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?
Angelo’s insistence on absolute consistency in judgment, as detailed in his speech—“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. . . .” (2.1.19-21)—reveals not only the paradox at the heart of his character but also the inherent hypocrisy of striving for judicial purity when one is human. Angelo’s claim of separating personal faults from official rulings is not only unrealistic but also self-destructive, as his rigid pursuit of judicial purity ultimately exposes his own moral failings and leads to his downfall.
ReplyDeleteThis contradiction becomes evident when Angelo, who harshly punishes Claudio for fornication, later succumbs to the same desire he condemned. His attempt to coerce Isabella into sleeping with him in exchange for her brother’s life reveals the very moral weakness he claims judges must ignore in themselves. Yet, even when confronted with his hypocrisy, he clings to his ideal of rigid justice, declaring, “But let my trial be mine own confession. / Immediate sentence then and sequent death / Is all the grace I beg” (5.1.418-20). By demanding his own execution, Angelo attempts to maintain the illusion of consistency, giving out equal punishment for an equal crime, giving him the same fate as Claudio. Yet, his actions already revealed that true judicial consistency is unattainable. Angelo himself showed this because he was willing to manipulate the law, bending it to his use to not only to commit the very crime he condemns but also to save another from its consequences
Angelo’s downfall illustrates the dangers of an inflexible legal system that ignores human imperfection—justice without awareness becomes cruelty, and judgment without empathy leads only to hypocrisy. Ultimately, Measure for Measure criticizes Angelo’s belief that the law can function separately from the flawed individuals who enforce it, demonstrating that true justice requires both fairness and understanding.
In Shakespeare’s play Measure for Measure, Shakespeare affirms the importance of empathy under law by having the highest ranking judge, the Duke, effectively pardon two people sentenced to die, Claudio and Angelo. Throughout the play, Angelo attempts to execute Claudio because he committed the act of fornication with his almost wife, Julianna. Angelo believes that crimes must be carried out to their clearly dictated punishment regardless of any circumstantial nuances. When confronted about his aggressively harsh punishment toward Claudio, Angelo dictates that he would hope that if he were to commit the same crime, he would hope to be put to death as well declaring triumphantly, “Let mine own judgment pattern out my death, And nothing come in partial.” (2.1;29-33) This quote of course comes back to haunt him when he does commit fornication with Claudio’s sister, Isabel. The message Shakespeare sends through this contradiction is apparent. He demonstrates that Angelo’s attempts to heavily prosecute minor offenses that lack a true victim is indeed a recipe for corruption, hypocrisy, and miscarriages of justice. When judges carry out the law to its most extreme consequences, they themselves become hypocrites by ignoring underlying factors that play into the reason for their actions. Sentencing a thief to death may sound quite extreme, however, it becomes much more difficult to justify when they were stealing food to feed to their starving children. When judges strictly adhere to the law, they lose sight of reality and forget the fact that humanity and its societal systems are not perfect. It reminds me of Isabel’s quote where she berated Angelo for his lack of empathy siting that if they had switched roles and Angelo committed the same transgression that Claudio would have spared him. This comes to a head during Angelo’s trial when he himself is tried for fornication. Angelo, sticking to his word, cried out, "But let my trial be mine own confession./ Immediate sentence then and sequent death / Is all the grace I beg." (5.1.418-20). However, the Duke is wiser than Angelo and wiser of the situation than Angelo. The Duke, recognizing that Angelo’s philosophy of strict adherence is direct invitation to hypocrisy by leaders who may not have been as courageous as Angelo to accept their own punishment, begins a charade of sentencing Angelo to the same fate as Claudio clearly "An Angelo for Claudio, death for death." However, the Duke, posing as a friar, has already ensured that Claudio was spared. The same empathy that the Duke had for Claudio’s circumstances extends Angelo as well. His newfound authority, adherence to the law, and noble goal of justice blinded him to reality and caused him to overstep with his power. The Duke understanding that neither man was acting out of sheer malice, extends the empathy needed for effective justice that steers away the corruption that Angelo’s philosophy subscribes to. By pardoning both men, he ensures that justice remain measure for measure.
ReplyDeleteAngelo means that while the jury is not perfect, no one is, and that one must try to see past their own selfishness to create a just jury. If, for every jury that would be created, that it had to be composed of perfect individuals, then a trial would never be held. This is because as Angelo states, “Guiltier than him they try. . . . [But]/ You may not so extenuate his/ offense/ For I have had such faults”. By this, Angelo means that no one is perfect, because even he, the most virtuous of judges, is not faultless, but that must not stop the justice system from operating. For even if a compromise was to be made, to only have jurors less guilty than the proposed criminal, who would decide what crimes are more egregious than others. Surely not one with any faults, lest they act partially to their own favor. However, this person does not exist for everyone has their own faults, and no one is perfect. This is a problem without solution, a question to keep the inner beast tame, a puzzle without all of its pieces. The flawed solution to this is to try and be impartial to the best of one’s abilities. Though they can not be completely impartial, it is a solution to an impossible situation. It keeps the system going, for it is better to have a system that is correct only some of the time rather than one that does not function at all
ReplyDeleteDuring the trial, Angelo is convicted of fornication—the same crime Claudio was convicted of. This measure is taken to demonstrate judicial consistency, as it exposes the hypocrisy of the legal system and those in power. However, despite being found guilty of the same offense, Angelo receives a far more lenient punishment due to his high status and prior authority. Claudio, who play the role of a mere common citizen, faced harsh consequences for his actions, whereas Angelo, who abused his position for personal gain, is initially spared the full weight of the law and let off the hook. This highlights the corruption present within the justice system. However, Angelo’s status does not shield him from accountability, as he experiences a fall from grace once his misconduct is fully exposed in the trial. His actions, particularly his exploitation of Isabella, lead to him having to marry Mariana. During the trial, Angelo proclaims, "I should be guiltier than my guiltiness to think I can be undiscernible, When I perceive your Grace, like power divine, Hath looked upon my passes...No longer session hold upon my shame, But let my trial be mine own confession. Immediate sentence then sequent death is all the grace I beg." (199). This statement signifies Angelo’s recognition of fault. His use of the phrase "like power divine" suggests that he views the Duke as a figure of "higher justice" due to his ability to expose wrongdoing and enforce morality. By openly confessing, Angelo attempts to take control of his own judgment, resisting his deserved punishment. In this context, divine justice embodies the principle that truth ultimately prevails. Angelo, despite his previous abuses of power, now acknowledges that his sins will not go unpunished as a final attempt to avoid eternal suffering, assuming his execution. His statement reflects an understanding of a judicial system where good is rewarded and evil is punished, either in life or in the afterlife. Overall, it is difficult to maintain a consistent judgement system where hypocrisy is also present, but a fair punishment for Angelo was eventually determined.
ReplyDeleteThe human nature of hypocrisy clashes with the ideals of absolute justice. While each judge in Measure for Measure strives for consistency, Angelo for the strictest read of the crime and the duke for mercy, both struggle with their own human impulses. As Angelo stated when he was outed for fornication
ReplyDelete"But let my trial be mine own confession./ Immediate sentence then and sequent death / Is all the grace I beg." While he was willing to accept the same punishment as Claudio for the same crime he did not confess or ready his death the moment he tried lusting after Isabella. Rather that side of him clashed with the theory What you are in the Dark. Angelo hid is crime of fornication and would only be willing to die once someone else outed his deed. If another character did not address the crime he committed he most likely would not confess and wallow in shame in secret. Thus his human instinct of survival voided his will for absolute punishment. Similar to the Duke. He was ready to pardon most people but was willing to kill Angelo for self fulfilling reasons. If he strived for constancy he could have pardoned the man, but instead his emotions and bias influenced him and he wanted to sentence Angelo to death to make it even.
As referenced before, people in a judge position will always struggle with some sort of bias since it is impossible for humans to remain morally grey. Since we are only human and thus fallible to the world around us there's always going to be an inherit bias to what we conceive as morally grey and impartial.
Throughout the play Lord Angelo demonstrates an easily hypocritical yet consistent approach to jurisprudence. When the Duke ordered Angelo to marry Mariana at the end of Act five, Angelo had already announced and accepted his own death sentence. Lord Angelo’s idea of consistency challenges the Duke’s empathetic approach to jurisprudence and Escalus’s case-by-case evaluation of the law. Before ordering Angelo and Mariana to marry, the Duke sentenced Angelo to death as retribution for Claudio’s death, proclaiming "[a]n Angelo for Claudio, death for death" (5.1.465). The Duke’s mocking demonstration of Angelo’s ideals of consistency in the justice system highlight how harsh Angelo had been when sentencing Claudio to death for a crime he himself committed. Additionally, the play debates the idea of retributive justice versus leading with empathy versus using harsh punishments to deter the public from committing crimes. Angelo’s harsh approach to jurisprudence is unbalanced (not retributive), which is highlighted in Claudio’s sentencing. For committing the act of fornication (with his nearly lawfully wedded wife), Angelo sentenced Claudio to death. In Act four, Angelo hypocritically has sex out of wedlock like Claudio did, but thinks he will get away with it because he is the presiding judge. Upon planning to become intimate with Isabella (who sent Mariana in her place), Lord Angelo acknowledges his own hypocrisy by contemplating the reality of writing “‘good angel’ on the devil’s horn” (2.4.16). As a result of his prayers losing meaning because of his lust for Isabella, labeling himself as a virtuous man does not cover up the sinner he is under G-d and the law. As much as Angelo claims to remain consistent in abiding by the law and maintaining his own high standards, the reality is that pretending to be virtuous does not make him such. His acknowledgement of his hypocrisy leads him to publicly sentence himself to death in Act five after Isabella and Mariana out him for fornication. During the play, the hypocritical Angelo clings to this idea of consistent, harsh punishments for those who break the law even when it is his head on the chopping block.
ReplyDeleteAngelo's speech in act 2 of Measure for Measure lays out his ideals that he and other enforcers of the law may be hypocritical in their judgement, but that should not prevent them from dealing out the correct punishment for whatever crime is in question. Part of his speech, "The jury passing on the prisoner's life / May in the sworn twelve have a thief or two / Guiltier than him they try" explains that juries, even though they are charged with correctly using the law, may not always follow it themselves. All laws and judgements are made by people, and people have faults. There is no way to keep human nature and failures out of the rules we make. From Angelo's perspective, These facts also should not affect our judgement. Later in his speech he says "When I that censure him do so offend, / Let mine own judgment pattern out my death, / And nothing come in partial". Even if Angelo commits the same crime as someone he is judging, he will convict them as harshly as is deserved, while at the same time he expects others to treat him the same way. Angelo's ideal justice system would have absolute consistency, without concessions for empathy. The issues with this ideal, which are brought up by first Pompey early on and then the Duke in act 5, is that this system leaves no room to question the law or find better alternatives that can benefit all parties. Pompey originally questions Angelo's judgement on fornication by pointing out that so many people do it, that executing everyone who does would depopulate the whole city. Following the law strictly and blindly like Angelo would, prevents it from evolving and best suiting the needs of the people. In the finale, the Duke overrides many of of Angelo's judgements to find the happiest solution for everyone involved, even listening to the perspectives of others and changing Angelo's sentence accordingly. The duke used the law more flexibly and allowed room for discussion and consideration, leading to a happier ending for all than Angelo's impersonal and consistent views would have.
ReplyDeleteAngelo’s hypocrisy regarding fornication in Measure for Measure demonstrates that the legal system’s dependence on flawed human arbitrators renders consistency illogical. The duke’s deputy firmly asserts the necessity of the law’s mechanical consistency when he first speaks with Isabella. When she insists on pity for her condemned brother, Angelo lets forth a tirade of rhetoric:
ReplyDeleteI show it [pity] most of all when I show justice,
For then I pity those I do not know,
Which a dismissed offense would after gall,
And do him right that, answering one foul wrong,
Lives not to act another. (Measure for Measure 2.2.128-132)
By claiming that he “[pities] those I do not know, / Which a dismissed offense would after gall,” Angelo contends that applying the law equally to all offenders regardless of the circumstances deters future crimes and recidivism (MM 2.2.129-130). Angelo also argues that a strict, literal interpretation of the law “[does] him right that, answering one foul wrong, / Lives not to act another,” meaning that executing criminals or otherwise removing them from society benefits the wrongdoer by preventing their morality from descending even further away from righteousness (MM 2.2.131-132). However, while expunging every violator from a state can temporarily induce a respite in violations of certain statutes, it cannot permanently obstruct infractions. Notably, Angelo later lies with Mariana despite having callously sentenced Claudio to death for the same crime mere days before. Angelo has no right to impose any punishment for an offense of which he is guilty, and he should have immediately sentenced himself to death after fornicating with his bride-to-be if he truly believed in consistency. As Jesus stated at the trial of an adulteress, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her” (King James Version, John 8:7). Humans, being innately sinful, are incapable of judging their peers without convicting themselves, so a robotically consistent legal system is both irrational and an impossibility.
(part 1) Equally as pertinent as Christ’s Sermon on the Mount (Mt 7:1-2), St. Thomas Aquinas posits that law, “as a rule or measure of human acts,” should–as with all measures–“be homogenous with that which it measures” (Summa Theologiae, Prima Secundae Partis, Q. 90). Consistency–i.e., the absence of contradictions–is one of the hallmarks of ethics. Ethics are supposed to guide us through a moral life, and to do so, it must be rational, and to be rational, it must be free of contradictions. Hypocrisy, then, should logically pose as an antithesis of consistency, as all hypocrites are contradictory. If one were asked to “open the door, but don’t open the door,” they would likely be at a loss as to what to do; it is a contradictory request and therefore irrational. Measure for Measure is a play that illustrates the difficulty of establishing a rational moral order in a world that seems to be governed by hypocrisy. Its plot could be ripped straight from today’s headlines: a corrupt, hypocritical politician abuses his temporary power in an attempt to quash his city’s sex trade while he himself slakes his lust through fornication. People elect hypocrites to office, people buy products from hypocrites; people behave hypocritically every day. If moral hypocrisy should reflect so poorly on one’s character, why is it so pervasive? Evidently, people must hold divergent private and public opinions on honesty and hypocrisy; many may outwardly promote a practice of absolute honesty, while those same individuals lie every day–they may even view lying as ethical at times (e.g., lying to protect someone’s feelings). If people frequently lie but simultaneously propose absolute honesty, there must be at least some hypocrisy going on. In Measure for Measure, Shakespeare not only exposes hypocrisy as a common practice but scrutinizes the fallible human power structures that make it inevitable. Angelo’s hypocrisy is systemic–his downfall does not arise solely from his personal–private–desires but from the impractical moral absolutism he enforces. His strict application of Vienna’s dormant laws creates the very conditions under which his hypocrisy is exposed; his moral rigidity fosters the very corruption it seeks to eradicate. The play thus suggests that hypocrisy is not an anomaly within systems of authority but an inherent feature of them. Like many in power, Angelo’s fault emerges when he attempts to hold others to ideals he himself cannot meet.
ReplyDelete(part 2) The Duke, by contrast, embodies a more pragmatic–though no less hypocritical–approach to governance. While Angelo’s hypocrisy is self-deceptive, The Duke’s is deliberate. He attempts to orchestrate justice through calculated dishonesty for ostensibly moral ends. This raises the question of whether all hypocrisy is equally condemnable. If Angelo’s hypocrisy is destructive because it enforces an unrealistic moral code, does the Duke’s hypocrisy become justifiable because it restores balance and mitigates harm? Shakespeare does not provide a clear answer, instead suggesting that hypocrisy, a far cry from a simple moral failing, operates spectrally–sometimes oppressive, sometimes necessary, but always pointing out the limitations of moral absolutism. Moreover, he complicates the notion that all hypocrisy is condemnable. Vienna’s citizens, largely passive throughout the play, accept both Angelo’s draconian laws and the Duke’s manipulations without much meaningful resistance. This suggests that hypocrisy persists not only because individuals are personally inconsistent but because society tacitly accepts and even enables it. In real-world politics–and everyday life–moral inconsistency is often overlooked if it serves a larger purpose or aligns with a prevailing interest. Shakespeare aptly anticipates the modern continuance of this dynamic, illustrating how power structures allow hypocrisy to proliferate unchecked under the guise of moral righteousness. Measure for Measure does not straightforwardly denounce hypocrisy but instead questions its functionality. In leaving this tension unresolved, Shakespeare defines hypocrisy as a fundamental paradox of human existence rather than a downright flaw.
ReplyDeleteHypocrisy is one of humanity’s most common flaws. From politics to sports, almost everybody fails to meet the standards they require of others. While hypocrisy is usually harmless, it can be deadly in important places like a courtroom. In the play Measure for Measure, the dangers of hypocrisy are examined through a criminal trial, where the judge commits the same crime as the defendant.
ReplyDeleteThroughout the play, Angelo’s strict, rule-abiding nature is tested when he lusts for Isabella. His support of harsh punishments for minor crimes is put into question by his hypocrisy, especially after he sentences Claudio to death for a similar crime. He tries to reinforce these ideas by stating that he should also be executed, but by then, any authority he had deteriorated.
In the real world, nobody is perfect. According to the play, trying to remove feelings and empathy from jurisprudence is impossible as every person has their own thoughts, beliefs, and biases that could alter their perspective on something like a criminal case. The play instead suggests that judges should acknowledge their human vice and guilt instead of completely ignoring it. This would allow them to ensure their biases are not clouding their judgment, helping them make better decisions, while repressing their feelings would end with hypocrisy.
In our justice system, trying to make trials perfect by following every ideal and standard is impossible. Attempts to make the justice system more consistent through evidence, witnesses, and juries have led to some improvements. However, a perfectly consistent method can never be achieved as human nature is unpredictable and imperfect. Some have proposed using AI or machines in justice systems to remove emotions from courtrooms and make trials solely based on logic. However, these robots generally end up perpetuating the same stereotypes and biases as people, making them ineffective replacements.