By the end of the trial scene, do you think true justice and mercy was delivered? Reflect and write on the following questions.
1. Is there true justice? Why?
2. Is there true mercy, as expounded by Portia? Why?
3. 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.
1) I believe that there is really something called true justice. It is just receiving what you are suppose to receive. I feel that in the case of Merchant of Venice, the trial scene, there was no true justice. It is rather straightforward, Antonio makes a deal and fails to meet the deal that he gave his consent to, so he has to pay the price. But in the end, Shylock is tortured under the play of words Portia uses and does not get what he really deserves. The most upsetting thing is people find that this is reasonable because of Shylock's evil character displayed.
I mean, seriously, does a person's character makes him unable to receive what he deserves? If a good man fails to fulfill the deal he makes with another evil man and has to pay the price of his life, should he be spared because he is good and the other is evil? Absolutely not. It is a clear line, a mistake done is a mistake done and one shall receive his due punishment.
2) I do not think there is true mercy. Mercy is basically taking away the punishment or things that causes pain one should receive because of the things he has done. But in the case of Portia, she forces Shylock to forfeit whatever he has and lose the bond, even though she knew that this would cause Shylock sorrow.
3) Indeed, it is undeniable that justice and law can be manipulated by those with power, as seen from our present examples and reflected from the text. In the text, Portia uses her power as a fake learned scholar sent by a wise judge to twist the law against Shylock. What she exacted against Shylock is not the law, it is just a play of words. The law exists to give the people what they deserve fairly. I feel that Shylock does not deserve to be forced to change his religion, to lose his properties and to lose the meaning of his life. Instead, Antonio deserves to be killed after giving consent to the bond and Shylock deserves to receive the pound of flesh. However, the law does not exist in this case to fulfill what both of them deserves.
In our world, or shall we narrow down to Singapore, I do not think justice and law can be so easily manipulated anymore. We Singaporeans are learned, educated people and we do not forgo things such as the law. Instead, when one tries to bend the law, no matter how much authority that person has, we react with utmost displeasure and stop him. I believe that if there is a case of anybody with power abusing his authority, we would stand up against him. Thus, there is no such thing that people with power manipulate justice and the law in Singapore.
I disagree on your character part. For example, look at the newspapers and look at all those who murdered many in shooting sprees. 人之初，性本善. If that is the case, then why did they begin on such murderous and morally wrong acts? Surely something must have happened to them.
ReplyDeleteNow, lets look at how different people with different natures react to things. A person with who is timid would scream upon seeing a mouse. A person who is brave would (provided he can swim) dive into the pool to save a drowning kid. A person who is easily angered would start shouting out loud whenever you say something about him that is not to his liking. A person who is vengeful would, under the circumstances (in the case of Shylock it was the racism against him exhibited by the Christians)would obviously try his best to take revenge on those who hurt him.
Therefore, to allow the vices of your nature to manifest, there had to be an event (of even a few events). But usually events are out of your control and so it is your own nature that determines how you react to them, and the reaction might be the one that determine your fate (make some reference to Shylock - he lusts for revenge and under the circumstance that the Christians hate him and he hates the Christians.)
I agree with you on some points and disagree on others. For example, I feel that there is true justice in the trial scene. The terms of the bond cannot be fulfilled, so Shylock chose to forfeit the bond. The definition of justice is the quality of being fair and reasonable. Since Shylock desires the law so much, that is what the court gave him. Is that not justice?
ReplyDeleteAlso, I disagree with your point that there is no true mercy. Has mercy not been shown by Portia, who gave Shylock three chances to show HIS mercy? Shylock refused to show mercy, and received the consequences.
Hey Jack, i share your sentiments for the part on whether there is true mercy, contrary with ruihang. There is indeed no true mercy, This is because Portia is being a hypocrite. She was giving her long mercy speech to Shylock but shylock refused. Later on when the tables are turned, and when Shylock wanted to receive the 3x of the original Bassanio agreed, she demanded that he will have nothing but the bond. This is no mercy at all.
ReplyDeleteHey guys I'm on the same side with yuxiang. There is no TRUE MERCY at ALL. Portia described mercy as something very earthly but yet in the end, she did not show true mercy at all. What a hypocrite!>:(
ReplyDeleteComment on my blog too!:D
Indeed I agree on the way justice and mercy are defined as. However, I feel that what we thought of justice and mercy now may not be what people think in the past. Perspectives have changed.
ReplyDeleteIn those Elizabethan times, the Christians have greatly misused their power just so they could overrun the Jews. Well, they were truly people who lack substance in terms of thinking what justice and mercy really means. They were selfish and take justice as a method to revenge the people they hate and at the same time wanted mercy to be shown to themselves. Totally unfair and self-centered people.
Mercy on the other hand was never shown to the Jews in those times though the Christians thought they did. Mercy has just as much effect as justice when shown to a Jew. The Christians never really showed mercy to them.
But as time moves on, we start to understand how justice and mercy should be displayed at the right time.
Likewise, I feel that Portia is being a hypocrite. She knew all along that Shylock would not accept the ducats and all he had wanted was just the bond. Thus, she made use of this opportunity to manipulate Shylock into sealing his own fate. The "mercy" speech she had given was meant to build up the tension and eventually lead to the climax. As such, I feel that there is no true mercy in the trial scene
ReplyDeleteStanford Kong 2O309
Actually, what Shylock deserves depends on perspective. I think that Shylock is just getting a taste of his own medicine of not wanting to show mercy, and it would be natural for Portia to not show mercy to Shylock too, since he himself said that if one were to wrong him, he would revenge. I also disagree with your point that the law was not followed in this case. I think that it was the manipulation of the strictness of the law, along with a crafty play of words that made Shylock end up how he did. The law was definitely followed, the bond did not state that blood can be involved. However justice was not present, as the law was used as a form of revenge and this tweaking of the law itself is already injustice, and coupled with the fact that this tweaking is used to punish a helpless man that already submitted means that there was no justice.
ReplyDelete