Can mercy and justice coexist?

Justice and Mercy has been a widely debated topic even since Elizabethan times, as reflected in the play The Merchant Of Venice. Both are virtues which have been coveted by Man ever since the beginning of civilization. However, ever so often, they seem to be polar opposites of each other, when one has to be compromised to accommodate the other. To have justice is to uphold equality, and to have mercy is to be forgiving. In my opinion, I believe that they can co-exist.

Many people coin the term "justice" as "an eye for an eye" exchange. When someone commits a crime or injustice, he is punished accordingly, often to the law. However, one must not be confused with the definition of "justice" and "retribution" or "karma". The difference between the two is the revengeful and personal elements in the term "retribution". Without justice, the modern day society would fail to stand as people would not be held responsible for their actions. However, in order to moderate justice and to include the element of humanity, the aspect of mercy must be taken into account. An example of this is the recent incident in Iran. A man had splashed acid on a woman and blinded her, and was due to be blinded as a result of Iranian law. However, he was forgiven by the woman and escaped the dire consequences. Although mercy was taken into account and the man was pardoned, justice was still present, albeit a lightened form of it.

Mercy which is applied after justice benefits past-offenders. Past-offenders are now increasingly given a second chance at life after serving their time in jail. A local example would be the Yellow Ribbon Project will helps past-offenders integrate back into society and lead meaningful lives.

Nevertheless, there are situations which do not allow the co-existence of these two virtues. A murderer, for example, cannot be pardoned or given a lighter sentence, as this would mean injustice for the victim, who was killed.

In a nutshell, I do believe that in most situations, justice and mercy can co-exist. One cannot rely on only one of the two as both are needed to sustain a just and yet humane society.

Term 3 Week 5 Assignment

What do you think is Shakespeare's main intention of creating Shylock in The Merchant of Venice?

Shylock, being the only main “Jewish” character in the play, was created by Shakespeare for the same reason The Jew of Malta was created. During Shakespearean times, the main audience the theatre had was the Elizabethan audience, one which despised Jews to the core. Shylock is characterised with many traits which Christians who lived during those times would have spat upon, such as his Jewish heritage and usurious job as a money-lender. We can see that the appearance of this character would incur the wrath of the audience. As such, he is also portrayed as a sad, tragic figure segregated because of his religion. Shakespeare probably included Shylock to attract and to appeal to his audience.

Shylock plays a very important role in the plot itself, and he borrows the power of the law to enforce upon his forfeiture, which is a pound of Antonio’s flesh. The Venetian law states that all citizens should be treated as equals, and that in a bond, the forfeiture should always hold in favour of the money-lender. He argues “I have possess’d your Grace//of what I purpose,//And by our holy Sabbath have I sworn//To have the due and forfeit of my bond.//If you deny it, let the danger light//Upon your charter and your city’s freedom”.

Also, Shylock is portrayed as a tragic individual with a strong sense of humanity. He is depicted as a person who is trying hard to protect his own rights, only to fail because of tricky word play by Portia. This strong sense of humanity is transformed into anger and hatred, which is revealed through his speech in the trail scene, “Some men there are love not a gaping pig//Some, that are mad if they behold a cat//And others, when the bagpipe sings I’ the nose//cannot contain their urine: for affection//Mistress of passion, sways it to the mood//Of what it likes or loathes//Now, for your answer://As there is no firm reason to be render’d//Why he cannot abide a gaping pig//Why he, a harmless necessary cat//Why he, a woollen bagpipe; but of force//Must yield to such inevitable shame//As to offend, himself being offended//So can I give no reason, nor I will not//More than a lodged hate and a certain loathing//I bear Antonio, that I follow thus//A losing suit againse him. Are you answer’d?”Shylock denies that the reason for his hunger for Antonio’s flesh is not because of Antonio’s Anti-Semitism acts, but rather because he had broken their bond.

Lastly, Shakespeare mentioned through Shylock the prejudice and ill-treatment the Jews felt under the Christians. This would be contrary to his main purpose for Shylock and would anger the Elizabethan audience. The insults which have been hurled at Shylock in the past are founding blocks for Shylock’s anger and famous speech about the humanity of Jews and his quest for revenge against the Christians, giving the possibility that Shylock did not have the intention of harming Chrostians in the first place, but rather, had been forced into a corner where he could no longer bear it, fueling his thirst for revenge.

In a nutshell, the main reason that Shakespeare created Shylock was to appeal to the Elizabethan audience, while the inclusion of Anti-Semitic elements would complement the selling point of this play, the downfall of Jews. Also, it possess the Jewish point of view of the plot, revealing more than the typical Elizabethan play.