Justice In Herman Melville's Billy Budd

Words: 1151
Pages: 5

Traditionally the use of law by powerful leaders tends to be one of corruption through the manipulation of justice. A famous quote by Lord Acton; “Power corrupts, but absolute power corrupts absolutely”, holds true in Richard Weisberg’s interpretation on the novella by Herman Melville titled Billy Budd, Sailor. Weisberg proposes a different interpretation of the novella where Captain Vere had actually manipulated law and justice in order to ensure the conviction of Billy Budd, even when he did not need to do so. In comparison to reality, the ability to manipulate justice is the nature of most powerful leaders which is likely due to personal desires, therefore leaders fail to carry out justice in the manner that law calls for especially in times …show more content…
Wiesberg points out a few observations to support his claim being that Captain Vere: causes Billy’s execution to happen through his choice of inexperienced people, selecting three people instead of five, and dominates the entire trial as a witness & final summation. This is supported by Vere not being constrained to the law given his position in the case, but uses an appearance of constraint to justify his actions and pardons him from responsibility. In regard to the actions by Vere, the primary factor that gives him the ability to achieve his means are fundamentally the result of the power he holds in the position of Captain. Vere’s title gives him not just the authority to choose the tribunal in Billy’s case, but also his position as the only witness of the actions taken by Billy Budd. The power that Vere possesses is taken advantage of prior, and during the trial in order for him to secure his underlying desire to achieve his own means. Wiesberg critiques the common perception to Billy Budd, Sailor through his observations of Captain Vere, which suggests that the law can be manipulated by leaders in times of crises through the argument of policy; in order for such leaders to achieve their own ambitions due to the power and status they are given. Wiesberg’s critical interpretation creates a different observation pertaining to the nature of leaders in times of crisis that many individuals actually fail to