POLICE INVESTIGATIONS 101
LESSONS FROM SHAKESPEARE’SMeasure for Measure
Gilles Renaud | Ontario Court Of Justice (Retired)
INTRODUCTION
In this article, I document the various elements of guidance and instruction from Shakespeare’s play Measure for Measure that may result in enhanced excellence in investigative work. Briefly stated, the discussion is organized along broad, thematic lines involving demeanour evidence, interviewing skills, judgment and professionalism in investigations.
DISCUSSION
Demeanour evidence as a guide to investigators
General introduction
Justice O'Halloran cautioned against the fear that a good actor might hoodwink the Court (and His Lordship would have added “the investigator” had he been asked) in Faryna v. Chorny, [1952] 2 D.L.R. 354 (B.C.C.A.), at para. 10. Refer as well to para. 46 of the judgment of Ryan J. A. in R. v. Sue, 2011 B.C.C.A. 91, to demonstrate the ongoing vitality of this judgment:
46 There are a number of cases which caution judges not to rely too heavily on demeanour in determining credibility. As stated by O'Halloran J.A. in the frequently cited case from this Court, Faryna v. Chorny, [1952] 2 D.L.R. 354 at paras. 10 …:
[10] If a trial Judge's finding of credibility is to depend solely on which person he thinks made the better appearance of sincerity in the witness box, we are left with a purely arbitrary finding and justice would then depend upon the best actors in the witness box. On reflection it becomes almost axiomatic that the appearance of telling the truth is but one of the elements that enter into the credibility of the evidence of a witness. Opportunities for knowledge, powers of observation, judgment and memory, ability to describe clearly what he has seen and heard, as well as other factors, combine to produce what is called credibility, and cf. Raymond v. Bosanquet (1919), 50 D.L.R. 560 at p. 566, 59 S.C.R. 452 at p. 460, 17 O.W.N. 295. A witness by his manner may create a very unfavourable impression of his truthfulness upon the trial Judge, and yet the surrounding circumstances in the case may point decisively to the conclusion that he is actually telling the truth. I am not referring to the comparatively infrequent cases in which a witness is caught in a clumsy lie.
Demeanour – body language observed closely to judge if it “matches” the words spoken
Consider a first example taken from another play, King Henry VI (Part1): “Plantagenet. Meantime your cheeks do counterfeit our roses; For pale they look with fear, as witnessing The truth on our side.” Refer to Act 2, sc. iv, l. 62. In effect, I imagine that you as the investigator are speaking, and that you are stating to the person you are interviewing: “your words and your demeanour are fighting each other as what you say is denied by your pale cheeks and fearful expression. In short, your face shows that you are caught in a lie!”
A further useful example follows of the appearance of the witness as a form of “lie-detector”. Refer again to King Henry VI (Part1), at 2-iv-64:
Somerset.
No, Plantagenet,
'Tis not for fear but anger that thy cheeks
Blush for pure shame to counterfeit our roses,
And yet thy tongue will not confess thy error.
Demeanour – What Shakespeare teaches us in Macbeth
The works of Shakespeare contain multiple examples of the dangers associated with demeanour evidence, a very controversial form of "testimony", and a subject that I have discussed critically in extra-judicial writings. Perhaps the best known of these examples is found in Act I, scene IV, of Macbeth: "Duncan: There's no art To find the mind's construction in the face." The companion reference that is best suited to underscore this point is set down in Act I, scene VII: "Macbeth ... Away, and mock the time with fairest show: False face must hide what the false heart doth know." I note as well how apposite is the passage that follows on the issue whether witnesses may be adept at feigning emotions: "... Let's not consort with them: To show an unfelt sorrow is an office Which the false man does easy." Refer to Act II, scene III of Macbeth.
In essence, Shakespeare teaches us two things:
1) We are not capable of assessing accurately what thoughts a person may be entertaining by means of their facial expression, and
2) A person is capable of assuming a "facial guise" that may well trick and deceive the observer.
In addition, both points are mutually reinforcing in the sense that the capacity that we all enjoy to adopt a "false face" only serves to exacerbate the general inability to discern "the mind's construction". In sum, the thoughts of a third party, a witness for our purposes, may not be judged fully and fairly based on their demeanour.
Demeanour – A brief excerpt from R. v N.S., [2012] 3 SCR 726
I only wish to quote this passage from the majority judgment of McLachlin C.J.C. and Deschamps, Fish and Cromwell JJ.A.:
Changes in a witness's demeanour can be highly instructive; in Police v. Razamjoo, [2005] D.C.R. 408, a New Zealand judge asked to decide whether witnesses could testify wearing burkas commented:
... there are types of situations ... in which the demeanour of a witness undergoes a quite dramatic change in the course of his evidence. The look which says "I hoped not to be asked that question", sometimes even a look of downright hatred at counsel by a witness who obviously senses he is getting trapped, can be expressive. So too can abrupt changes in mode of speaking, facial expression or body language. The witness who moves from expressing himself calmly to an excited gabble; the witness who from speaking clearly with good eye contact becomes hesitant and starts looking at his feet; the witness who at a particular point becomes flustered and sweaty, all provide examples of circumstances which, despite cultural and language barriers, convey, at least in part by his facial expression, a message touching credibility. [para. 78]
Demeanour – Guidance from Bowman A.C.J. of the Tax Court of Canada
The future Chief Justice of the Tax Court observed in Faulkner v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue - M.N.R.), [2006] T.C.J. No. 173:
13 Where questions of credibility are concerned, I think it is important that judges not be too quick on the draw. In 1084767 Ontario Inc. (c.o.b. Celluland) v. Canada, [2002] T.C.J. No. 227 (QL), I said this:
8 The evidence of the two witnesses is diametrically opposed. I reserved judgment because I do not think findings of credibility should be made lightly or, generally speaking, given in oral judgments from the bench. The power and obligation that a trial judge has to assess credibility is one of the heaviest responsibilities that a judge has. It is a responsibility that should be exercised with care and reflection because an adverse finding of credibility implies that someone is lying under oath. It is a power that should not be misused as an excuse for expeditiously getting rid of a case. The responsibility that rests on a trial judge to exercise extreme care in making findings of credibility is particularly onerous when one considers that a finding of credibility is virtually unappealable.
…
14 I continue to be of the view that as judges we owe it to the people who appear before us to be careful about findings of credibility and not be too ready to shoot from the hip. Studies that I have seen indicate that judges are no better than any one else at accurately making findings of credibility. We do not have a corner on the sort of perceptiveness and acuity that makes us better than other people who have been tested such as psychologists, psychiatrists or lay people. Since it is part of our job to make findings of credibility, we should at least approach the task with a measure of humility and recognition of our own fallibility. I know that appellate courts state that they should show deference to findings of fact by trial judges because they have had the opportunity to observe the demeanour of the witness in the box. Well, I have seen some accomplished liars who will look you straight in the eye and come out with the most blatant falsehoods in a confident, forthright and frank way, whereas there are honest witnesses who will avoid eye contact, stammer, hesitate, contradict themselves and end up with their evidence in a complete shambles. Yet some judges seem to believe that they can instantly distinguish truth from falsehood and rap out a judgment from the bench based on credibility. The simple fact of the matter is that judges, faced with conflicting testimony, probably have no better than a 50/50 chance of getting it right and probably less than that when their finding is based on no more than a visceral reaction to a witness. Moreover, it is essential that if an adverse finding of credibility is made the reasons for it be articulated. [Emphasis added]
Demeanour evidence and non-verbal testimony – lessons from the play Demeanour – judge one’s thoughts by reference to the face This example is common in the plays of this time period: Elbow I beseech you, sir, ask him what this man did to my wife.
Pompey I beseech your honour, ask me.
Escalus Well, sir; what did this gentleman to her?
Pompey I beseech you, sir, look in this gentleman’s face. Good Master Froth, look upon his honour; ’tis for a good purpose. Doth your honour mark his face?
Escalus Ay, sir, very well.
Pompey Nay, I beseech you, mark it well.
Escalus Well, I do so.
Pompey Doth your honour see any harm in his face?
Escalus Why, no.
Pompey I’ll be supposed upon a book, his face is the worst thing about him. … [2-i-135] [Emphasis added]
Demeanour – elements - brow as a lie-detectorDuke. More of him anon. There is written in your brow, provost, honesty and constancy: if I read it not truly, my ancient skill beguiles me; but, in the boldness of my cunning, I will lay my self in hazard. … [4-ii-145]
- eyes
Duke. … Methinks I see a quickening in his eye. [5-i-495]
- visage
- LUCIO. … Why, you bald-pated, lying rascal, you must be hooded, must you? Show your knave’s visage, with a pox to you! … [5-i-349]
Interviewing witnesses and suspects – lessons from the play Interviewing – confessions – does it embrace wrongdoing? A confession as to conduct that is not criminal, such as adultery, does not assist the prosecution and ought not to be pursued. As the play Measure for Measure illustrates, the police investigate crimes, not apparent breaches of morality. Thus: FIRST GENT. Do I speak feelingly now?
LUCIO. I think thou dost; and, indeed, with most painful feeling of thy speech: I will, out of thine own confession, learn to begin thy health; but, whilst I live, forget to drink after thee. [1-ii-34]
Interviewing – getting to the point Investigators must be patient when they interview potential witnesses and may not too easily push them towards what they believe to be germane areas, for fear that they invite a witness to overlook important points of interest. That said, when an interview digresses towards the clearly irrelevant, intervention is required. Thus: Pompey Sir, she came in great with child; and longing, saving your honour’s reverence, for stewed prunes; sir, we had but two in the house, which at that very distant time stood, as it were, in a fruit-dish, dish of some three-pence; your honours have seen such dishes; they are not China dishes, but very good dishes,—
Escalus Go to, go to: no matter for the dish, sir.
Pompey No, indeed, sir, not of a pin; you are therein in the right: but to the point. As I say, this Mistress Elbow, being, as I say, with child, and being great-bellied, and longing, as I said, for prunes; and having but two in the dish, as I said, Master Froth here, this very man, having eaten the rest …
…
Escalus Come, you are a tedious fool: to the purpose. What was done to Elbow’s wife, that he hath cause to complain of? Come me to what was done to her. [2-i-85] [Emphasis added]
Subsequently, we read what follows on this subject:Provost Come, sir, leave me your snatches, and yield me a direct answer… [4-i-5]
Interviewing – obtain a detailed account Consider the example that follows: Isabella Justice, O royal Duke! Vail your regard
Upon a wrong’d, I would fain have said, a maid!
O worthy prince, dishonour not your eye
By throwing it on any other object
Till you have heard me in my true complaint,
And given me justice, justice, justice, justice!
Duke Relate your wrongs; in what? by whom? be brief.
Here is Lord Angelo shall give you justice:
Reveal yourself to him. [5-i-20] [Emphasis added]
Interviewing – threats or inducements – undermine validity of admissibility Consider this example that goes to the heart of the issue:Escalus Troth, and your bum is the greatest thing about you; so that, in the beastliest sense, you are Pompey the Great. Pompey, you are partly a bawd, Pompey, howsoever you colour it in being a tapster, are you not? come, tell me true: it shall be the better for you. [2-i-210]
Interviewing – verifying with witness degree of confidence Consider this illustration: LUCIO.. … Art thou sure of this? [1-ii-67]
Judgment in investigations – lessons from the play Judgment – ability to reason fully and fairly after being arrested Investigators do well to weigh the fact that some statements are made by detainees, who are later charged, in the moments after they are arrested and during a period when they may not be thinking as logically as would be the case after full access to counsel and a time to assess their situation. In this light, I note this quote: “LUCIO.. If I could speak so wisely under an arrest, I would send for certain of my creditors …” [1-ii-125] Judgment – condemn the sin, not the sinner! The quote that follows draws attention to this vexing question:
Provost [Aside] Heaven give thee moving graces!
ANGELO. Condemn the fault, and not the actor of it?
Why, every fault’s condemn’d ere it be done:
Mine were the very cipher of a function,
To fine the faults whose fine stands in record,
And let go by the actor. [2-ii-37
Later on, Shakespeare offers this thought:
ANGELO. From thee,—even from thy virtue!
What’s this, what’s this? Is this her fault or mine?
The tempter or the tempted, who sins most? … [2-ii-153]
Judgment – deliberation – decisions are only reached after great This common sense requirement is discussed in this passage: “DUKE. … We have with a leaven’d and prepared choice …” [1-i-52] Judgment – early decisions might betray inexperience but not a bent for being noted by the public Every office holder is subject to having their first decisions criticized by reason of inexperience. That is a sound basis for criticism. But one ought never to take early decisions (or ever) in order to gain a reputation for decisiveness, or strictness, or any reason other than the dictates of the law, justice, truth and logic commended the conclusion reached. In this context, note this passage: CLAUDIO.
… And the new Deputy now for the Duke,—
Whether it be the fault and glimpse of newness,
Or whether that the body public be
A horse whereon the governor doth ride,
Who, newly in the seat, that it may know
He can command, lets it straight feel the spur;
… ’tis surely for a name (in the sense of earning a reputation)
… [1-ii-150] [Emphasis added]
Judgment – enforcing long-ignored laws and regulations Measure for Measure provides insight on the question of how an investigator is to enforce laws and regulations that have not been applied or enforced for at least a decade. It is beyond the scope of this paper to address the issue save to indicate that this situation may bring about Charter-based controversies. Certainly, if the enforcement is brought about by a desire to win political favour, as in the case of arresting only teenagers for breaching trespass notices not enforced for years, or to harm certain groups in the community, than these grievances will surely result in Motions pursuant to the Charter for stays of prosecution. In this vein, note the following: CLAUDIO.
… but this new governor
Awakes me all the enrolled penalties
Which have, like unscour’d armour, hung by the wall
So long, that nineteen zodiacs have gone round,
And none of them been worn; and, for a name,
Now puts the drowsy and neglected act
Freshly on me: ’tis surely for a name. [1-ii-158]
[Emphasis added]
Noteworthy on the subject of “dormant laws”, so to speak, is the image found at 1-iv-63, of “mice by lions”, in the sense that these small creatures fear not any predators, as might criminals if they think the police are indifferent to their actions.
Judgment – equality in approaching all witnesses, great or modest Measure for Measure contains a number of lessons for investigators pointing out forcefully how each potential witness must be viewed as worethy of belief and that no less value is to be assigned in advance to a person because of their status or station in our society. For example: Isabella O gracious Duke,
Harp not on that; nor do not banish reason
For inequality; but let your reason serve
To make the truth appear where it seems hid,
And hide the false seems true. [5-i-63]
Judgment – errors may be easily committed Investigators must understand that the best, most reliable and most honest of individuals, can easily commit errors, because of nerves, lack of sleep, inattention, and so forth. Of course, as illustrated in the example that follows, errors might arise out of a desire to obtain an advantage not warranted. ANGELO. You seem’d of late to make the law a tyrant;
And rather proved the sliding of your brother
A merriment than a vice.
Isabella O, pardon me, my lord; it oft falls out,
To have what we would have, we speak not what we mean:
I something do excuse the thing I hate,
For his advantage that I dearly love.
ANGELO. We are all frail. [2-iv-117]
Judgment – hearsay – reputation evidence Shakespeare provides a useful, general example as follows: Duke. …Many and hearty thankings to you both.
We have made inquiry of you; and we hear
Such goodness of your justice, that our soul
Cannot but yield you forth to public thanks,
Forerunning more requital. [5-i-4] [Emphasis added]
Judgment – honour which is non-existent cannot be invoked Lord Angelo promises to spare Isabella’s brother from a death sentence if she allows him to violate here and invokes his honourable name to guarantee this promise, leading his victim to doubt how much honour is at stake. Thus:
ANGELO. Believe me, on mine honour,
My words express my purpose.
Isabella Ha! little honour to be much believed …
[2-iv-147]
Judgment – human nature – evil seizes hold of most individuals Consider this rather negative example of this suggested humain rait:LUCIO.. Why, how now, CLAUDIO.io! whence comes this restraint?
CLAUDIO.IO. From too much liberty, my LUCIO., liberty:
As surfeit is the father of much fast,
So every scope by the immoderate use
Turns to restraint. Our natures do pursue,
Like rats that ravin down their proper bane,
A thirsty evil and when we drink we die. [1-ii-118]
[Emphasis added]
Even if this rather negative perspective were true and just, which is denied, police officers must nonetheless treat all with curtesy and respect. Indeed, so many prisoners are individuals awaiting trial who were denied bail, and who are presumed innocent.
Judgment – human nature – luck, may well decide our fate The comments that follow are important as any number of witnesses you interview may well share this view and this might, not invariably of course, influence them to be too lenient or too harsh in rendering their account of what they saw and heard. Thus: ESCALUS. [Aside] Well, heaven forgive him! and forgive us all!
Some rise by sin, and some by virtue fall:
Some run from brakes of ice, and answer none;
And some condemned for a fault alone. [2-i-36]
Judgment – human nature – may include thieves within juries The quote that follows is rather well-known in this regard: ANGELO. … I 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-i-18]
A related passage is found in Act 2, sc. Ii, l. 177:
ANGELO.
… O, let her brother live:
Thieves for their robbery have authority
When judges steal themselves. …
Judgment – human nature – oaths are not respected This passage illustrates this view:LUCIO. I was once before him for getting a wench with child.
Duke. Did you such a thing?
LUCIO. Yes, marry, did I: but I was fain to forswear it; they would else have married me to the rotten medlar. [4-iii-166]
Judgment – human nature – seek out good counsel but not follow it This trait is illustrated by the quote that follows:Pompey. I thank your worship for your good counsel: [Aside] but I shall follow it as the flesh and fortune shall better determine. [2-i-240]
That said, note this observation aimed in the opposite direction: Juliet. I’ll gladly learn. [2-iii-22] Judgment – impatience Investigators must never rush to judgment and must always be patient in hearing out the pleas and statements of those against whom drastic steps are to be takem. Thus:Escalus That fellow is a fellow of much license: let him be called before us. Away with her to prison! Go to; no more words. [3-ii-183] [Emphasis added]
Consider also what follows: Isabella. Nay, but it is not so.Duke. It is no other: show your wisdom, daughter,In your close patience. [4-iii-115]
Judgment - justice – investigators seek to uphold common justice and the law Although the nuances as between each concept is subtle at times, they exist, and all police officers must be mindful that justice embraces not only all that the legal system dictates as being fundamental requirements but, no less of signal importance, the requirements of respect, empathy and inclusion as forming part of justice. For example, if it is not set out in a Code of Procedure for police officers that they say “Sir” or “Monsieur” to a male detainee, and offer a chair when available, they ought nonetheless to act in this fashion. I quote in this regard: DUKE. … The nature of our people,
Our city’s institutions, and the terms
For common justice, y’are as pregnant in
As art and practice hath enriched any
That we remember. [1-i-10]
Later, we come across these two relevant observation: DUKE. … Morality and mercy in ViennaLive in thy tongue and heart … [1-i-45]
DUKE. … your scope is as mine own,
So to enforce or qualify the laws
As to your soul seems good. … [1-i-65]
That said, an excellent example of how not to behave is found in the passage that follows: CLAUDIO. Fellow, why dost thou show me thus to the world?
Bear me to prison, where I am committed. [1-ii-107]
In effect, he is to be brought to jail by direct means, not be the subject of a form of “perp walk”, to track today’s vocabulary. The officer defends his actions by invoking the Chief Magistrate’s declaration.
Judgment – law, not police investigators, condemn conduct Investigators must always be mindful that they are the sworn instruments of justice, as framed by our system of laws, and that they are not responsible for the secondary harm visited upon the family of those arrested, prosecuted and, if such be the case, convicted. In this vein, note these quotes:
ANGELO. Your brother is a forfeit of the law,
And you but waste your words.
Isabelle Alas, alas! [2-ii-71]
ANGELO. Be you content, fair maid;
It is the law, not I condemn your brother:
Were he my kinsman, brother, or my son,
It should be thus with him: he must die to-morrow.
… [2-ii-79]
Judgment – logic of one pursuing criminals guilty of same conduct In the passage that follows, the Duke questions why Angelo would pursue with such devotion those guilty of the same conduct he is accused of engaging in, knowing it would expose him to investigation. And yet, human experience teaches us that this is a common feature of conduct within our society. Duke. By heaven, fond wretch, thou know’st not what thou speak’st,
Or else thou art suborn’d against his honour
In hateful practice. First, his integrity
Stands without blemish. Next, it imports no reason
That with such vehemency he should pursue
Faults proper to himself: if he had so offended,
He would have weigh’d thy brother by himself,
And not have cut him off. Some one hath set you on:
Confess the truth, and say by whose advice
Thou camest here to complain. [5-i-103]
Judgment – mentally ill individuals may provide cogent evidence Understanding fully that Isabella is not mentally ill, it is nonetheless useful to quote what follows:
Duke By mine honesty,
If she be mad,—as I believe no other,—
Her madness hath the oddest frame of sense,
Such a dependency of thing on thing,
As e’er I heard in madness.[5-i-60]
Judgment – powerful persons who are corrupt “bank” on their power The passage that follows illustrates well how powerful individuals react when their attempts to coerce sexual acts are met with threats of complaints to the police: Isabella … I will proclaim thee, Angelo; look for’t:Sign me a present pardon for my brother,
Or with an outstretch’d throa I’ll tell the world aloud
What man thou art.
Angelo Who will believe thee, Isabella?
My unsoil’d name, the austereness of my life,
My vouch against you, and my place i’ the state,
Will so your accusation overweigh,
That you shall stifle in your own report,
And smell of calumny. I have begun;
And now I give my sensual race the rein:
Fit thy consent to my sharp appetite;
Lay by all nicety and prolixious blushes,
That banish what they sue for; redeem thy brother
By yielding up thy body to my will;
Or else he must not only die the death,
But thy unkindness shall his death draw out
To lingering sufferance. … [2-iv-150] [Emphasis added]
A few lines later, at 168, Angelo adds: “Say what you can, my false o’erweighs your true.” Later still, we read: Isabella O prince, I conjure thee as thou believestThere is another comfort than this world,
That thou neglect me not, with that opinion
That I am touch’d with madness! Make not impossible
That which but seems unlike: ’tis not impossible
But one, the wicked’st caitiff on the ground,
May seem as shy, as grave, as just, as absolute,
As Angelo; even so may Angelo,
In all his dressings, characts, titles, forms,
Be an arch-villain; believe it royal prince:
If he be less, he’s nothing; but he’s more,
Had I more name for badness. [5-i-48] [Emphasis added]
Judgment – prejudging case – example of doing so Shakespeare provides a wonderful example of a magistrate – supervising police officer in fact, but not in title – stating that the investigation must result in not only a prosecution but a stern punishment. This kind of bias is intolerable and will doom the prosecution to a Charter-based stay pf proceedings and to potential criminal charges against the officers involved, and surely to professional standards based prosecutions. Thus:
ANGELO. This will last out a night in Russia,
When nights are longest there: I’ll take my leave,
And leave you to the hearing of the cause;
Hoping you’ll find good cause to whip them all. [2-i-138]
[Emphasis added]
Judgment – public trials It is an axiom of our justice system that trials are conducted publicly. Thus, the quote that follows is not worthy of consideration: LUCIO. Marry, sir, I think, if you handled her privately,
She would sooner confess: perchance, publicly, she’ll be ashamed.
Escalus I will go darkly to work with her. [5-i-273]
Judgment – reasons for reaching erroneous conclusion Consider what follows:Duke. Either this is envy in you, folly, or mistaking: the very stream of his life and the business he hath helmed must, upon a warranted need, give him a better proclamation. Let him be but testimonied in his own bringings-forth, and he shall appear, to the envious, a scholar, a statesman and a soldier. Therefore you speak unskilfully; or if your knowledge be more, it is much darkened in your malice. [3-ii-131]
Judgment – reliability of person whom the police officer detests A scene in Measure for Measure illustrates the situation of a police officer detesting his wife whilst vouching for her liability as a witness. Thus:Elbow He, sir! a tapster, sir; parcel-bawd; one that serves a bad woman; whose house, sir, was, as they say, plucked down in the suburbs; and now she professes a hot-house, which, I think, is a very ill house too.
Escalus How know you that?
Elbow My wife, sir, whom I detest before heaven and your honour,—
Escalus How? thy wife?
Elbow Ay, sir;—whom, I thank heaven, is an honest woman … [2-i-63]
Judgment – reputation – promises An investigator is allowed to weigh a person’s reputation for keeping of one’s word. In this vein, consider this example: “LUCIO. Believe me, this may be: he promised to meet me two hours since, and he was ever precise in promise-keeping.” [1-ii-71]
Judgment – strange accounts might nonetheless be true and reliable
Shakespeare provides this excellent example:
Angelo My lord, her wits, I fear me, are not firm:
She hath been a suitor to me for her brother
Cut off by course of justice,—
Isabella By course of justice!
Angelo And she will speak most bitterly and strange.
Isabella Most strange, but yet most truly, will I speak:
That Angelo’s forsworn; is it not strange?
That Angelo’s a murderer; is’t not strange?
That Angelo is an adulterous thief
An hypocrite, a virgin-violator;
Is it not strange and strange?
Duke Nay, it is ten times strange.
Isabella It is not truer he is Angelo
Than this is all as true as it is strange:
Nay, it is ten times true; for truth is truth
To th’ end of reckoning. [5-i-31] [Emphasis added]
Judgment – strict view of human failings
Noteworthy is the perspective put forward by Lord Angelo on this subject:
ANGELO. ’Tis one thing to be tempted, Escalus,
Another thing to fall. … [2-i-17]
Judgment – “tempered” always
This is what Shakespeare teaches us:
Escalus I am sorry, one so learned and so wise
As you, Lord Angelo, have still appear’d,
Should slip so grossly, both in the heat of blood,
And lack of temper’d judgment afterward. [5-i-468]
Judgment – we judge ourselves poorly
Measure for Measure demonstrates ably and amply how Lord Angelo fails to realizes how much he sins in his heart and otherwise, as he is devoted to crushing the same behaviour in others. In this vein, I quote the Duke: “… Lord Angelo. is precise; Stands at a guard with envy; scarce confesses That his blood flows, or that his appetite Is more to bread than stone …” [1-iii-50] Indeed, all of us who discharge great public duties involving judging others must be mindful that we are subject to frail judgment.
Judgment – weigh the degree of lawlessness in deciding whether to charge
A judgment as to the public interest in a prosecution must, of necessity, include some regard to the degree that offending conduct in general, and in terms of the precise offence in question. Consider this quote in this context:
DUKE. … The baby beats the nurse, and quite athwart
Goes all decorum. [1-iii-30]
… When evil deeds have their permissive pass … [1-iii-38]
Judgment – wrong step does not mean admission of guilt An example is seen in the example that follows:FIRST GENT.I think I have done myself wrong, have I not?
SECOND GENT. Yes, that thou hast, whether thou art tainted or free. [1-ii-39]
Professionalism in investigations – lessons from the play Professionalism – bribe, example of offering to pervert investigation Measure for Measure is well-known for Act 2, scene iv, l. 87 and following in which the Chief Magistrate and law defender offers to spare the life of a woman’s brother if she allows him to violate her. Thus: ANGELO. Admit no other way to save his life,—
As I subscribe not that, nor any other,
But in the loss of question,—that you, his sister,
Finding yourself desired of such a person,
Whose credit with the judge, or own great place,
Could fetch your brother from the manacles
Of the all-building law; and that there were
No earthly mean to save him, but that either
You must lay down the treasures of your body
To this supposed, or else to let him suffer;
What would you do? [Emphasis added]
Professionalism – common sense most important and not so common This self-evident statement requires no authority. Nonetheless, note this quote:
LUCIO. … Lord Angelo; a man whose blood
Is very snow-broth; one who never feels
The wanton stings and motions of the sense,
But doth rebate and blunt his natural edge
With profits of the mind, study and fast. … [1-iv-57]
If one does not sense what others do, one lacks common sense, and might not be able
to judge the emotions that seize others during, for example, a time of grief.
Professionalism – conflicts of interest are to be avoided Consider this useful passage about not judging your own cause:
Duke. Good friar, let’s hear it.
Isabella is carried off guarded; and Mariana comes forward.
Do you not smile at this, Lord Angelo?—
O heaven, the vanity of wretched fools!—
Give us some seats. Come, cousin Angelo;
In this I’ll be impartial; be you judge
Of your own cause. … [5-i-160]
Professionalism – cross-examination – beware of counsel who quotes to you part of your prior response Lawyers who cross-examine you will sometimes put to you only part of your response. When the prosecution raises an objection to this “sharp practice”, defence might answer that they wish to see if the police officer had been exaggerating. Thus:Escalus Come hither to me, Master Elbow; come hither, Master constable. How long have you been in this place of constable?
Elbow Seven year and a half, sir.
Escalus I thought, by your readiness in the office, you had continued in it some time. You say, seven years together?
Elbow And a half, sir. [2-i-242]
Professionalism – deterrence theory Investigators must understand the theory according to which the punishment visited upon others will influence certain persons to avoid imitating the conduct in question, to avoid the punishment that was meted out. For example:
Isabella … Good, good my lord, bethink you;
Who is it that hath died for this offence?
There’s many have committed it.
Lucio. [Aside to Isab.] Ay, well said.
ANGELO. 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 answer’d for his deed: now ’tis awake,
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 hatch’d and born …
[2-ii-85]
Professionalism – doubts are traitors
Lucio proclaims what follows when a young novice nun declares that she is powerless to assist her bother when informed of the latter’s arrest: “Our doubts are traitors, And make us lose the good we oft might win By fearing to attempt …” [1-iv-77]
Professionalism “Great men (and women) may jest with saints! That is what Isabella proclaims in Measure for Measure, at Act 2, scene ii, l. 127: Isabella … Great men may jest with saints; ’tis wit in them.
But in the less foul profanation.
Professionalism – instruction, capacity to receive and apply Successful police officers, and more so in the case of investigators who are tasked to inquire into complex subject matters including scientific evidence, are those who are able (and desirous) to receive and apply advanced instruction and guidance. In this context, note that the passage that follows acknowledges the professionalism of the mentor or superior officer who is able to judge that their knowledge and experience is surpassed by another to whom greater challenges ought to be bestowed: DUKE. … Since I am put to know that your own science
Exceeds, in that, the lists of all advice
My strength can give you: then no more remains,
But that to your sufficiency - as your worth is able –
And let them work. The nature of our people,
Our city’s institutions, and the terms
For common justice, y’are as pregnant in
As art and practice hath enriched any
That we remember. There is our commission,
From which we would not have you warp. … [1-i-3]
[Emphasis added]
Professionalism – investigate until are successful in finding proof The passage that follows demonstrates the wisdom of not being precipitate in anyc investigation, knowing that haste is never a wise course of action. Thus: Elbow Marry, I thank your good worship for it. What is’t your worship’s pleasure I shall do with this wicked caitiff?
Escalus Truly, officer, because he hath some offences in him that thou wouldst discover if thou couldst, let him continue in his courses till thou knowest what they are. [2-i-174]
Professionalism – matter and method Both matter and method seem indispensable to achieve professional success. In this context, note the quote that follows: LUCIO … What reply, ha? What sayest thou to this tune, matter and method … [3-ii-45]
Professionalism – pride, to be avoided unless limited to work spheres In general terms, an investigator takes pride in their willingness to work, their desire to promote justice, and other related areas. One does not take pride in things that do not promote justice, such as one’s looks, one’s bank account or social standing. In this light, consider this “admission”: Angelo … The state, whereon I studied,
Is like a good thing, being often read,
Grown fear’d and tedious; yea, my gravity,
Wherein—let no man hear me—I take pride,
Could I with boot change for an idle plume …
[2-iv-8]
Professionalism – profit, does your course of investigation lead to The quote that follows illustrates that investigators ought not to waste their time or to undertake any action that does not tend to repress crime. Hence: “Duke. This nor hurts him nor profits you a jot …” [4-iii-120] Professionalism – promotions, taking time and effort to ensure ideal choice Although this subject is not directly related to investigations as such, the selection of investigators to assume supervisory and other important posts affects the quality of the investigations. Superior persons lead to superior work, all other things being equal. In this vein, note the following passage:
DUKE. - … For you must know, we have with special soul
Elected him our absence to supply;
Lent him our terror, dress’d him with our love,
And given his deputation all the organs
Of our own power: what think you of it?
ESCAL. If any in Vienna be of worth
To undergo such ample grace and honour,
It is Lord Angelo. [1-i-18] [Emphasis added]
Professionalism – publicity, beware of becoming fond of This well-grounded fear has lead certain investigators to their downfall in that it appeared that they put publicity ahead of purpose, which is to keep communities safe. In this vein, I quote the passage below: DUKE. … I love the people,
But do not like to stage me to their eyes:
Though it do well, I do not relish well
Their loud applause and Aves vehement;
Nor do I think the man of safe discretion
That does affect it. … [1-i-67] [Emphasis added]
Professionalism – respect for all of the laws Investigators and all police officers, for that matter, must abstain from any criticism of the Laws of Canada and the judgments of the Courts and of agencies such as parole boards. Those sworn to uphold the laws have pledged to defend all of the laws. In this context, note this interesting exchange: LUCIO.. If the duke, with the other dukes, come not to composition with the King of Hungary, why then all the dukes fall upon the king.
First Gent. Heaven grant us its peace, but not the King of Hungary’s!
Sec. Gent. Amen.
LUCIO.. Thou concludest like the sanctimonious pirate, that went to sea with the Ten Commandments, but scraped one out of the table.
Sec. Gent. ‘Thou shalt not steal’?
LUCIO.. Ay, that he razed.
First Gent. Why, ’twas a commandment to command the captain and all the rest from their functions: they put forth to steal. … [1-ii-1]
Professionalism – saintly respect – some persons conduct themselves An investigator must always be mindful that certain persons you will encounter are religious and not to be guilty of disrespect brought about by ignorance as to conduct or dress or means of address. Thus, you ought to take pains to investigate the correct protocol, and that includes spiritual leaders such as in the case of certain First Nations. In that light, the quote that follows illustrates that certain persons might tell the truth to those they hold as religious figures. LUCIO.
… I hold you as a thing ensky’d and sainted [as a novice sister];
By your renouncement, an immortal spirit;
And to be talk’d with in sincerity,
As with a saint. [1-iv-35]
Professionalism – severity – an example of On occasion, police officers must discuss the degree of severity that they must demonstrate, say in deciding when to caution versus when to charge. Thus: Justice Lord Angelo is severe.
Escalus It is but needful:
Mercy is not itself, that oft looks so;
Pardon is still the nurse of second woe:
But yet,—poor Claudio! There is no remedy.
Come, sir. [2-i-266]
` Professionalism – speech and discourse are so vital Fairly or not, and I tend to believe that it is quite unfair, the work of police officers tends to be judged by their abilities to express themselves whist testifying in Court, a rather trying setting notably by reason of the artificial nature of how questions are asked and answered. How one succeeds in gathering evidence is surely more important than one’s glibness in Court and the ease with which one expresses complex ideas. Be that as it may, the quote that follows is indicative of this situation: DUKE. Of government the properties to unfold,
Would seem in me to affect speech and discourse … [1-i-3]
Professionalism – terror in the application of the law
No one today espouses the view put forward by Lord Angelo to the effect that the administration of justice is only successful if the citizenry accepts to comply with the Law because of the terror that the Law commands. The quote that follows illustrates the now doomed philosophy:
ANGELO. We must not make a scarecrow of the law,
Setting it up to fear the birds of prey,
And let it keep one shape, till custom make it
Their perch, and not their terror. [2-i-1]
Professionalism – time management, quite a talent
In support of this proposition, I quote the following:
Isabella What is your will?
Duke Might you dispense with your leisure, I would by and by have some speech with you: the satisfaction I would require is likewise your own benefit.
Isabella I have no superfluous leisure; my stay must be stolen out of other affairs; but I will attend you awhile… [3-i-154] [Emphasis added]
Professionalism – verify orders, especially quite important ones
Of course, to do may bring about the type of criticism noted herein, but you should ensure that orders bringing about dramatic consequences that cannot be undone be verified, so far as any legitimate concern may be noted. Thus:
ANGELO. Now, what’s the matter, provost?
Provost Is it your will Claudio shall die to-morrow?
ANGELO. Did not I tell thee yea? hadst thou not order?
Why dost thou ask again?
Provost Lest I might be too rash:
Under your good correction, I have seen,
When, after execution, Judgement hath
Repented o’er his doom (doom in the sense of order)
[2-ii-7]
Professionalism – virtue is bold
In this context, consider the following:
Duke. Virtue is bold, and goodness never fearful. … [3-i-205]
Professionalism – vocabulary and all of the problems that flow from the unfair insistence on an investigator’s ability to command language
During forty years in practicing law or sitting in judgment, I have noted the unfairness of insisting that police officers possess great verbal jousting skills when their foremost talent ought to be the ability to amass evidence and to describe what they have discovered, without flair or flourish in speaking. In this context, the quote that follows is valuable in describing an innocent slip of the tongue that might be disastrous:
ELBOW. If it please your honour, I am the poor Duke’s constable, and my name is Elbow: I do lean upon justice, sir, and do bring in here before your good honour two notorious benefactors.
ANGELO. Benefactors? Well; what benefactors are they? are they not malefactors?
ELBOW. If it please your honour, I know not well what they are: but precise villains they are, that I am sure of; and void of all profanation in the world that good Christians ought to have. [2-i-45]