Motives For Raskolnikov's Crimes

Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s Crime and Punishment is a deep dive into the psyche of a young man named Raskolnikov, who is...well, who really is Raskolnikov? Through the method of unreliable narration Dostoyevsky employs, it is difficult to pinpoint just who Raskolnikov is, why he does what he does, and what the reader misses when he lapses into what is considered to be bits of fever and madness. In this paper I will attempt to unravel the ‘why’ of the murders Raskolnikov commits. I endeavour to prove that it is clear Raskolnikov kills Lizaveta and Alyona because of his need and desire for suffering in repentance for his perceived sins against his family and himself. This is not to say, however, that he may have thought of this as his motive; as he

One may argue that Raskolnikov’s motive for the murders are due to him being a Napoleon figure, which he wrote about in a journal article and made reference to to Sonya (Dostoyevsky 389), where he feels he must test himself to see if he really is exceptional. However, after telling Sonya this, he quickly retracts his statement, saying it was “all rubbish; little more than empty talk!” (390). This confession and then retraction continues for the entirety of their conversation. He first tries to blame his actions on greed, becoming irritated when Sonya won’t believe it is that simple (386). Then, he tries to argue that it was because he was hungry, and yet he “wasn’t that hungry” (386), and he “really did want to help [his] mother but...that’s not quite it either” (386). He argues back his point when he says “if I’d killed them just because I was hungry ... then I’d be ... happy now!” (388). With such indecisiveness, can the reader trust any motive Raskolnikov provides? It does not seem like his motive was as clear-cut and simple as pure evil or attempting to be a Napoleon figure or getting rid of scum (390). He does not seem to know himself, or at the very least never divulges the true meaning within the book. But there are pieces of each motive that are similar to one another, that are enough to begin to form an idea of what Raskolnikov believes he could gain and lose from

After the murders, he becomes disgusted with society, “towards everything that surrounded him” (104). The murders were a catalyst for him to isolate himself, to suffer. Before the murders, he had “shunned society” (10), withering away as he neglected his studies. He “quite possibly” believes himself to be extraordinary (246), that he holds ideas that no one else does. For this does he already cast aside society. In his fits of madness he wants to be left alone, left to his own devices. That is not a sign of a man who feels compelled to become better, to repent for his sins. Indeed, he does question back and forth whether to tell the police, but that is not repenting for it. He plays with the idea because it would either further or end his suffering, and yet every time he nearly confesses to the police, he backs off, implying and then denying any involvement to Porfiry (247). He could easily confess, could easily repent his sins of murder, and yet he does not. This is because he does not feel like he needs to repent for the murders, that he is tormenting himself because of something else, that he is suffering for some other unrepented sin by not confessing. The unrepented sin is that of his guilt for making his family suffer due to his own actions. However, he knows he could have stayed in school, saying that “Mother would have sent me enough for my fees ... But I didn’t want to – out of spite” (391). This spite was