Serving Justice in the Case of Billy Budd

Kate Mabe, Tricia Smith,

Lizzie Bernold, Andrew Beam,

Amanda Barbee, Emily Schrag,

Casie Gould, Valerie Karnofsky

Mrs. Achenbach

Period 3

            From the case of Billy Budd rise several important questions dealing with the power of the law and the extent to which it should be recognized. Billy Budd has killed a man—a superior officer nonetheless—and this is, by law, punishable by death. But the death of Billy Budd would weigh heavily on our consciences, and we know from sufficient evidence that the intent to kill was not there. The real question that arises is not “is Billy guilty of murder?” but rather “should the law always be so strictly interpreted?” Every legal offense is different, and if a law is to do its job, it should punish according to the offense. The case should not be manipulated to fit the law; rather the law should be made to fit the case.

Laws are made to serve justice and to protect individuals. Each case has unique circumstances, and in order for justice to be served, the laws should be interpreted differently each in each one. Captain Vere has illustrated his realization that this case has special circumstances, stating that “This case is an exceptional one (Melville 59).” Everyone on the Bellipotent knows Billy for his kindness; Billy even has attempted to befriend Claggart.  By sentencing Billy to death, the Drumhead Court would eliminate a kind-spirited and hard-working man from the ship. Billy’s good heart and benevolent nature show that he is not likely to kill another man in the future, and killing him won't protect any individuals.  Since a law is made for serving justice and protecting people, and sentencing Billy to death does neither, then this is not a fair law.

If justice is to be served, a crime as general as murder should not be given just one broad punishment. There are different types of murder. Each one is a different circumstance, a different crime, and therefore not all deserving of the same punishment.  Perhaps some murder deserves the death penalty, but this would be murder that implies a premeditated act, well thought-out and planned before it is committed. This is definitely not the case since Billy himself said he bore no malice towards Claggart. Then there are murders with intention to kill, but these might not be premeditated or planned. Billy did not have an intention to kill—he just wanted to speak his in his own defense. The only way he could speak was to hit Claggart, which killed him only by chance. In Billy’s case, he meant to hit Claggart, but that action unintentionally lead to death. Billy did not strike Claggart in order to injure him. Billy struck Claggart in a response, simply to refute Claggart’s malicious claim. “If I had found my tongue I would not have struck him” said Billy (Melville 55). So, Billy’s action does not fit into either of the first two categories, which might deserve harsh punishment or even death. Rather, it is its own unique case, undeserving of the death penalty. Laws regarding murder should allow for such differences.

Capital punishment, the sentence Billy Budd might face, is also an inhumane way of dealing with convicted murderers. It does not deter crime, nor is it a morally correct option for punishment. Those eligible for the death penalty often do not act out of reason while committing their crime, but instead are driven by pure adrenaline and raw emotion. Billy Budd was not thinking clearly at the time he hit Claggart, therefore he had no time to stop and think that what he was doing might lead to death. Thus, the punishment of death obviously was not serving its purpose. A law should teach those who break it how to become a better citizen. A death sentence gives the convict no chance of redemption, as it is a permanent and irreversible chastisement. If hanged, Billy would never be able to learn from his mistake. Also, because no judicial system is perfect, there is always room for error. To condemn someone to death is to put that person under circumstances that can never be reversed. Whatever happens can never be taken back. This is not an appropriate punishment for anyone if there is doubt about their guilt, as there is in the case of a disabled person such as Billy Budd.

Since the purpose of a law is to serve justice, and to carry out the punishment necessary to fit the crime, its execution should by no means leave a feeling of guilt. If a man is being punished properly for a crime, there should be no doubt in the minds of his prosecutors. A biting conscience at the time of condemnation is a sign that whatever sentence is being given must not fit the crime at hand. Captain Vere and the others present at the time of Billy Budd’s hearing display signs of moral regret at what they feel they have to do. The decision to hang Billy is not come to quickly—Vere takes quite a while to validate his reasoning even to himself. In his long, carefully constructed words, and constant questioning of himself, a struggle is seen between his own “private conscience” and his public duty. He asks an important question here: should the conscience be permitted to interfere with duty? The answer is that it should never have to. Justice and morality go hand in hand. When the conscience denies something, it follows that there must be moral flaw. Were justice being properly served in Billy Budd’s case, the consciences of the Captain and his men would not have interfered so strongly with what they perceived were their duties. Therefore, Billy Budd’s case must be different—it must be an exception, and must be dealt with accordingly. His punishment must be mitigated in order to properly fit the crime and eliminate the guilt of wrongdoing.  

There are many things that make this case unique, and that need to be taken into consideration when devising Billy’s punishment. When considering this case, one must recognize that Billy Budd is crippled. It is true that he is not noticeably mentally or physically handicapped, but he does have a disability. In a situation where any other person would be able to speak up for himself, Billy was unable to. He has a condition that prevents him from verbalizing his thoughts when he feels very strongly about a certain topic or situation, which causes him to stutter. When Claggart accused Billy of conspiring with his fellow sailors, Billy could not verbally defend himself.  So he defended himself in the only way that he could, by striking Claggart across the head, causing his death, and "you don't hang a man for speaking the only way he could."  Because of his inability to protect his honor with words, Billy's use of physical force was somewhat justified.   

In analyzing Billy Budd’s case, it is evident that if anyone should be blamed for Claggart’s death it should be Claggart himself. Claggart instigated the conflict with Billy and pushed Billy over the edge. Claggart was the one who accused Billy of planning mutiny, with the intention of getting Billy in trouble and eventually put to death.  It was because of this provocation that Billy struck him. As said by an officer of the Drumhead court, "He (Billy) was tempted beyond endurance." Claggart is responsible for the actions which caused his death. This situation in which Billy was baited into violence is not unique, but rather very similar to many other events throughout life and literature. An example is the in The Great Gatsby where Tom could be seen as responsible for the death of Jay Gatsby at the hands of George Wilson. It is not necessary for the person who committed the action to be guilty—those who instigated the conflict are instead to blame. Claggart took advantage of Billy’s disabilities, and more or less caused his own death.

Also partially to blame for Claggart’s sudden death is his own physical weakness—his skull was found to be particularly thin. The first person to find out about Claggart’s death is the surgeon. He makes a crucial comment saying that Claggart’s skull was very thin.  In this case Billy cannot be held accountable for Claggart’s death.  Billy was ignorant to the fact that Claggart’s skull was peculiarly thin and therefore unable to withstand the type of assault a normal, healthy, thick skull would have been able to resist. Therefore Billy should not be found guilty due to Claggart’s poor physical condition. This is yet another aspect which makes this case unique, and causes the prescribed punishment not to fit it.

“I bore no malice against the master at arms….If I had found my tongue I would not struck him…I had to say something…I could only say it with a blow…God help me,” (Melville 64). These were Billy’s words after being accused of Claggart’s murder. Billy Budd had no motive behind killing Claggart, although he did commit a crime.  Billy was only trying to communicate in the only way he could, he did not mean to kill. Sometimes, humanity has to be put before the law, especially since men form these laws themselves. Since the case being argued is whether or not Billy should have been put to death, he does not deserve to die for something that he had no intention of doing. His punishment should be mitigated to account for this fact.

Because every case is unique, and laws are made to properly serve justice leaving those responsible with clear consciences, they should not be made so strict that they do not allow for manipulation and mitigation depending on the situation at hand. Billy Budd’s case is unique for many reasons—his own disability, Claggart’s interrogation, Claggart’s own thick skull, and Billy’s lack of malicious intent. Therefore, in order for Billy to be punished rightfully and for law to serve its intended purpose, Billy’s punishment must not be death.