offender’s eye should also be put out. This eye-for-an-eye thinking appears in the Dukes initial judgement because the Duke declared that Angelo should be put to death because he put Claudio to death for a crime he should not have had to die for. The Duke made this judgement knowing Claudio was alive. The play sets up a situation where Angelo is facing the charges that he recently presided over a case involving. This situation is used to show that an unfeeling system like that imposed by Angelo leads to unnecessary suffering and in this case death. So, in this comedy play, to achieve a happy ending, the eye for an eye way of judgement is thrown out and new sentences are delivered to each of the characters. The play makes the point that in an unempathetic leads to pain and does not help people. I believe that the name “Measure for Measure,” which is a phrase made synonymous with retributive justice, means that this play is an analysis of retributive justice.
ReplyDeleteMy interpretation of the Duke’s argument is that he is mocking the laws and the criminal justice system. In this short passage from the end of the play, the Duke is very harsh on the characters who are on trial. He says that Claudio does not deserve to die for fornication, but because Angelo tried to kill him, and he committed the same crime as Claudio, he deserves to die in Claudio’s place. He also decides that Lucio deserves to die, and the Provost will get demoted. He makes a dramatic speech about there needing to be balance in the criminal justice system, and how important it is that Angelo must die in order to get justice. This is a drastic change from the Duke’s philosophy in the beginning of the play, where he seems to be very flexible and empathetic. At this point, it seems like he was fooling us the whole play with his empathetic philosophy, and he is in fact a very serious prosecutor. This is very shocking until a bit later, when he reverses all of these harsh punishments he has just assigned. I believe that the Duke is making a statement that laws and punishments do not make sense: That the government is full of hypocrites who are able to prosecute a person for a crime, but then later commit the same crime. The Duke shows that punishments don’t require any logic or reason, and because every judge is different, there is no consistency with the law.
ReplyDeleteWhen the Duke exclaims ‘measure still for measure,’ he emphasizes that the death penalty must be given to Angelo because he was responsible for taking the life of Claudio. The Duke makes it known during the trial that Angelo shall pay with his life in order to avenge Claudio. Throughout the play, Angelo rules with principals and strictly abides by Vienna’s laws, to which he sentenced Claudio to death because he committed fornication. However, Claudio’s circumstance is special because he was practically married to Juliet and the fiancées were hand fasted. Lacking an ounce of empathy, the Angelo doesn’t take this into account and still is adamant about seeing Claudio dead. This method of retributive justice wasn’t really able to accomplish much or serve justice, but instead more conflict arose. On the other hand, the Duke typically demonstrates empathy towards those on trial and is an example of restorative justice, an approach to find a resolution with the person involved by repairing harm from the crime. In Act five, the Duke goes against his philosophy and sentences Angelo to death. This is confusing to the audience given that this judicial decision sounds like something Angelo would rule. Therefore, I believe the Duke was trying to publicly make Angelo look like a fool and mock how he always gives out harsh punishments that do no good. The Duke then returns back to his former method of bringing about justice by marrying everyone off and pardoning Angelo’s sentence. In the end, I believe the Duke wanted to show that making decisions in the criminal justice system with the intent of pay back or measure for measure will not help with bringing upon justice within the community.
ReplyDeleteThe statement made here in measure for measure is similar to the idea of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, in the basis of actions balancing each other in their equilibrium, which is how justice is meant to play out. The Duke equates several things with a mirroring repetition technique, “haste still pays haste, and leisure still answers leisure,” meaning that Angelo’s reckless and unfair handling of Claudio’s case and eventually his life will be matched with a reckless and unfair handling of his own. With the equating of “Angelo for Claudio, death for death,” he is simultaneously stating that Angelo’s life must match Claudio’s life or lack thereof, which he follows by clarifying, “death for death.” He is pointing out Angelo’s hypocrisy, as he does not actually mean he is going to sentence Angelo to death as in the end the Duke spares Claudio, solely pointing out that under Angelo’s own reasoning he would certainly deserve it. The Duke throughout this measure is essentially explaining how justice should be, or at least how Angelo was acting it should be throughout the play, and making his own comment on this kind of judicial reasoning. The Duke’s point with this measure, matched with his later action of sparing Claudio’s life, demonstrates the nuance that must be applied when it comes to true justice. Throughout this measure, he is merely mocking the ideas Claudio was acting upon, and making the deciding statement to the audience of how Measure for Measure should be interpreted, which is justice with levels of empathy and nuance.
ReplyDelete