Raskolnikov Punishment

Raskolnikov’s brusque affectation eventually yields to his predilection for salvation and redemption. He ultimately comes to the realization that he is not worthy of being “extraordinary” because of the crippling guilt that followed his murder of the pawnbroker. Raskolnikov reflects upon the implications of his crime on his psyche, “I murdered myself, not her! I crushed myself once for all,

In order to understand Raskolnikov’s guilt, it is important to understand the religious influences at work in the time period and place he lived in. In St. Petersburg where Raskolnikov lives, there are strong Christian influences from the Eastern Orthodox Church. The Church condemns killing people with few exceptions. Although is not a devout believer, these influences are still at work in the book. It is clear that Raskolnikov is struggling to fight God away because, as he says that “once God’s will gets mixed up in it, nothing will be done” (389). He acknowledges that the guilt he has is God’s doing, and he struggles internally to get rid of it. The idea that he is not able to feel good about the murder that he knows improved society. He states that “what bothers [him] is this permission according to conscience” (253). Even though he wants to establish his own moral code, it is impossible for him to do so because of the influence of religion.

Consider the design of a puppet. When observing this structure, one will give attention to the source of the puppet’s actions being dictated by the puppeteer. These actions are able to be transmitted from the will of the puppeteer into the puppet through the strings that the puppeteer uses to control specific parts of the puppet. Furthermore, one can infer that the strings of the puppet are the motive behind the puppet’s action. If the puppet’s actions are disoriented or even disjointed, one can infer that the strings or the motives behind the puppet’s actions are conflicting. A notable literary example of this depiction can be found in Victor Hugo’s Les Miserablés. Late in Book V: Valjean, Jean Valjean describes the method of reasoning behind Javert’s suicide when he says, “To owe life to a criminal...to betray society in order to remain true...these absurdities should come about and be heaped on top of him...it was this that defeated him” (Hugo 1181). Javert’s adherence to his internal conflict imploded and eventually influenced his suicide; a reader might see Javert’s decision and confirm that an inner conflict of motives prompted his unanticipated action. Fyodor Dostoyevsky, a 19th Century existentialist Russian author, portrays a similar theme in his book Crime and Punishment which tells the story of a man named Raskolnikov, the suspect of a murder case, who appears like a puppet with actions that become increasingly

First, let me introduce you to the main character himself otherwise known as the murderer in this story. Raskolnikov is the main protagonist of the novel, making the story in his point of view. He is very alienated from society due to his

Dostoevsky's 1865 novel Crime and Punishment is the story of an expelled university student's murder of an old pawnbroker and her sister. The idealistic ex-student, Raskolnikov, is ultimately unable to live up to his own nihilistic theory of what makes a "Great Man" and, overcome by fits of morality, betrays himself to the police. Exiled to Siberia, suffering redeems the unfortunate young dreamer. Crime and Punishment is similar in many ways to Balzac's Pere Goriot, especially in respect to questions of morality. In Balzac, the master-criminal Vautrin lives by an amoral code similar to Raskolnikov's theory of Great Men--unrestrained by conscience, Vautrin holds that laws are for the weak, and those clever enough to realize this may

After murdering Alyona and Lizaveta Ivanovna, Raskolnikov is tormented by the vast sense of guilt he feels. His guilt is most notable when it was pointed out by Zossimov who notes that at the mention of the murders alone seems to visibly affect Raskolnikov. He also almost nearly confesses to the crime multiple times, once in Part II: Chapter VI, to a police inspector. He also seems to faint at the mention of the murders, this occurring a multitude of times, once in Part II: Chapter I and again in Part III: Chapter III. Throughout Part II: Chapters I-VI Raskolnikov suffers delirium, weakness, and anxiety. This entire scenario is proving to take a toll on his mental state and physical well being. It also shows that he is not apart of the “superman echelon” mentioned in his article On Crime. It does show how he lacks the mere self control it takes to prevent himself from being caught. He has an ongoing struggle between wanting avoid suspicion and wanting to confess. This internal conflict causes him to act in an unstable manner, sometimes trying to come off as innocent and other

After the gruesome murder in Part 1 of Fyodor Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment, Raskolnikov becomes indecisive in his guilt, ethics, and even daily actions, and through the uncertainty he loses all the control he had in his life. He goes around debating whether he should turn himself in, the people he should tell, and his future actions. In his indecisiveness he begins to feel helpless, and through his friend’s death and his total exhaustion, it seems like he loses only more control. His day culminates, as he arrives home, only to realize he forgot his family’s expected arrival, and becomes inadequately prepared to deal with his family’s caring concern. After having so much power through the murder

Raskolnikov murders an old pawnbroker woman for seemingly no reason at all. His sister and mother move to St. Petersburg following his sister's engagement to a man whom Raskolnikov was extremely displeased. Raskolnikov undergoes severe mental trauma, and falls ill after the

After the murder, his restless conscience tortures him, leading him into madness. Throughout the novel, Dostoevsky describes Raskolnikov as “delirious” and “fanatical,” likening him to a madman. Stemming from his guilt, this condition, remarked upon by his friend Razumihkin, the doctor Zossimov, the inspector Porfiry Petrovich, and others, consumes him and manifests as a physical disease. By portraying him as diseased, Dostoevsky links his murder with corruption – a corruption so great that it infects both his mind and body.

Punishment is defined as “the infliction or imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offense” (“Punishment”). Some prominent theories of punishment include retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, and the moral education theory. Although retribution, deterrence, and rehabilitation are all crucial components of punishment justification, independently the theories have weaknesses that avert the moral rationalization of punishment. I believe that Jean Hampton’s moral education theory is the best justification for punishment because it yields the most sympathetic and prudent reasons for punishment, while simultaneously showing that punishment cannot be justified by solely

Even when Raskolnikov was asleep he received painful messages of others who were suffering, just as he was. In one particular instance, before the double-murder, Raskolnikov is brought back to the poverty he suffered throughout his childhood. He once again feels a great empathy toward the suffered, but this time

As Raskolnikov’s shame takes over him, his mental health gradually deteriorates, despite his previous belief that he held enough intellectual and emotional

Throughout the story we are shown that he is not above the emotions and guilt that are the basic human reactions to an action as extreme as murder. His downfall comes because of this very fact, as he mentally and physically deteriorates under the stress of his culpability. His arrogance is proven to be the unfounded and foolhardy ideas of one who is truly a deeply insecure and unstable person (though Raskolnikov never truly realizes this).

Therefore Amoia notes that, "as the implications of the deed unfold in his conscience, Raskolnikov attempts to jusitfy his actions as a 'rational' crime" (53). Though he understands that he will be able to escape the physical punishement for the crime, he has yet to comprehend the burden that comes with such an unethical action. Even when Porfiry suggests that the criminal who murdered the pawnbroker may run away but, "psychologically he won't escape" (287), Raskolnikov becomes infuriated and accuses Porfiry of trying to scare him. However, Raskolnikov fails to understand the meaning behind Porfiry's words perhaps because he still chooses not to rely on his conscience and confess to the crime.While the superiority complex sets him apart from the society in the beginning, his piercing conscience distances him from people later on in the novel. He refuses to speak to Razumuikhin or to his family. It only before he goes to jail, that he decides to see his mother. Even when he does so, he is relieved that Dunya is not in the room. He later admits to Dunya that he doesn't, "even remember why [I] even went" to meet his mother. His conscience does not allow him to face his loved ones and eventually, he tries to isolate himself from society. While Raskolnikov tries to alienate himself from his own conscience, he is alienating himself from humanity in general.

Theories of why we punish offenders are crucial to the understanding of criminal law; in fact it is not easy to define legal punishment, however one thing is clear within the different theories of punishment is that they all require justification.[1] There are many theories of punishment yet they are predominantly broken down into two main categories. The utilitarian theory seeks to punish offenders to discourage, or “deter,” future wrong doing. The retributive theory seeks to punish offenders because they deserve to be punished due to their behaviour upsetting the balance of society[2].