FREE ESSAY ON CRIME AND PUNISHMENT

CRIME AND PUNISHMENT

Crime and Punishment
A very brief background of Crime and Punishment is in order before I begin my discourse.
The novel was written in the late 1860's. The main characters are lower middle class, on
the brink of poverty, and most show the Russian affection for drink. A young, schooled
Russian idealist named Rodion Raskolnikov has been expelled from university and is broke.
He contemplates committing the perfect crime to alleviate him from his current
downtrodden status. His 'perfect' crime is to rob and murder the local pawnbroker at a
time when he knows she will be alone in the shop. He does not consider his act a crime
for two main reasons. One, the woman he plans to kill is good for nothing anyway, and
does not contribute to society. Two, he will distribute the stolen goods among the needy,
including his mother and sister, and of course himself. He not only kills the pawnbroker,
but also her sister who stumbled upon the attack. He is not caught, and now must struggle
with the guilt of his actions. 
The passage in the textbook is a conversation between Raskolnikov, his university buddy,
Razumikhin, and Porifiry, the investigator assigned to the murder case. Porifiry is
questioning Raskolnikov (Rodya) about an article he wrote and published on crime. Rodya
is now defending his position that humanity is divided into two groups; the ordinary and
the extraordinary. Ordinary people are put on this earth or to reproduce their own kind
and to obey, it is their destiny. Extraordinary people, the thinkers and doers, find it
necessary to destroy what exists (commit crimes) in the pursuit of their ideas that are
for the good of humanity. Every new discovery and new law voids an existing one. But if
it is necessary for one of them, for the fulfillment of his ideas, to march over corpses,
or wade through blood, then in my opinion he may in all conscience authorize himself to
wade through blood-in proportion, however to his idea and the degree of its
importance-mark that. These people stand outside of moral law. This thinking reflects the
Social Darwinism movement of that time.
Rodya reasoned that Newton would have had the right to kill people who stood in his way
of his discoveries. He backed up this thesis by referencing Napoleon and the blood shed
in the wake of his advancement. He further states that this theory goes back to ancient
times. He also cautions there is no need to worry, because most of the extraordinary
people who have this ability do not recognize it. This theory touches upon romanticism,
and the romantic hero.
Porifiry asked Rodya what happens when ordinary people, in thinking, or believing they
are extraordinary commit crimes. Rodya tells him there is nothing to worry about because,
being conservative, law abiding citizens, they will punish their own. And they impose on
themselves various public penances besides-the result is beautifully edifying, and in
short, you have nothing to worry about...This is a law of nature. He said this law of
nature is unknown at the present, it is mysterious. This could be a symbolic way of
saying the Truth has not yet been uncovered. Dostoevsky is leaving the gate open for a
discussion of faith, hinting that human reason may not be adequate, that there is a limit
to human reason. 
In theory, his proposition sounded reasonable. When it was carried out through Rodya, it
failed. This failing was by man's own conscience. Reason standing alone does not always
produce moral or ethically correct solutions. Pure rationality, as practiced by the
realists of the period may not be enough. These morals are not found in the law of
nature, but in a higher external force. 
Bibliography
NOne