Crime And Punishment Analysis

In Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment, Dostoevsky challenges the concept of crime. Through Raskolnikov’s ability to rationalize murder and evil, Dostoevsky challenges the concept of what a crime is. By depicting Raskolnikov in a way that he rationalizes his acts, it can be understood that the concept of crime is dependent on the situation and the outcome. With this, one can question whether crime will remain as a crime even if it results in the benefit of the majority of the population. In this paper, I will be arguing the concept of what crime is through the situations and the outcomes shown in Crime and Punishment, with the help of true to life crimes.

Crime is an integral part of Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment. Crime by definition is “an

Raskolnikov’s crime results in the death of Alyona Ivanovna and Lizaveta Ivanovna – one of which Raskolnikov did not mean to cause. Raskolnikov rationalizes that with the death of Alyona Ivanovna; he may take the money and help “to bring to pass my neighbour’s getting a little more than a torn coat” (151) – implying that he had the intention of using the money for something good. Along with the improvement of people’s lives, Raskolnikov rationalized that with the money he will take, he can help out his family and in turn secure himself a good life. Though his justification can be seen as admirable, the outcomes were not. Instead of his actions leading to some good, his actions only resulted in death and his justification allows him to clear his guilt and calm his morality. Raskolnikov’s reasoning allowed for him to justify his crime as long as the outcomes would lead to something good – which it did not. His anxiousness from killing Alyona and Lizaveta led him to stash the valuables he stole under a rock and not use it. Hence, his justification no longer allowed him to calm his morality, which later causes his health to diminish after committing the crime. Raskolnikov’s reasoning can also be applied to the real world. Hypothetically, if a plane was to be hijacked and was to be used as a weapon to attack an area with a high population density, an individual is given two options: let the perpetrators use the plane or kill the perpetrators. Assuming that the perpetrators are much stronger and bigger than the individual – such that it would be impossible for the individual to incapacitate the perpetrators, killing the attackers would be labeled as a heroic act. This thought process is actually similar to a dilemma that stems from utilitarianism called the Trolley Dilemma. The Trolley Dilemma is a situation where an individual is faced a problem and has to choose between