Crime And Punishment Essay Research Paper The

Crime And Punishment Essay, Research Paper

The Crime of Alienation

The slaughter of 25 pupils at a high school in Colorado shook the state as the most annihilating and hardhearted offense of young person. No one inquiries that these slayings were a offense to society, as no one inquiries that rape, assault, and larceny are besides offenses. Society has dictated and labeled these actions as offenses because they harm others. One must inquiry, nevertheless, whether the offense lies more in what caused the action. Many plants of literature have posed this thought, but it is exhaustively discussed in the novel Crime and Punishment, by Fyodor Dostoevsky. Through the chief character, Raskolnikov, the dictionary definition of offense and penalty become blurred. It becomes obvious that the slayings he commits are non the offense, but alternatively are merely consequences of his existent crime-isolating himself from society. Raskolnikov & # 8217 ; s true offense is that he wholly alienates himself from authorization, love, and all associations, and his penalty is that he becomes alienated even more and is unable to reenter society. This complete isolation prevents the individuality, and autonomy of idea, that Raskolnikov strives for.

Sing Raskolnikov & # 8217 ; s actions from society & # 8217 ; s positions, it appears that his offense was killing Alyona Ivanovna and Lizaveta Ivanovna. What is more of import to understand though, is how he arrived at this phase. What procedure led him to the point of killing a usurer and her sister? The reply can be found in his disaffection from the remainder of the universe. Razumikhin, during a treatment with Raskolnikov, states that the Socialists & # 8217 ; position on offense is that it is & # 8220 ; & # 8216 ; a protest against the unnatural construction of society & # 8217 ; & # 8221 ; ( Dostoevsky 245 ) . Society is structured so that everyone conforms to the wants of the greater good. By insulating himself, Raskolnikov puts himself above society and bing apart from society, because he believed the current construction of society to be unnatural. He does non wish to wait for the & # 8220 ; common wale & # 8221 ; and wants to hold his ain life ( Dostoevsky 264 ) . So, by taking himself from society it enabled him to oppugn & # 8220 ; & # 8216 ; whether I was a louse like everybody else or a adult male, whether I was capable of stepping over the barriers or non & # 8217 ; & # 8221 ; ( Dostoevsky 402 ) . Is this in itself a offense? No, but his offense comes in that his isolation is so terrible that he becomes self involved, and comes to see himself as an & # 8220 ; extraordinary & # 8221 ; adult male with certain rights and duties. He forms a theory that there are two types of people:

A lower ( of ordinary people ) , that is, into stuff functioning merely for the reproduction of its ain sort, and into people decently talking, that is, those who have the gift or endowment of stating something new in their domain. ( Dostoevsky 250 )

This 2nd group is given particular rights to make what they must in order to do their new thoughts apparent, which includes the right to kill those who get in the manner. These ideas of class lead Raskolnikov to prove his theory by killing the usurer and her sister. However, as mentioned before, the violent death is non the offense, but alternatively the fact that he alienates himself from society prevents him from obtaining the autonomy of idea, that he tries to obtain through the development of his theory. Harmonizing to John Mill, writer of On Liberty, a individual is free to develop single idea and sentiments, and in fact is encouraged to, but merely every bit long as it does non harm others. & # 8220 ; No individual is an wholly stray being ; it is impossible for a individual to make anything earnestly or for good hurtful to himself, without mischief making at least to his close connexions, and frequently far beyond them & # 8221 ; ( Mill 74 ) . Raskolnikov & # 8217 ; s isolation, his offense, does non let him to see the deductions of his actions.

As discussed before, the ensuing action of Raskolnikov & # 8217 ; s offense was the slayings. Even Raskolnikov admits that & # 8220 ; & # 8216 ; the old adult female was merely a symptom of my unwellness I wanted to transgress all limitations every bit rapidly as possible I killed non a human being but a rule & # 8217 ; & # 8221 ; ( Dostoevsky 263-264 ) . As he said, the slayings were merely a & # 8220 ; symptom & # 8221 ; of his isolation-isolation that led him to develop the thought that he was superior to common humanity. He does non see the slayings as his offense and when Dunya speaks to him of his supposed offense, Raskolnikov asks: & # 8220 ; & # 8216 ; Crime? What offense? Killing a foul, noxious louse, that old usurer, no good to anybody, who sucked the life-blood of the hapless, so vile that killing her out to convey absolution for 40 sins-was that a offense? & # 8217 ; & # 8221 ; ( Dostoevsky 498 ) . The negative consequences of his isolation are that he feels no compunction for his actions, and is so involved in himself that all he can see is the decease of his princi

ple, or theory. Since he is unable to see the injury he has caused, and because his isolation is the cause of the injury, his theory dies. His theory was unable to thrive because it in fact did the really thing that Raskolnikov sees society doing-”imposing their ain sentiments and dispositions as a regulation of behavior on others, ” ( Mill 15 ) . His disaffection caused him to pretermit the attentions of society in transporting out his theory. He lost sight of a cardinal portion of the definition of individualism and freedom of idea, that “the merely freedom which deserves the name, is that of prosecuting our ain good in our ain manner, so long as we do non try to deprive others of theirs, ” ( Mill 14 ) . He did merely this, and this is why his individuality fails, and the cause of this is his utmost disaffection from the universe and everyone in it.

Raskolnikov & # 8217 ; s isolation, which causes injury to others, is besides reflected through the character Marmeladov. As Raskolnikov isolates himself from society, so does Marmeladov from his household and work. He drowns himself in intoxicant and wanders around aimlessly with & # 8220 ; cipher else, no other topographic point, to turn to! & # 8221 ; ( Dostoevsky 12 ) . The two characters are similar in this regard, but some would reason that they are besides really different, because Marmeladov does non kill as Raskolnikov does. Yet, Marmeladov is in fact the same as Raskolnikov because he does harm others in seeking to be an single and by estranging himself. He harms his household, who must fall back to holding Sonya go a cocotte to maintain the household alive. Had he kept his occupation and supported the household, it is possible that Katerina Ivanovna would non hold died of ingestion at the terminal of the novel. Raskolnikov besides indirectly harmed his household by insulating himself, and it could be argued that his isolation and penalty caused the decease of his female parent at the terminal of the novel. Marmeladov & # 8217 ; s character serves as another illustration of the destructive force of disaffection.

Marmeladov does non last his isolation and dies in a province of bibulous daze. However, Raskolnikov hardly survives his self-inflicted isolation, but finds that his penalty is that he becomes even farther stray and is unable to reenter society. He is forced to endure in purdah because the slayings originated from purdah. Soon after the slayings are committed the full weight of his offense is upon him and his penalty begins:

He had ne’er in his life before experienced so unusual and abandoning a feeling, and the most painful thing about it was that it was a feeling, an immediate esthesis, and non knowledge or rational apprehension. ( Dostoevsky 98 )

This isolation that Raskolnikov feels after the slaying is different from his original isolation because he has no control over this solitude-it is his penalty. The interesting and & # 8220 ; unusual & # 8221 ; portion of this isolation for him is that it is a feeling, and it causes him to endure, while his old disaffection was a determination based on rational logical thinking. His penalty is non needfully accompanied by guilt, but he does endure, and this prevents him from linking with anyone. He can non even stand to be around his household or talk to them. He tells his female parent that & # 8220 ; there will be enough of clip for us to speak to our Black Marias & # 8217 ; content, & # 8221 ; and yet he realizes that & # 8220 ; now he could ne’er speak at all, to anybody & # 8221 ; ( Dostoevsky 220 ) . He becomes unable to reconnect with anyone or anything related to society. His penalty fits the offense.

His penalty restricts his ability to pass on with people, and therefore his redemption comes in his confession of the slayings and most significantly, the acknowledgment of his holding no other topographic point to travel. He has to recognize the offense of his initial disaffection and he accomplishes this through Sonya, who serves as the redemptional figure in the novel. The thoughts of individuality and isolation can be seen to be similar, but in world disaffection serves to forestall true individuality and autonomy of idea. Thus, disaffection is the existent offense, and inhibitor of the freedom that Raskolnikov seeks. John Stuart Mill would state that individuality is necessary to the extent that it would non do injury to others ( Mill 53-59 ) . Raskolnikov oversteps this line and the consequence is the slaying of two people. The functions of offense and punishment remark a batch about the relationship between society and the person. If the offense and penalty in this novel centre around disaffection from society, and the redemption comes in reentering society, so it can be seen that finally society regulations over the person. After all, the & # 8220 ; gradual reclamation of a adult male, of his gradual regeneration & # 8221 ; can merely come approximately, harmonizing to Dostoevsky, by conforming and populating among society one time once more ( Dostoevsky 527 ) .