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)? Should a judge have empathy and dicrretion? Is there a judicial philosophy judges should embrace such a deterrence, retribution or rehabilitation? What effects do these decisions have on the society at large? How does a judge defend justice?
By the time the audience reaches the end of the play Measure by Measure, by William Shakespeare, it is easy to conclude that the play itself argues that there must be some sort of middle ground when it comes to enforcing the law and imposing punishments. On one hand, Angelo rules with an iron fist and is very harsh with punishments for minor crimes, causing strict, life-changing rules, more specifically in Claudio’s case, the death sentence. On the other hand, the Duke is not strong enough when it comes to enforcing rules to the point where everyone lives in mayhem and “sin,” allowing criminals to get away with immoral acts (for example the establishment of multiple brothels throughout the city) by setting lenient laws where hardly anyone gets punished. Under both leaders’ rule, the laws they enforced and how they governed ended up failing. Escalus disagrees with both ways of governing, as he thinks Angelo is too strict and the Duke is too lax. Personally, I share the same opinion. A judge shouldn’t have too much empathy as that can lead to bias, but a little bit is necessary in order to respect each person’s humanity. Angelo’s way of ruling and the Duke’s way of ruling need to meet in the middle, as there are pros and cons of both sides. This form of government is the most beneficial to society as a whole, as it allows each citizen to be judged not only fairly but also with respect and dignity.
ReplyDeleteThe play Measure for Measure conveys a unique message on morality and how it plays into justice, ruling over what is right and wrong. There were three excellent examples of leading with or without the heart throughout the read revolving around the three judges each with their outlook on justice and the sheer harshness of capital punishment. The scale in which justice is weighed drastically changes from character to character, like Angelo who believed in maximum law enforcement no matter how soft the crime was. A good judge should be lenient when it’s time to be lenient, for example when sentencing someone with lots of life ahead of them, a small crime committed, and an overall regretful criminal, but that argues with the sense of rationality. If the law isn’t imposed, then all the wrong-doers aren’t to be deterred. Angelo mentions “If the first that did th’ edict infringe had answered for his deed. Now ‘tis awake” (2.2.119). The awakening is the law that had been dormant under the rule of the Duke who is too lenient, allowing many to get away with crimes that weren’t only petty but more serious violations of the law. His character taps into whether or not a judge should follow a philosophical rule or not since following one rule means living by that rule no matter what. This was certainly not the case when regarding the Duke’s enforcement compared to Angelo’s. The scale is incredibly unbalanced with Angelo weighing it down heavily and the Duke providing an exorbitant amount of cushion. It is also a prominent feature of the play that there is an evident middle ground: Escalus. He is meant to balance the scale being the mean of justice and morality, playing both fairly. Escalus’s perspective offers useful insight through a different lens that wasn’t previously noticeable. It can be seen, “That fellow is a fellow of much license. Let him be called before us. Away with her to prison” (3.2.205). One of rather few enforcements of law mainly being present with Escalus. His simple disregard for the Bawd’s opinion conflicts with what either Angelo or Duke would’ve done one being a get-out-of-jail-free card and the other most likely being sentenced to death. A proper judge must defend justice by staying true from the beginning. Angelo may be harsh, but in terms of rationality and enforcement of the law, he is right to think the once-woke law has become a scarecrow of its original self. If any of the judges in the play had one single rule in which everyone must be sentenced based on the crime and every sentence was followed through with, Claudio may have never committed the act in the first place.
ReplyDeleteThe play Measure for Measure by William Shakespeare is a thought-provoking tale about love, mercy, and how it's intertwined with the law. The three prominent judges in the play all have different views on how the law should be enforced. With his retributive views, Angelo believes that if the law is not implemented now, it will never be. Escalus, with his procedural beliefs, sees all the facts before coming up with the punishment that he sees fit. The Duke, on the other hand, has strong destructive views, lowering or pardoning convicts' sentences. The Duke, while undercover, was working with the provost as they received an executive letter from Angelo: “Let Claudio be executed by four of the clock, and in the afternoon, Bernadine. For my better satisfaction, let me have Claudio's head sent to me by five…Thus fail to do your office, as you will answer it at your peril” (Shakespeare 4.2.133-139). Emphasizing the severity of Angelos's punishments, he orders the provost to execute Claudio and Bernadine. However, Claudio is being punished for the act of fornication even though his soon-to-be wife completely consented. Yet Angelo, upon a master plan from the Duke, committed the same crime, yet he does not punish himself? A good judge cannot be an enforcer of the law if he also does not uphold it. On the other hand, the sleepy drunk Bernadine, who was imprisoned for murder, was finally going to receive punishment. With one crime being worse than the other, Angelo sentenced them both to death. Little did Angelo know that the Duke was undercover in the prison with the provost and told him not to kill either of them and just to trust him. While Angelo is right for sentencing Barnadine to death, the Duke does what the Duke does and secretly pardons both of them to save their lives. This is a matter of being too lenient and being too harsh. For a functioning society where people respect the law, judges must simultaneously lead and impose the law by proper examples.
ReplyDeleteWhile many characters in Shakespeare’s Measure for Measure represent a strict adherence to the law and objective sentencing, Shakespeare ultimately critiques the societal norm of using punishment as deterrence. Through the character of Claudio, Shakespeare challenges the fairness of making an example out of individuals, particularly when laws are inconsistently enforced. Claudio is sentenced to death for engaging in premarital relations—an offense that had long been ignored—simply because Angelo, the temporary ruler, decides to strictly apply the law. Claudio protests not only the severity of his sentence but also the performative nature of his punishment. He asks:
ReplyDelete"Fellow, why dost thou show me thus to th’ world?
Bear me to prison, where I am committed"
"I do it not in evil disposition,
But from Lord Angelo by special charge." (1.2.112-115)
Here, Claudio highlights how his punishment is not just about justice but about spectacle—an attempt to scare others into obedience. This aligns with a philosophy of deterrence, where harsh sentencing is meant to prevent future crimes. However, Shakespeare exposes its flaws: when laws are inconsistently enforced, deterrence becomes arbitrary and unjust.The play also explores the limitations of retributive justice, as seen in the Duke’s pronouncement of “measure for measure” when sentencing Angelo. While retribution demands strict punishment, the Duke ultimately tempers justice with mercy, pardoning Angelo despite his hypocrisy. This shift suggests that rigid legalism fails to account for human complexity. Escalus, in contrast to both Angelo and the Duke, embodies judicial discretion, advocating for a balanced approach to justice. His philosophy aligns with rehabilitation, emphasizing fairness over severity. This perspective reflects Shakespeare’s broader argument: true justice is not about enacting revenge or instilling fear but about applying the law with wisdom, empathy, and adaptability. Through Measure for Measure, Shakespeare suggests that a just society must balance law and mercy. A judge must uphold the law, but not at the expense of fairness. Instead of using punishment as a tool of control, justice should serve the people, ensuring that laws are applied with humanity and reason.
In the play Measure for Measure, William Shakespeare illustrates a fair and balanced version of the law through its comparison and contrast of what is just and moral through the three judges of the play, the lenient Duke, the strict Angelo, and the equal Escalus. What does it mean to be truly just? Each one of these characters signals a different interpretation of virtue and how the law should be enforced. Firstly, regarding the presiding law of the land, the Duke deems the law to be entwined with feelings and utilizes empathy as a presiding factor in his decisions. This is in stark contrast to the appointed judge, Angelo, a strict and rigid man whose very blood is said to run cold, and his urine congealed ice. He deems law as an order, interpreting justice as what is written. Enforcement of the law shall be followed barring any excuse or extenuating factors, and he rejects the empathy and compassion as prescribed by the Duke. The last of these judges is Escalus, a man who sees the need for empathy, but does not let it guide him, and has respect for the law and follows it closely, without letting it consume him. Each character serves as a comparison of one another, and the dialogue of the play serves as an example of this. In Act 2, scene 1, Escalus is asking Angelo to grant mercy to Claudio, saying
ReplyDelete"Whether you had not sometime in your life
Erred in this point which now you censure him,
And pulled the law upon you." (Shakespeare 2.1.15-16). He contrasts Angelo's interpretation of the law, introducing a much-needed perspective on how these qualms of Claudio are valid by urging Angelo to reflect on the fact that he once probably held such beliefs. This sets up the issue of proper governance, as we know later that Angelo commits the same crime of fornication. Through these acts, we can see how the strict enforcement of the law leaves no room for contradiction, which errs into the field of immoral whence you are guilty of the same crime. The play affirms the decision that law needs to be more equal, possessing qualities of strict governance, and also empathetic understanding, through the qualms of the Duke. As the play goes on, the Duke and his antics become more and more exaggerated, with his final plans of pardoning a murderer and granting so many mercies who dare not be given. Through this, the play clearly and succinctly sets up the assertion on how the law should be enforced through the character of Escalus, who through analysis we can see the fairness he has witted to be favorable in comparison to his counterparts of the lax Duke and the harsh Angelo.
The only morally justifiable stance on jurisprudence in Measure for Measure is maintained by Escalus. The aristocratic role allows him insight into the key decision making factors within Vienna’s judicial system. As the personal advisor to the Duke, his opinion was informed by the many instances of unlawful trends by both the Duke and Angelo. The Duke, under social pressure for his dereliction to his responsibility as the ruler of the city, temporarily appointed Angelo as the ruler to strictly enforce the laws that had been “more mocked than feared.” (1.3.28). However, the Duke’s negligence of the law, regardless of what it meant for justice and faith, was what Claudio and other citizens were hoping would return. Angelo, to further his position on unyielding prosecution of criminal offenders proclaimed, "The law hath not been dead, though it hath slept. Those many had not dared to do that evil / If the first that did the edict infringe / Had answered for his deed." (2.2. 117-120). Angelo’s grim appearance and uninviting personality illustrate the parallelism between his unique character traits and apathetic view on the enforcement of the law. Ultimately, Escalus remained as a midpoint to the two philosophies, believing that Claudio’s death sentence was not retributive to his convicted offense, fornication, while also arguing that the Duke’s ignorance was unjust as well. Highlighting his middle ground, Escalus explained, “Let us be keen and rather cut a little / Than fall and bruise to death.” (2.1.6-7). The statement emphasizes that unlike Angelo’s approach, justice should be enforced gradually. Like Escalus, I think that judges should ethically make decisions based on case-by-case circumstances so that they can equitably select consequences. Instead of purely basing those choices on empathy, though, I believe that guidelines should be in place ensuring that judges aren’t simply letting someone off the hook because they feel bad for perpetrator.
ReplyDeleteThe play, Measure for Measure, by William Shakespeare is trying to argue that there is no perfect balance for a judges beliefs. In the play, there are two main examples of very polarized judicial opinions in this play. The first opinion comes from the Duke, and his views are that the law should be enforced in a very lenient manner and has a habit of pardoning criminals and letting people go. The second viewpoint comes from Lord Angelo, who views the law in a very strict way in which every law, no matter how small or generally insignificant, should be enforced to the fullest extent of the law. The Duke often takes pity on criminals for their situations or issues, while Lord Angelo believes that no matter what the person is experiencing, if they commit a crime, they deserve punishment and should be punished as swiftly and as extremely as possible. For example, when the Duke finds out what Angelo did, Angelo responds with, "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. Then, good prince, no longer session hold upon my shame, but let my trial be mine own confession. Immediate sentence then and sequent death is all the grace I beg," (Shakespeare, 199). Lord Angelo's beliefs in punishment are so strong that he even believes that he should be punished for his own crimes and doesn't think his own status supersedes his wrongs. The Duke also has faults with his methodology, because with his loose view on crimes and punishments, almost everything goes unpunished, which is why the Duke had to bring in Lord Angelo to solve his problems for him. Both the Duke and Lord Angelo experiencing troubles with their ideals demonstrates that radical viewpoints on crime and punishment are not efficient, and instead a mix of strict and also lenience and understanding is required to truly be a good judge of people.
ReplyDeleteMeasure for Measure examines the complications of differing approaches to law and judgment. The Duke represents leniency. His passive mindset leads to the decay of their society. This shows that though leniency is compassionate, it can also cause injustice when leaders avoid their responsibility. Angelo, in direct contrast, advocates for a very strict application of the law. He believes that harsh application deters crime. His later sin reveals that he cannot even follow his own strict rules. This is shown through his actions towards Isabella, where he tries forcing her to have pre-marital sex with him, though that is what he’s punishing her brother for. His story highlights that a one-size-all application leads to unjust outcomes, especially when it does not account for individual circumstances. Escalus, the more moderate judge, brings a very balanced perspective. He thinks justice should be empathetic but not 100% of the time. This is shown through his actions in the court, where he is not as rigid as Angelo but not as relaxed as the Duke. Escalus recognizes the need for punishment but understands the humanity in each case. Escalus believes a judge should not be too harsh or overly lenient but should consider circumstances.
ReplyDeleteOverall, the play suggests that a judge should strike a balance between strictness and leniency. A judge must apply the law fairly, but with an understanding of human complexity, and acknowledge the possibility of redemption. Justice is not only about enforcing the law but also considering its impact on individuals and society as a whole.
The idea of how people should approach the legal and justice system has appeared throughout the Shakespearian play Measure for Measure. The play includes one main case of Cloudio committing fornication and three trials from Angelo, Esclalus, and the Duke. All three judges defend justice differently, from the strictest Angelo to the most lenient one, the Duke. The Duke is too lenient as a judge, so when he is gone he decides to let Angelo fix his mistakes, but the story also indicates that the Duke never wanted to let Angelo’s policy fix his mistake. The Duke does believe in consistent punishment, according to the quote “[a]n Angelo for Claudio, death for death. Haste still pays haste, and leisure answers leisure; [l]ike doth quit like, and measure still for measure” (5.1.463-7). In the play, the Duke is aiming to uncover Angelo’s hypocrisy; but still, the Duke does not punish anyone who should get a punishment according to the law; he spares everything and gets them all married in the last act. Both Angelo and the Duke have difficulty enforcing the law and doing what they say, but Esclalus seems to have no problem with all of it. In the second trial with Pompey, he spares Pompey this time, but he promises that if Pompey breaks the law again, he will catch him and whip him. (2. 1. 255-259) Later on, in Act 4 Secen 3 like Escalus promised, Pompey did get sent to prison. This can indicate that the author may believe the only way justice would work is to take a middle ground like Esclalus does, be strict but also consider everyone’s situation and have a sense of mercy.
ReplyDeleteIn the production of Measure for Measure, we see that different rulers affect society in very different ways. The play paints a picture of a society under two significantly different leaders to show the flaws in both systems. With Angelo in power, there are harsh punishments and a proactive take on crime. With the Duke in power, it is quite the opposite; empathy is used to protect the public. With both positions of power, there are downsides. Angelos's harsh beliefs lead to death, while the Duke's empathy leads to a severe lack of authority. The play does not point us in the direction of either policing tactic. I would argue that the play shows us that you have to find a balance between leniency and strictness. With my learnings from the play, I would say that judges should not use just one example of deterrence, retribution or rehabilitation. An overbearing use of one philosophy will tip the system, causing unfairness. As seen in the book, a disproportionate use of deterrence promoted death for an extremely common crime. For example, Angelo argues to Isabella, "The law hath not been dead, though it hath slept. Those many had not dared to do that evil if the first that did the deed infringe had answered for his deed. Now 'tis awake, takes note of what is done, and like a prophet, looks in a glass that shows that future evils”(2.2.117). In this segment, Angelo argues that the laws prior to his leadership have been too lenient. He says that the law is not wide awake but that he can punish to prevent other crimes. This is an extreme take on punishment that could endanger many.
ReplyDeleteIn conclusion, Measure for Measure shows the significant complexities of rulership in society. I believe that it's necessary to approach the legal system in a balanced manner to ensure justice is served.
Justice is a term that has been philosophically debated many times throughout history. The role of our justice system as we know it now is multifaceted. In order for a justice system to be deemed good it must do that for which it serves a purpose, deliver justice. As a society we understand that when laws are broken there must be a punishment, however, the type of punishment is often up for scrutiny and debate.
ReplyDeleteFrom the play Measure by Measure it is quite clear that judges should focus on rehabilitation with the use of slight deterrence. The play starts with Claudio being sentenced to death for fornication, and Angelo demands a strict punishment as deterrence saying, ““Let Claudio be executed by four of the clock, and in the afternoon, Bernadine. For my better satisfaction, let me have Claudio's head sent to me”(4.2 133-135). Angelo has a very strong point, claiming that without a strict punishment for crimes there will be no deterrence for society to commit crimes. Seeing as he had inherited the power of Vienna, a city that had run with no reinforcement or punishment for crimes, it seems at first that deterrence may be fair. While this does stand true, it becomes clear later in the play that extreme deterrence and punishment only eventually leads to hypocrisy. Angelo in the end of the play tells the Duke that he is guilty of fornication with Mariana and he deserves the death penalty, as he had sentenced Claudio to. The irony comes in the fact that Angelo is now faced with the same cruelty he had dished out. It becomes quite clear the Shakespeare is pointing out the irony is straight punishment and deterrence.
The Duke highlights a theme of rehabilitation that should guide the justice system. The Duke ends up showing mercy to all of the characters in the play, giving them a punishment that fits their crime. They are sentenced to a punishment that fits their crimes. Those who commited fornicaiton are forced to marriage as an example. The play shows us that this rehabilitative style of punishment is much more preferable in a society because it preserves the sanctity and value of that society. People are treated with dignity and empathy and punishment seeks to actually help the people reintegrate into their lives, unlike other punishment forms. Judges should have to use a rehabilitative style of justice that incorporates maybe some aspects of more severe deterrence for more severe crimes. By doing this it actually upholds justice by giving each their due, and looking towards the betterment of society. A small crime like fornication doesn’t necessitate death, and therefore the punishment should be focused on rehabilitation