Choose the Punishment for Your Crime
About two months ago I finished reading Dostoyevsky’s “Crime and Punishment”.
I’ve had the privilege of reading it in the original language, as I know the Russian language. The book explores many themes like morality, humanity, structure of society, wealth, and many more. But I’m going to focus on the themes that Dostoyevsky presents in the title of the novel. The crime and the punishment, which I think nicely ties in with the way Raskolnikov categorises people in the book.
Introduction for those who haven’t read the book yet. Raskolnikov, a struggling student in St Petersburg, commits a double murder. He kills an old lady who is an evil, greedy pawnbroker and (incidentally) her half-sister Lizaveta. There are countless possible motives to his murder. But throughout a good portion of the book, Raskolnikov claims that his crime was for the good of society.
We know that in the end he gets punishment for his crime, 8 years of labour in Siberia. So the title rings true, we have his crime and his punishment. Let’s, however, consider a different timeline of events. It could have been: “Crime with no punishment” or “Punishment without a crime”.
First I’ll explore the possibility of “Crime with no punishment”. Now, some might say that during most of the book this was the case, as Raskolnikov only received his punishment at the very end of the book. I wouldn’t agree with that. While it is technically correct that Raskolnikov didn’t receive his punishment until the end, it is a narrow-minded point of view to adapt. Raskolnikov’s punishment before his actual sentence is the decline of his mental state. He is paranoid, constantly looking over his shoulder, and losing his mind and the people around him.
Now back to “Crime with no punishment”. To understand how I’m going to judge this, we first need to understand how Raskolnikov categorises people. In the novel, Raskolnikov separates people into two very simple categories. “Ordinary” and “Extraordinary”. Ordinary people play by the rules, but never invent anything new, like sheep, they submit to whatever regime they’re in. Extraordinary people are willing to bend and even break rules and laws for the benefit of mankind. Raskolnikov’s murder was him trying to prove to himself that he’s extraordinary. He murdered the greedy pawnbroker to remove an invaluable, greedy member of society. For the good of everyone else. If he had truly been an extraordinary person as he was trying to prove, he would have done something with the money. He could have used it for his own gain (education) and then used said education to be qualified to enact certain changes in society. He could have just spread the stolen money among poor students like himself, to educate more people. The fact that he never used the stolen money, shows that he committed the murder not for the money or for the good of humankind, but for himself. He wanted to be extraordinary not to help humankind, but just to be extraordinary. Had he been an extraordinary person, there would be no punishment for him, he would neither feel guilt nor ever confess, and no one would have proof, he would have the resources to move away, to do anything he wanted. But he was but an ordinary man, who is not fit to handle such weight on his shoulders.
Now this second possibility may sound like the exact opposite, but is actually oddly similar to the previous one. “Punishment without a crime” This can imply the exact events described before being framed differently. Seen through Raskolnikov’s eyes. Had Raskolnikov been extraordinary, his “crime” would have lost its title in his eyes. Is it really a crime if he used that money to help many struggling students like himself? Shaping the future by educating the youth. Improving the lives of hundreds, maybe thousands, while sacrificing one worthless member of society. Is that really a crime? He did those good things the only way that was available to him. Murder. So if there is no crime, what is his punishment? This kind of tradeoff will never be accepted in society. Killing an evil, somewhat wealthy, old lady ‘for the greater good’ is never going to be acceptable in any human society, (At least I hope not) even if she is an invaluable member of society. . Therefore, Raskolnikov’s punishment would be being framed for a crime he didn’t commit. Being exiled from society for trying to improve it.
A very contradictory book this one, and I mean that in the best way possible, because said contradictions prompt you to think and decide for yourself. In this article I barely scraped the surface of the infinite iceberg of wisdom that is this book. And that’s because I myself have only seen the surface of this iceberg. I will definitely be re-reading this when I’m older and wiser.
