1. Do you think justice and mercy can co-exist?
Definition of both: Justice and mercy seem like they are at polar opposites. Justice is making sure that everyone is acknowledged for his right-doings and punished for his wrong doing. Justice demands that these rewards and punishments reflect the measure of devotion or lack of devotion to obedience for the law. So it seems like justice punish the sinners and reward saints. However, many people think that mercy is ignoring guilt. Actually i disagree, it is a act of compassion or forgiveness shown toward someone whom it is within one's power to punish or harm, shown towards sinners. It is also an event to be grateful for, esp. because its occurrence prevents something unpleasant or provides relief from suffering.
It is indeed hard to let both co-exist as they are opposites. One would definately be more predominant that the other. Many times, people are caught between these choices and have no idea what to do. An example in adult life might be catching a friend's spouse cheat yet you cannot choose whether to tell them or risk ruining your friendship. These choices come with equally heavy consequences. One should note that there is a great danger in showing mercy because if used too often or in the wrong circumstances, it can actually undermine itself. Many philosophers and legal theorists have noted that the more one pardons crimes, the more one also emboldens criminals, because you are essentially telling them that their chances of getting away without paying the proper price have increased. It would be unfair and many would question you and the system.
2. How is justice and mercy shown in this case?
In this case, it is hard to differentiate between both. Justice would be when Shylock "gets" what he deserves and is charged with the attempted murder of a Christian. Then when he was spared the death sentence but forced to convert into a Christian, how is it justice then? To a Jew, it is an utter insult for him to do so. The story shows much prejudice against Jews as Venice is a Christian city. Thus is is not possible to differentiate between justice and mercy.
Do you agree with the final verdict?
I don't agree fully with the final verdict. i believe that some prejudice was at play as Venice was a Christian city and although the duke was suppose to be Justice, i think that many factors may have altered his opinion. Also, Shylock was accused of taking the life of a Christian. It is wrong to say that Christians are superior to others, therefore Shylock should be killed. Are Jews and people from the other religions not human? The final verdict did not make sense. How does attempting to kill someone causes him to give half his fortune to the government and half to the victim? i understand the victim part but no the government. Lastly, why is Shylock forced to convert? It does not make much sense as they know that it is utter insult and made Shylock live in sadness. I dont think the final verdict is entirely wrong as he did try to take the life of Antonio as revenge because of Antonio's insults. But it is no excuse for Shylock to act this way. In the end, there is a part of me that agrees, but there is also a part of me that disagrees.
4. Justice and Law can be manipulated by people in power. Comment on this with reference to the text and other real-life cases and examples.
I think that this is quite true as money and power can influence alot of people. Rich people have powerful friends, which can get them away and out of trouble. Many of these rich people are able to hire the best attorney, at at times able to win the case just because of their wealth and their attorney which could enable them to crush their opponents who are unable to hire best attorney. It is hard to say that they can actually manipulate people by their power, but they might give them a definite advantage to their case. Antonio had Portia to help in the case, and it helped greatly. Though her being a women, she has high intellectual ability and is able to manipulate not only Shylock, but also the whole jury.
Hi i'm sebastian. I do agree that is hard for justice and mercy to co-exist but there are circumstances that they can co-exist. For instance the Lockerbie bomber incident. As you know, he received justice and mercy too. He was jailed for a few years and received the appropriate punishment but because he had terminal cancer, the judge showed mercy and freed him. In this case, justice and mercy co-exists. But in merchant of Venice, justice and mercy do not co-exist. Justice was more dominant. Shylock received the justified punishment but he was not shown mercy. I do agree that mercy has to be shown at the correct time. For the Lockerbie incident, I personally feel that the judge showed mercy at the correct time. Although justice has to be upheld, there are times when we really need to compassionate.....
ReplyDeleteI dont think that the lockerbie incident is a fair balance. In the first place, i think that he should be killed for killing so many people. It is immoral and wrong.
ReplyDeleteHowever, some people have said that he might not have been the true man behind all of the bombing and terrorism. Of course, i believe that he should be killed, but you must remember that in some countries, death penalty is also considered inhumane, thus banned. Singapore is one of the stricter lawed countries, thus allowing the death penalty. However, because of this, our law have been critised too !
ReplyDelete^^^ for yiheng
what is ^^^ william?-.-
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYi Heng, you claimed that ”it seems like justice punish the sinners and reward saints” and I felt it ironic because the justice does not “reward saints”. There are no right-doers when it comes to justice. Only the wrongs are concerned. One shall not be acknowledged for doing something right through justice. One is just being acknowledged for one’s innocence. Therefore, we can neither say that we “reward” the innocent people or serve justice to “saints”.
ReplyDeleteI am strongly inspired by your citation of “the more one pardons crimes, the more one also emboldens criminals”. I agree, one cannot be too merciful to the extent that we compromise the feelings of the victims. That is not mercy anymore. That is an act of hypocrisy. Even though justice and mercy cannot be equal, we must at least try to strike an approximate balance between the two as far as possible. Nevertheless, I feel that justice must always be the dominant one because the law is, after all, what ensures order in a country.
Regarding the Lockerbie Bombing case, I agree with Jerome that justice and mercy were served at the right amount and at the right time. The prosecuted did not get the death penalty for killing so many lives. That is mercy. However, he did get jailed for some years. That is justice. He was released early. That is mercy. As we can see here, even though mercy is dominant, it does not mean that justice does not co-exist too. The question is only: which is the dominant one?
Thank you.
Hi yiheng,
ReplyDeleteI am John. I agree with you that justice and mercy are both very hard to define. It is hard to really say at the end of the day whether justice has been obtained in MOV's case. I also agree that mercy has to be shown at times as it is humane. Overall, I find that justice and law can indeed be manipulated by people in power as in the case of DSK as an example. I also find that we cannot really come to a conclusion for justice and mercy but we know that they both co-exist.
Please comment on my blog too
www.jjohnla.blogspot.com
I feel that in this increasingly globalizing world, people in power would have less control in court as rights and equality are being "earned" for everyone. People in power would be treated as the same way as normal people. I feel that you should consider factors into your answers. this would make your answer better
ReplyDelete