Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
crime and punishment characters by dostoyevsky
crime and punishment characters by dostoyevsky
dostoevsky crime and punishment analysis
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: crime and punishment characters by dostoyevsky
What is the ideal purpose of punishing criminals, how do we know when punishment has been adequately served, what would be an appropriate, morally justifiable punishment for Raskolnikov, and why?
Elbert Hubbard said, "We are punished by our sins, not for them." Prince Machiavelli created the Machiavellian code where he stated the "Eye for an eye" principle. What is the purpose of punishment? Why does human kind feel it necessary to punish wrong-doers? Hubbard believed that punishment is not necessary in order to reform criminals, yet Machiavelli believed in bringing to justice all who broke the law. The purpose of punishment is to reform the ways of criminals, and the punishment is adequately served when the criminal is truly reformed.
A wrong-doer must be brought to justice. This statement is the founding belief of every legal system ever created, but does justice necessarily mean punishment? Justice is fairness in the way people are treated. Punishment is the penalty for doing something wrong. Using these definitions of the words justice and punishment, then Machiavelli's model of an eye for an eye seems to make sense. In order to justify a murder then you have to take the murderers life. In order to bring justice to someone who stole one hundred dollars you must take one hundred dollars from the lawbreaker. The purpose of punishment is to justify the delinquent's crimes. This brings about a very contradictory thought in human psychology. As little children we are taught that two wrong do not make a right, yet in our society, punishment goes against this fundamental rule. The question of bringing justice to a criminal through Machiavellian punishment needs to be reviewed because of this paradox that arises in human thought. Hubbard disagreed with Machiavelli and said that, "We are punished by our sins, not for them." Guilt of the sins committed punishes the criminal. Depending on how heinous the crime was a different level of guilt will be forced on the crook. If he steals a candy bar he will feel slight remorse, but probably not enough to keep him from doing it again. If murder was committed, like in the case of Raskolnikov, then the guilt is so great that it drives the man insane. The American legal system utilizes both these ideas. When a man steals a candy bar and is caught he is forced to repay the store owner for everything he stole.
As Rodya analyzes Luzhin’s character, he realizes that intellect unrestrained by moral purpose is dangerous due to the fact that many shrewd people can look right through that false façade. Luzhin’s false façade of intellect does not fool Rodya or Razumikhin, and although they try to convince Dunya into not marrying Luzhin, she does not listen. Rodya believes that Luzhin’s “moral purpose” is to “marry an honest girl…who has experienced hardship” (36). The only way he is able to get Dunya to agree to marry him, is by acting as if he is a very intellectual person, who is actually not as educated as he says he is. This illustrates the fact that Rodya knows that it is really dangerous because he knows that people can ruin their lives by acting to be someone they are not. Rodya also knows that people will isolate themselves from others just so that no one will find out their true personality. This is illustrated in through the fact that Luzhin tries to avoid Dunya and her mother as much as possible. The way he writes his letter, exemplifies his isolation, for Luzhin does not know how to interact with society. He has no idea how to write letters to his fiancée and his future mother in law. This reflects on Rodya’s second dream because he is unable to get Dunya married off to a nice person. He feels isolated from everyone else because his intellect caused him to sense that Luzhin is not telling the truth about his personality. However, it was due to his lack of moral purpose that Rodya berates his sister’s fiancé. He is unable to control himself, and due to his immoral act of getting drunk, Rodya loses all judgment and therefore goes and belittles Luzhin. Although Rodya’s intellectual mind had taken over and showed him that Luzhin wa...
Life is a wheel rolling inexorably forward through the temporal realm of existence. There are those that succumb to its motion and there are a certain few, like Christ and Napoleon, who temporarily grasp the wheel and shape all life around them. "Normal" people accept their positions in life and are bound by law and morality. Extraordinary people, on the other hand, supersede the law and forge the direction and progress of society. Crime and Punishment, by Fyodor Dostoevsky, is the story of a group of people caught beneath the wheel and their different reactions to their predicament. One individual, Raskolnikov, refuses to acknowledge the bare fact of his mediocrity. In order to prove that he is extraordinary, he kills two innocent people. This despicable action does not bring him glory or prove his superiority, but leads to both his physical, mental, and spiritual destruction. After much inner turmoil and suffering, he discovers that when a person transgresses the boundaries of morality and detaches himself from the rest of humanity, faith in God and faith in others is the only path to redemption.
In Crime and Punishment, Dostoevsky gives the reader an inside look to the value system that he holds for himself, as well as the type of characteristics that he abhors in people as well as the characteristics that he admires in people. He uses characters in the novel to express his beliefs of what a person should be like in life to be a “good'; person. Specifically he uses Raskolnokv to show both good and bad characteristics that he likes in people. Also he uses Svidriglaiov and Luzin to demonstrate the characteristics that people should shun and his personal dislikes in people.
Fyodor Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment begins with Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov living in poverty and isolation in St. Petersburg. The reader soon learns that he was, until somewhat recently, a successful student at the local university. His character at that point was not uncommon. However, the environment of the grim and individualistic city eventually encourages Raskolnikov’s undeveloped detachment and sense of superiority to its current state of desperation. This state is worsening when Raskolnikov visits an old pawnbroker to sell a watch. During the visit, the reader slowly realizes that Raskolnikov plans to murder the woman with his superiority as a justification. After the Raskolnikov commits the murder, the novel deeply explores his psychology, yet it also touches on countless other topics including nihilism, the idea of a “superman,” and the value of human life. In this way, the greatness of Crime and Punishment comes not just from its examination of the main topic of the psychology of isolation and murder, but the variety topics which naturally arise in the discussion.
The main character in Crime and Punishment, Raskolnikov, has nihilistic ideas, which ultimately lead to his own suffering. Raskolnikov, an impoverished student, conceives of himself as being an extraordinary man who has the right to commit any crime. He believes that as an extraordinary man that he is beyond good and evil. Since he does not believe in God, he cannot accept any moral laws. To prove his theory, he murders an old pawnbroker and her step sister. Besides, he rationalizes that he has done society a favor by getting rid of the evil pawnbroker who would cheat people. Immediately after the murders, he begins to suffer emotionally. Raskolnikiv “[feels] a terrible disorder within himself. He [is] afraid of losing his control…” (Dostoevsky 95). He becomes ill and lies in his room in a semi-conscious state. As soon as he is well and can walk again, he goes out and reads about the crime in all the newspapers of the last few days. The sheer mention of the murder...
The first thing to address while discussing the author’s purpose is to examine the motivation of the main character, Raskolnikov. In Crime and Punishment, Raskolnikov becomes an ubermensch, and part of this is that he does not take into account society’s moral values and in turn attempts to use utilitarianism to justify his actions. He thinks that the pawnbroker he plans to kill is harming society, so he thinks he is actually morally obligated to kill her and improve the lives of others in society. He is able to justify his actions, even to the point when he though “what he planned to do was ‘not a crime’” (69). Although the pawnbroker might not have actually been in the wrong, Raskolnikov at the time thought he was performing a service to society. Despite this, he feels guilty and contemplates turning himself in “entirely from horror and disgust for what he had done” (77).
In the novel, Crime and Punishment, the principle character, Raskolnikov, has unknowingly published a collection of his thoughts on crime and punishment via an article entitled "On Crime." Porfiry, who is trying to link Raskolnikov to a murder, has uncovered this article, read it, and tells Raskolnikov that he is very interested in learning about his ideas. Porfiry brings Raskolnikov into this conversation primarily to find out more about Raskolnikov's possible involvement in the crime. Raskolnikov decides to take him up on the challenge of discussing his theory, and embarks into a large discussion of his philosophy of man.
In the 17th and 18th century, the purpose of punishment in society was to seek revenge and retribution for the crimes, however, in the 18th century classicist criminology thinking emerged in response to the cruel punishments that were handed out. The two key leaders of this was Beccaria and Bentham, both of which were utilitarian, so believed the reductivist approach to punishment would be the most effective. Beccaria argued that the purpose of punishment was to make society associate a strong link between the crime and punishment so they knew the consequences of their actions (Easten, S. and Piper, C,. 2012), he argued this could be done by delivering the punishment as quickly as possible and believed that the certainty of punishment in society would be the most effective way of deterrence (Newburn, T. 2007). The other key leader Bentham, argued that the purpose of punishment should be to show people that the cost of the crime outweighs the gains of it, he was a supporter of the use of prisons and thought that punishment should be proportionate to the crime and have predictable, certain consequences to deter people from future offences.
Regarding the justification of punishment philosophers are not of the same opinion. According to the utilitarian moral thinkers punishment can be justified solely by its consequences. That is to say, according to the utilitarian account of punishment 'A ought to be punished' means that A has done an act harmful to people and it needs to be prevented by punishment or the threat of it. So, it will be useful to punish A. Deontologists like Mabbott, Ewing and Hawkins, on the other hand, believe that punishment is justifiable purely on retributive grounds. That is to say, according to them, only the past fact that a man has committed a crime is sufficient enough to justify the punishment inflicted on him. But D.D. Raphael is found to reconcile between the two opposite views. According to him, a punishment is justified when it is both useful and deserved.
Ezorsky, G. (1972). Philosophical Perspectives on Punishment. Justice and Punishment. Albany, New York. State University of New York. Print.
Punishing the unlawful, undesirable and deviant members of society is an aspect of criminal justice that has experienced a variety of transformations throughout history. Although the concept of retribution has remained a constant (the idea that the law breaker must somehow pay his/her debt to society), the methods used to enforce and achieve that retribution has changed a great deal. The growth and development of society along with an underlying, perpetual fear of crime are heavily linked to the use of vastly different forms of punishment that have ranged from public executions, forced labor, penal welfarism and popular punitivism over the course of only a few hundred years.
Laws serve several purposes in the criminal justice system. The main purpose of criminal law is to protect, serve, and limit human actions and to help guide human conduct. Also, laws provide penalties and punishment against those who are guilty of committing crimes against property or persons. In the modern world, there are three choices in dealing with criminals’ namely criminal punishment, private action and executive control. Although both private action and executive control are advantageous in terms of costs and speed, they present big dangers that discourage their use unless in exceptional situations. The second purpose of criminal law is to punish the offender. Punishing the offender is the most important purpose of criminal law since by doing so; it discourages him from committing crime again while making him or her pay for their crimes. Retribution does not mean inflicting physical punishment by incarceration only, but it also may include things like rehabilitation and financial retribution among other things. The last purpose of criminal law is to protect the community from criminals. Criminal law acts as the means through which the society protects itself from those who are harmful or dangerous to it. This is achieved through sentences meant to act as a way of deterring the offender from repeating the same crime in the future.
punishment to be done to whoever did the crime. If the criminal doesn't get the kind of
Punishment has been in existence since the early colonial period and has continued throughout history as a method used to deter criminals from committing criminal acts. Philosophers believe that punishment is a necessity in today’s modern society as it is a worldwide response to crime and violence. Friedrich Nietzche’s book “Punishment and Rehabilitation” reiterates that “punishment makes us into who we are; it creates in us a sense of responsibility and the ability to take and release our social obligations” (Blue, Naden, 2001). Immanuel Kant believes that if an individual commits a crime then punishment should be inflicted upon that individual for the crime committed. Cesare Beccaria, also believes that if there is a breach of the law by individuals then that individual should be punished accordingly.
According to Michael Kronenwetter, punishment of any kind stems from the fact that “[...] [t]here must be a penalty for wrongdoing”. Prior to governments taking over the administrative role, people “[...] were expected to take their own revenge on those who had wronged them. If a man robbed or killed another person, or raped a woman, it was up to the victim or the victim's family to exact a price from the wrongdoer”. This created major problems in the fact that it left those who were weak in power at the mercy of the strong. False accusations could go unchecked and unjust punishment would be given to those who could not properly defend themselves. Death was used a penalty for crimes that were “applied […] sparingly and only for the most terrible of crimes. Others imposed it for minor offenses” such as under the Roman Law of the Twelve Tablets death was the penalty for publis...