Which is worse, starting a mutiny to avoid putting one man to death, or putting one man to death to avoid a mutiny? Everyone agrees that Billy Budd was responsible for the death of the Master-at-Arms, John Claggart, and that severe punishment for this act was necessary to avoid starting a mutiny. However, some people believe that the court should have sentenced Billy to death while others believe the court should not have sentenced Billy to death. The court should have sentenced Billy to death for three reasons. It was entirely necessary that any act of killing be punished, the crew aboard the Bellipotent be controlled, and hostility amidst the crew be avoided. The first reason that the court should have sentenced Billy to death is that any act of killing must be punished. By …show more content…
When killing is seemingly tolerated by authoritative figures, bloodshed will undoubtedly result. Many of the sailors in the Navy in Billy’s time had been forced into service because the Navy was desperate for men. Oftentimes, the men were criminals that served in the Navy rather than serve their sentence in prison. Thus, the crew could not be considered trustworthy or principled. The court feared greatly that if these men were given the opportunity to kill, they would do so swiftly. Because Billy’s actions could be described as anything less than, in Captain Vere’s words, “plain homicide committed in a flagrant act of mutiny”, if this act went unpunished, an outbreak would emerge, sending England into a state of panic. Attempting to stop such an outbreak of men with no regard for law or humanity is like attempting to still a river. The members feared not only for their own lives, but for their brothers-in-arms. One life had already been taken. By executing the killer, the court could protect their own lives, reputations, and well-beings as well as those of their