Billy Budd: Guilt Despite Innocence?

In Harman Melville’s Billy Budd the titular character is repeatedly displayed and characterized as a well meaning, innocent character. Everyone seems to feel the seeming good energy that radiates from him, and he is admired by seemingly everyone. These traits make the fact that he is tried martially for the killing of Claggart, something he did not intend to do with his sudden and accidental striking of the man, more difficult for the reader as this truly was a case of accidental killing, now known as manslaughter. Billy was not fighting Claggart or plotting to murder him, he simply did it by accident, but due to the weighty nature of striking the Master-at-Arms he is tried nonetheless and eventually sentenced to death because the action threatened morale and would be punishable even without having been fatal.

This raises the greater question of intent and innocence in the judicial system. If someone doesn’t mean to do a crime and it happens out of some accident, are they responsible wholly for what was done? In this case Billy Budd killed a man with an accidental strike, and for it he was tried fully and punished fully. In our court of law we differentiate between murder and manslaughter, but in this martial instance it is treated as one and the same. In fact, the strike itself is what is criticized. But the idea behind not striking a superior officer likely stems from the ideas of respect for a superior as well as the idea that people, especially those who work together, should not come to physical struggle. But Billy never meant any disrespect, and the physical aspect was wholly by accident. So the two ideas behind the rule do not apply to what actually occurred. Yes, he should be punished for manslaughter like anyone else, but care and consideration to the circumstance ought to have been granted in my opinion because of the fact that this all was a mistake. If Billy had gone to strike Claggart on purpose and by accident killed him the punishment of death may seem fairer, but in this instance the punishment appears too harsh for the crime.

Think for example if someone were to trespass on someone else’s property without knowing. They had passed the warning sign without notice, and technically were then informed of the trespassing. Are they to be as harshly punished as someone who just bypasses the warning sign on purpose? Is there a way of really capturing someone’s intent, their innocence or lack thereof, or other such things in cases where subjectivity can come into play? There is a lot of nuance to the legal system, and it stands to reason that the cases within it should be given ample consideration because of that very nuance.

• ← “Benign” Racism in Benito Cereno
• Villainy as a Compliment? →