Category: Crime and Punishment

According to Sigmund Freud, all dreams contain a subliminal message. These messages are able to be interpreted by a psychologist inorder to find the sources of one’s pain or discomfort in life. The process of studying dreams is referred to as psychoanalysis. Psychoanalysis has its application in the physical world and in literature. Dostoevsky has revealed the insights of Raskolnikov’s and Svidrigailov’s dreams, it has provided a way to venture deeper into character analysis by applying psychoanalysis by. Crime and Punishment delve into the human psyche and the effect of crime and guilt on the human consciousness and, by applying psychoanalysis, the subconscious too.

The story Crime and Punishment follows Raskolnikov, a mentally ill man, after killing two people. The story reaches into the mind of Raskolnikov and the methodology behind his attack. In the end, Raslinkov is exiled and sees the wrong in his action. The story shows a struggle between Raslinkov and his conscious building suspense by teasing his confession. The murder is on the forefront of his mind, resulting in vivid dreams that can be used to see his guilt.

In order to understand how to interpret dreams, one must know how psychoanalysis works. The founder, Sigmund Freud, believed the conscious can be divided into three parts: ego, superego, and id. The ego is our awakened selves that control decision-making. The id is our unconscious desire. The superego manages the balance between the two, often suppressing id. The main idea is when sleeping, the superego lets the id become more active; therefore, our dreams are our unconscious desires represented through seemingly random symbols. This can be used to help mentally ill patients by analyzing their dreams but requires hundreds of therapy sessions over a long period of time in order to be effective.

In Crime and Punishment, Raslinkov is struggling to decide between right and wrong as his id and ego conflict with each other by taking the form of a young Raslinkov and Mikolka. the boy and Mikolka are symbolic of Raskolnikov’s internal conflict between good and evil in Raslinkov’s first dream. “Father, father,’ he cried, ‘father, what are they doing? Father, they are beating the poor horse!’ ‘You’ll kill her,’ shouted the third. ‘Don’t meddle! It’s my property, I’ll do what I choose.”(Dostoevsky, 88) In this dream, there are three major parts: the child, the man, and the horse. The boy represents Raslinkov’s innocence, and ego to show that he is a human and cares about others and their lives. His battle to stop the barbaric actions; while it good intention, have no effect on the fully grown men. The men, specifically, Mikolka, represent evil and his id. These are Raskolnikov’s subconscious desires are struggling to overpower his id.

The urges of Raskolnikov to kill are a result of his fundamental beliefs that have infected his life and dreams by relating the horse to Aloyna and it has become clear, he will follow through with his actions. Mikolka believes he may kill his own horse and humors himself with the action. Drunk with power, he beats the mare mercilessly laughing. The horse is symbolic of Alyona. The horse has no purpose anymore and it a waste of resources to maintain its life. Similarly, Raslinkov believes Alyona is a waste to society and that the lower class would benefit from her death. Raslinkov has already thought much on his topic as he has published a paper and fully believes he is par to Napoleon and the other great people. It is clear that Raslinkov has already knew he was able to follow through with his actions. The only feeble amount of good in his consciousness is equal to that of a little boy fighting a battle with men. In the end, the men who believe they can commit any action, win.

After Raskolnikov murders Alyona and her sister under the pretext he is above others, he is consumed with guilt that causes him to question one of his fundamental beliefs, his theory of superiority. “Except for a small handful of the chosen, all were doomed to perish… Those infected were seized immediately and went mad. Yet people never considered themselves so clever and so unhesitatingly right as these infected ones considered themselves. Never had they considered their decrees, their scientific deductions, their moral convictions and their beliefs more firmly based. Whole settlements, whole cities and nations were infected and went mad…They did not know whom to condemn or whom to acquit.'( Dostoevsky, 520) The plague in this dream represents people like himself who believe they are above the laws of society and can commit any crime, and the chaos it causes. This dream is Raskolnikov’s subconscious becoming aware of the wrong of his actions due to the amount of guilt he feels for his actions. As he reflects on this in prison, he realized how wrong he is, calling those who thought of themselves so highly “infected”. His attitude has shifted and he is now becoming re-associated with society and the moral grounds everyone must live. This is The theme of guilt and condemnation continue in the text.

Svidrigailov’s dreams, relay his impending doom due to his growing guild. Subconsciously his life and the rumors about him are infecting his brain. He is on a path to suicide and he does not shy away. It is easy to interpret that Svidrigailov despises himself and his life. Svidrigailov’s dream shows a girl, “Svidrigaïlov knew that girl; there was no holy image, no burning candle beside the coffin; no sound of prayers: the girl had drowned herself. She was only fourteen, but her heart was broken”. It is easy to infer that this was the funeral for the girl Svidrigailov had raped. As mentioned earlier it was said “ information was given that the child had been… cruelly outraged by Svidrigaïlov. It is true, this was not clearly established, the information was given by another German woman of a loose character whose word could not be trusted; no statement was actually made to the police, thanks to Marfa Petrovna’s money and exertions”

Since antiquity, we have challenged ourselves to the best of our limits, from what we can understand about the world, to the human condition. But as we gain more understanding of ourselves and the universe at large, the bolder we became and have left our traditional values. Will there be a point of understanding where we can free ourselves of our moral obligations? Is salvation possible for these people? The novel Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky is a dark yet masterful psychological case study of how our minds can go to the limits of morality, where we find Rodion Raskolnikov, a young student in St. Petersburg who murdered an old pawnbroker, and the story of the journey and his fight for salvation.

Dostoevsky’s use of imagery is grounded in reality, as most of the setting and the reference he made to give life to the novel are to be found in real places and real events. As a psychological drama, Crime, and Punishment uses this realistic aspect to portray a world as if it is an extension of our reality, which makes reading it easier to visualize and understand his intended undertones. This could be seen in how he described St. Petersburg, the main setting of the majority of the novel, allowing us to immerse ourselves into its dark and skimpy roads, which truly enhances the story as we readers experience it. Dostoevsky described St. Petersburg from the point of view of Raskolnikov:

The heat in the street was terrible: and the airlessness, the bustle and the plaster, scaffolding, bricks, and dust all about him, and that special Petersburg stench, so familiar to all who are unable to get out of town in summer — all worked painfully upon the young man’s already overwrought nerves. The insufferable stench from the pot houses, which are particularly numerous in that part of the town, and the drunken men whom he met continually, although it was a working day, completed the revolting misery of the picture (Dostoevsky 4).

Dostoevsky’s artistic approach also relies on historical referencing and cultural referencing, which could be seen in his extensive references to Emperor Napoleon as a way to rapport Raskolnikov’s unhinged view of society and a prime example of a “Superhuman” or someone who could bend the law to his will (760). The extensive use of space and lighting in his detailed description also illustrates not just the space in which the characters dwell but also a reflection of their psyche. This is evident in how Dostoevsky used Raskolnikovs’s room as a mirror of his sheltered mind and its position in the building (fifth floor) to signify his heightened sense of self. His experience in the room was described – “At last, he felt cramped and stifled in the little yellow room that was like a cupboard or a box. His eyes and his mind craved for space.” (76) Its cramped space symbolizes the anxieties which Raskolnikov suffers from daily and a stark marker of his destitute state of poverty. During the latter part of the novel, Dostoevsky used religious concepts primarily that of the Christian religion to signify the importance of God and the hope of salvation. This is done through several references to the bible, most notably when Sonia used the story of Lazarus to make Raskolnikov understand the power of second chances in life (407).

Crime and Punishment, from what I felt during my time reading it, has a certain style that is “heavy” or “dark”, which is linked to its deep roots in sensitive issues about the societal issues of 19th-century Russia, the darkness that lurks along the cramped street of St Petersburg and most primarily the comprehensive breakdown of the human psyche, particularly on our values, faith, and morality. Raskolnikov’s viewpoint of the world and the happenings in his life have been ingrained with a nihilistic tone for the majority of the novel, caused by his upbringing which later turns into a more positive tone when he discovers the love of Sonia and a new path for life which she helped Raskolnikov to realize. The characterization of supporting characters also supplements the journey in which Raskolnikov partakes along with the story, primarily the role of Sonia Marmeladov as a source of Raskolnikov’s positive view of humanity through her pureness, and Dmitri Razumikhin, Raskolnikov’s closest friend who directly opposes his characterization with his optimistic point of view and pure intentions, despite the hardships of life.

Dostoevsky’s writing is heavily inspired by his pioneers in early 19th-century Russia and supplemented by his past experiences in manual labor and imprisonment, which has led him to develop a unique, deep, and grotesque way of writing. In Crime and Punishment, he achieved this by using an unapologetic way of describing violence and abuse which can be cited when Raskolnikov murdered Alyona Ivanovna.

He had not a minute more to lose. He pulled the axe quite out, swung it with both arms, scarcely conscious of himself, and almost without effort, almost mechanically, brought the blunt side down on her head. He seemed not to use his strength in this. But as soon as he had once brought the axe down, his strength returned to him. (Dostoevsky, 125)

This alongside painting poverty as he experienced it, this combination has achieved a highly realistic and downright terrifying tone for the story. Crime and Punishment is a dark book yet has an interesting way of illustrating the human condition and, most importantly the role which society plays in shaping man’s morality.

The power of the human mind to cause changes, may it be for the better or the worse, or for the benefit of oneself or the harm of others, was deeply discussed in Crime and Punishment. Grounded characterization, especially that of our main characters has significantly affected me in a way that is understandable no matter how deep of a topic morality and psychology is. This is thanks to the masterful writing of Dostoevsky. Moments such as the death of Marmeladov (371) and the circumstances of Sonya after the death of her foster mother Katerina (673) ratify the importance of the human spirit and have helped show Raskolnikov’s purest intentions despite his warped judgment of the world. Crime and Punishment may be grim a face value but if read carefully, one could understand the power of Raskolnikov’s journey, which could be related to experiences of high doubt of the self, of the society, and the things that we believe in. Through Crime and Punishment’s masterful depiction of such realities, we can be made to understand the importance of human values and solid human connections in making us grounded in reality and our moral obligations. The novel taps into the questions that we never thought would play a large role in shaping our understanding of our values, such questions ask for the definition of what is right or wrong and the nuance it gives from person to person, and most importantly, could we ever go beyond what is ethical with enough power and justification? Such questions that evoke indescribable feelings of existentialism are what I’ve found out while reading the novel.

The novel Crime and Punishment is rich with intellectual value, as it challenges the fundamental thought on which we base our virtues and values, especially the basis of laws and morality that we people abide by. The first example of this is during Raskolnikov’s argument with Porfiry as Raskolnikov’s prime principle of dividing society into the normal folk, who he deemed to be worthy of being subjected to these laws and rules, and those superior people who are gifted with intellect and power, who he deemed to be worthy of circumventing the laws and morality to achieve their actions without consequences. This is quickly been countered by Porfiry’s counterpoints exposing the holes of this way of thinking, where the importance of conscience as a prime indicator of humanity is discarded, and the possibility of a person misjudging himself to be a “Superhuman”, committing acts of crime in the process is possible (400-16). This exchange in the middle of the novel signifies the main philosophy of Raskolnikov and the drive for his murderous actions, and for the readers to contemplate if Raskolnikov’s mentality is grounded in real societal scenarios. Aside from this, through careful analysis of the characters and their motives, we can examine the different issues that plague society, back then in 19th Century Russia and up to the present time. Luzhin’s character serves as the representation of the oppressive and opportunistic upper class, who tried to marry Dunya, Raskolnikov’s sister just to feel the satisfaction of owning someone who is pitiful and below him (64). Svridigalov, much like Luzhin, was also an heir from the upper class. He has done unspeakable acts of violence towards her wife, Marfa Petrovna (766) to get her out of the way of his pursuit of Dunya. People like them make us readers realize the implications of power and how notoriety can corrupt people into doing the most horrible things.

Beyond the grim reality and the gruesome, Crime and Punishment also lays out moral lessons, spiritual essence, and the prevailing beauty of humanity despite its darkest moments. The importance of companionship was fully shown through the pure heart of Dmitri Razumikhin, who despite the coldness of Raskolnikov towards their friendship, still stayed by his side throughout his struggles and at the end of the novel, offered his hand to protect Raskolnikov’s mother and sister when Raskolnikov finally turned himself in (793-805). Sonia Marmeladov represents the pureness of a person’s heart, who despite being in a tough situation of poverty, the death of his parental figures, and the daunting task of providing for her family through acts of prostitution, still holds on to her faith in God and compassion for the people she holds dear. This is further exemplified in the Epilogue where she promises Raskolnikov to forgive him and stay by his side until he finishes his sentence in Siberia. Raskolnikov’s sister, Dunya Romanovich, through her sacrifices for her family, has shown us the lengths that we will go to for the betterment of our family, in which she was willing to “sell” herself and marry Luzhin, despite not loving the person, but just to find a way to provide for her family financially. Also during the Epilogue, reference to the journey of Jesus Christ and his miracles for Lazarus, whom Jesus miraculously raised from the dead. This greatly signifies the importance of faith to us, and Sonia used this analogy for the redemption of Raskolnikov, in which “resurrection” is akin to Raskolnikov’s salvation from his crimes and the all-forgiving nature of God if he chooses to direct his life towards faith. This is proven to be the path that Raskolnikov chooses, with the help of Sonia’s words with him (850). The people around Raskolnikov further support the importance of human connection to the well-being of oneself, as we are not the “Superhuman” we ought to be, as we cannot fully alienate ourselves from others, as we need all the help we can get from our loved ones, friends and family to survive this hardship we call living.

The novel is certainly for people who wish to gain more understanding of the grim situation of society. Due to its main themes of violence, abuse, poverty, and existentialism, it is not suitable for audiences who find these kinds of themes repulsive, and for children who may not yet grasp these concepts properly. But besides that, this novel is highly valuable for what it gives us the readers, and I recommend it to everyone who wants to be exposed to such media, for it gives us a comprehensive view of the human psyche and the implications of societal elements and intellectual dissonance to a person’s view of the world.

Dostoevsky’s writing is certainly unique and impactful which in turn paved the way for contemporary writers in the space of psychological drama to create more captivating stories. The impact created by contemporary philosophy is also understated. He had a great impact on the writings of some great philosophers such as Friedrich Nietzche and Jean-Paul Sartre, to name a few. The use of religion in the novel, can be seen in the characters and their relationship with God, as can be seen in Marmeladov’s speech:

‘You too come forth,’ He will say, ‘Come forth ye drunkards, come forth, ye weak ones, come forth, ye children of shame!’ And we shall all come forth, without shame, and shall stand before Him. And He will say unto us, ‘Ye are swine, made in the Image of the Beast and with his mark; but come ye also!’ And the wise ones and those of understanding will say, ‘Oh Lord, why dost Thou receive these men?’ And He will say, ‘This is why I receive them, oh ye wise, this is why I receive them, oh ye of understanding, that not one of them believed himself to be worthy of this.’ (Dostoevsky 36-7)

Marmeladov’s speech signifies the impartiality of God for his forgiveness, for all kinds of people. These kinds of messages from the book have ushered a new era for modern philosophy, mainly Western existentialism, which is ironic in the sense that existentialism emphasizes the non-existence of God, yet Crime and Punishment’s main resolution is through Raskolnikov finding solace through his faith, as Dostoevsky specifically intended to portray in the importance of God and faith to our overall well-being and an opportunity for a better life.

Crime and Punishment is a massive novel containing dozens of chapters in which we learn about the life of Rodion Raskolnikov and his path to salvation. Crime and Punishment pushed the limits of what we can achieve in writing, for its heavy psychological and highly philosophical writing that has truly left a massive influence on the world of literature, and society at large. It was truly a great reading experience, as reading the novel allowed me to take a peek at the mind and the thought process of a person who possesses intellect but due to his circumstances, was driven to do heinous acts of crime and the path he took to come to terms with this fact and finally, the release he deserves through the help of his companions. Crime and Punishment provides a gruesome point of view in which we can view morality in the light of someone who is stricken with the ailments of society and allows us to show the importance of human connection and faith as a way to keep us grounded to reality. Crime and Punishment will be a staple read for a deeper inquisition of the human psyche and Dostoevsky certainly will not disappoint with his masterful writing and storytelling, which has made this piece of literary work relevant after hundreds of years and will for more centuries to come.

In 2001, Portugal became the first country to decriminalize the consumption of all drugs. The result was a decline in the proportion of drug-related offenders in the Portuguese prison population (Murkin, 2014). This led many to question if drug laws — and not the drugs themselves — cause the most damage to society. Proponents of this argue based on utilitarianism and Mill’s (1849) harm principle. On the other hand, arguments for criminalizing the consumption of drugs include legal paternalism and Feinberg’s (1984) take on the harm principle. This essay is in favor of decriminalizing the consumption of cannabis, with strict age limits imposed to protect children, in the United States.

According to Mill (1849), people have the freedom to act however they wish, unless their actions cause harm to others. Harms, in this case, refers to the infringement of baseline rights. Mill takes on a liberal approach to argue that there exists a public sphere in which the individual is concerned and a private sphere where individuals should be left to make their own decisions. He asserts that showing disapproval of action through persuasion or avoidance is encouraged, but mere disapproval or dislike for a person’s actions is insufficient to justify intervention by the government. He emphasizes that silencing an individual’s personal choices is a dangerous thing for a government to do. Mill further argues that an individual’s right to harm himself must be respected, and governments must only intervene if someone else’s liberties are in jeopardy.

Meanwhile, Feinberg (1984) proposes a modified version of the harm principle. He defined harm as a wrongful setback to interests and states that there exists different extents of public harm — those that are direct and serious; and those that are highly dilute and unnoticeable. However, public harm of the latter form still should not be allowed to become normalized as it will lead to a great collective loss for the institutions involved.

Applying Mill’s harm principle, the consumption of cannabis should be justified due to the respect for one’s liberty. The mere act of consuming cannabis causes no direct harm to others and the only direct harm inflicted is to the user’s own body in terms of health, but self-inflicted harm is considered a personal right under the harm principle, and thus governments should not intervene lest they interfere with individual liberties. Notwithstanding, others may dislike the smell that comes with the consumption of cannabis, but dislike — despite the psychological harms that may follow — is insufficient to warrant government intervention. Thereafter, users may end up committing crimes under the influence of cannabis. However, instead of being criminalized for the consumption of cannabis, they should be held liable for failing to fulfill their responsibilities in the public sphere. A drunk driver who crashes into someone else gets punished for the act of drunk driving, and not for being intoxicated. Similarly, for cannabis-related car accidents, these combined practices — and not the mere act of consuming cannabis — should be restricted by the government. Therefore, the government possesses no moral authority to criminalize cannabis as users deserve the right to consume cannabis as long as they do not harm others.

Despite this, cannabis consumption is still morally unacceptable and therefore criminalized in most societies. A paternalist may argue that the government knows what is best for its people and thus has the right to criminalize cannabis consumption to protect them from themselves. Adversaries of cannabis also put forth the slippery slope argument, claiming that greater future harm will ensue resulting from the generalization and practice of immoral behavior if cannabis consumption were to be decriminalized. As such, there are certain special circumstances — such as the possible exploitation and corruption of the vulnerable — that necessitate the intervention of the law for the greater good of society (Devlin, 1965). Cannabis consumption is deemed immoral because it derives pleasure at the expense of one’s cognitive functioning (Hsiao, 2017). In this case, government intervention seems necessary, especially for the vulnerable young, to prevent users from descending deeper into immorality and to safeguard society from disintegration.

However, individuals still know themselves best. Given a utilitarian approach to the harm principle, individuals can make the best choices for themselves and thus contribute to the greatest good for the greatest number. In the case of cannabis consumption, the risks attributed to its consumption may be negligible as compared to the benefits the users are experiencing. Even if the long-lasting impacts are regrettable, the state is still more likely to misjudge the utility of cannabis consumption due to its deficit of knowledge. Thus, individuals are more likely to make the decision that maximizes their utility and consequently society’s utility. There should thus be some limitations to the state’s power over its people. For children who lack rationality, legal force may be put in place to restrict their access to cannabis until they are deemed of age to increase the net benefit to society; after which, they are expected to be responsible for their own decisions. Therefore, adults should be given the liberty to consume cannabis as long as no direct harm is inflicted upon others.

Although there are some secondary harms associated with cannabis consumption, it is still justified because the harms are often remote. With the example of poisons, Mill (1849) points out that it is not possible to use just potential harms to justify government intervention especially when there is no direct correlation between the act and the harm caused. If a person were to get intoxicated on cannabis in a knowingly safe space, the mere act itself does not create harm. However, his act of consuming cannabis could have influenced someone else to consume cannabis and consequently commit a crime, or even more remotely caused gang warfare relating to the suppliers of the cannabis in another state. The aforementioned events transcend the responsibility of the cannabis consumer and thus, she or she should not be culpable for cannabis consumption. Therefore, there should be some limits put on the definition of Harm to ensure that the evaluated harms must concern the agents themselves (Von Hirsch, 1995).

On the other hand, it may be argued that acts that create a reasonable risk of harm should be criminalized for the betterment of society. By criminalizing cannabis, harm or the unreasonable risk of harm to parties other than the agent is prevented. This aligns with the harm principle and thus provides an appropriate reason for legal coercion (Feinberg,1984).

However, in reality, the decriminalization of cannabis may reduce the most significant of remote harms and free up enforcement costs to be channeled to rehabilitation and medical models. Under certain circumstances, it may be necessary to commit a lesser evil to avoid a greater evil. In the case of cannabis, this would involve decriminalizing cannabis to cut off the black market for cannabis and remove the largest source of funding for criminal gangs. By treating cannabis addicts as patients who needed help, and not as criminals, the police could also concentrate on traffickers and dealers, freeing up resources for the government to invest in treatment and harm reduction practices. By eliminating the threat of criminal penalties — and the stigma that is attached to it — it has become easier for people to seek treatment. After the decriminalization of drugs in Portugal, social services were put in place to educate adducts on treatment, and the available medical services and drug consumption facilities were built to provide a safe space to consume drugs with trained assistance. By decriminalizing drugs and adopting a health-centered approach, the per capita social cost of drug misuse decreased by 18% and the number of people in drug treatment increased by over 60% (Bajekal, 2018).

In conclusion, the consumption of cannabis should be decriminalized, with strict age limits imposed to protect children, in the United States. When utilitarianism and harm principles are applied, the consumption of cannabis is morally justified because each rational adult has the personal liberty to decide if they want to inflict harm on themselves. Like the prohibition of alcohol promoted organized crime and illegal trafficking, the criminalization of cannabis has had unintended consequences. Fuelled by the exorbitant profits associated with acquiring and selling illegal cannabis, the cannabis trade now bolsters organized crime and gang warfare, taking countless casualties. For the sake of our liberties and to win the war on drugs, we must reconsider the legality of cannabis.

References

1. Bajekal, N. (2018, August 1). Want to Win the War on Drugs? Portugal Might Have the Answer. Retrieved from https://time.com/longform/portugal-drug-use-decriminalization/
2. Devlin, L. (1965). Mill on Liberty in Morals. The University of Chicago Law Review, 32(2), 215. doi: 10.2307/1598689
3. Feinberg, J. (1984). The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law Volume 1: Harm to Others. doi: 10.1093/0195046641.001.0001
4. Hsiao, T. (2017). Why Recreational Drug Use Is Immoral. The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, 17(4), 605–614. doi: 10.5840/ncbq201717462
5. Mill, J. S. (1849). Liberty. Mill, 49–60. doi: 10.1002/9781444305746.ch4
6. Murkin, G. (2014, June). Drug decriminalization in Portugal: setting the record straight. Retrieved from https://transformdrugs.org/drug-decriminalisation-in-portugal-setting-the-record-straight/
7. Von Hirsch, A. (1995). Extending the Harm Principle: ‘Remote’ Harms and Fair Imputation. Harm and Culpability, 259–276. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198260578.003.0020

Since antiquity, we have challenged ourselves to the best of our limits, from what we can understand about the world, to the human condition. But as we gain more understanding of ourselves and the universe at large, the bolder we became and have left our traditional values. Will there be a point of understanding where we can free ourselves of our moral obligations? Is salvation possible for these people? The novel Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky is a dark yet masterful psychological case study of how our minds can go to the limits of morality, where we find Rodion Raskolnikov, a young student in St. Petersburg who murdered an old pawnbroker, and the story of the journey and his fight for salvation.

Dostoevsky’s use of imagery is grounded in reality, as most of the setting and the reference he made to give life to the novel are to be found in real places and real events. As a psychological drama, Crime, and Punishment uses this realistic aspect to portray a world as if it is an extension of our reality, which makes reading it easier to visualize and understand his intended undertones. This could be seen in how he described St. Petersburg, the main setting of the majority of the novel, allowing us to immerse ourselves into its dark and skimpy roads, which truly enhances the story as we readers experience it. Dostoevsky described St. Petersburg from the point of view of Raskolnikov:

The heat in the street was terrible: and the airlessness, the bustle and the plaster, scaffolding, bricks, and dust all about him, and that special Petersburg stench, so familiar to all who are unable to get out of town in summer — all worked painfully upon the young man’s already overwrought nerves. The insufferable stench from the pot houses, which are particularly numerous in that part of the town, and the drunken men whom he met continually, although it was a working day, completed the revolting misery of the picture (Dostoevsky 4).

Dostoevsky’s artistic approach also relies on historical referencing and cultural referencing, which could be seen in his extensive references to Emperor Napoleon as a way to rapport Raskolnikov’s unhinged view of society and a prime example of a “Superhuman” or someone who could bend the law to his will (760). The extensive use of space and lighting in his detailed description also illustrates not just the space in which the characters dwell but also a reflection of their psyche. This is evident in how Dostoevsky used Raskolnikovs’s room as a mirror of his sheltered mind and its position in the building (fifth floor) to signify his heightened sense of self. His experience in the room was described – “At last, he felt cramped and stifled in the little yellow room that was like a cupboard or a box. His eyes and his mind craved for space.” (76) Its cramped space symbolizes the anxieties which Raskolnikov suffers from daily and a stark marker of his destitute state of poverty. During the latter part of the novel, Dostoevsky used religious concepts primarily that of the Christian religion to signify the importance of God and the hope of salvation. This is done through several references to the bible, most notably when Sonia used the story of Lazarus to make Raskolnikov understand the power of second chances in life (407).

Crime and Punishment, from what I felt during my time reading it, has a certain style that is “heavy” or “dark”, which is linked to its deep roots in sensitive issues about the societal issues of 19th-century Russia, the darkness that lurks along the cramped street of St Petersburg and most primarily the comprehensive breakdown of the human psyche, particularly on our values, faith, and morality. Raskolnikov’s viewpoint of the world and the happenings in his life have been ingrained with a nihilistic tone for the majority of the novel, caused by his upbringing which later turns into a more positive tone when he discovers the love of Sonia and a new path for life which she helped Raskolnikov to realize. The characterization of supporting characters also supplements the journey in which Raskolnikov partakes along with the story, primarily the role of Sonia Marmeladov as a source of Raskolnikov’s positive view of humanity through her pureness, and Dmitri Razumikhin, Raskolnikov’s closest friend who directly opposes his characterization with his optimistic point of view and pure intentions, despite the hardships of life.

Dostoevsky’s writing is heavily inspired by his pioneers in early 19th-century Russia and supplemented by his past experiences in manual labor and imprisonment, which has led him to develop a unique, deep, and grotesque way of writing. In Crime and Punishment, he achieved this by using an unapologetic way of describing violence and abuse which can be cited when Raskolnikov murdered Alyona Ivanovna.

He had not a minute more to lose. He pulled the axe quite out, swung it with both arms, scarcely conscious of himself, and almost without effort, almost mechanically, brought the blunt side down on her head. He seemed not to use his strength in this. But as soon as he had once brought the axe down, his strength returned to him. (Dostoevsky, 125)

This alongside painting poverty as he experienced it, this combination has achieved a highly realistic and downright terrifying tone for the story. Crime and Punishment is a dark book yet has an interesting way of illustrating the human condition and, most importantly the role which society plays in shaping man’s morality.

The power of the human mind to cause changes, may it be for the better or the worse, or for the benefit of oneself or the harm of others, was deeply discussed in Crime and Punishment. Grounded characterization, especially that of our main characters has significantly affected me in a way that is understandable no matter how deep of a topic morality and psychology is. This is thanks to the masterful writing of Dostoevsky. Moments such as the death of Marmeladov (371) and the circumstances of Sonya after the death of her foster mother Katerina (673) ratify the importance of the human spirit and have helped show Raskolnikov’s purest intentions despite his warped judgment of the world. Crime and Punishment may be grim a face value but if read carefully, one could understand the power of Raskolnikov’s journey, which could be related to experiences of high doubt of the self, of the society, and the things that we believe in. Through Crime and Punishment’s masterful depiction of such realities, we can be made to understand the importance of human values and solid human connections in making us grounded in reality and our moral obligations. The novel taps into the questions that we never thought would play a large role in shaping our understanding of our values, such questions ask for the definition of what is right or wrong and the nuance it gives from person to person, and most importantly, could we ever go beyond what is ethical with enough power and justification? Such questions that evoke indescribable feelings of existentialism are what I’ve found out while reading the novel.

The novel Crime and Punishment is rich with intellectual value, as it challenges the fundamental thought on which we base our virtues and values, especially the basis of laws and morality that we people abide by. The first example of this is during Raskolnikov’s argument with Porfiry as Raskolnikov’s prime principle of dividing society into the normal folk, who he deemed to be worthy of being subjected to these laws and rules, and those superior people who are gifted with intellect and power, who he deemed to be worthy of circumventing the laws and morality to achieve their actions without consequences. This is quickly been countered by Porfiry’s counterpoints exposing the holes of this way of thinking, where the importance of conscience as a prime indicator of humanity is discarded, and the possibility of a person misjudging himself to be a “Superhuman”, committing acts of crime in the process is possible (400-16). This exchange in the middle of the novel signifies the main philosophy of Raskolnikov and the drive for his murderous actions, and for the readers to contemplate if Raskolnikov’s mentality is grounded in real societal scenarios. Aside from this, through careful analysis of the characters and their motives, we can examine the different issues that plague society, back then in 19th Century Russia and up to the present time. Luzhin’s character serves as the representation of the oppressive and opportunistic upper class, who tried to marry Dunya, Raskolnikov’s sister just to feel the satisfaction of owning someone who is pitiful and below him (64). Svridigalov, much like Luzhin, was also an heir from the upper class. He has done unspeakable acts of violence towards her wife, Marfa Petrovna (766) to get her out of the way of his pursuit of Dunya. People like them make us readers realize the implications of power and how notoriety can corrupt people into doing the most horrible things.

Beyond the grim reality and the gruesome, Crime and Punishment also lays out moral lessons, spiritual essence, and the prevailing beauty of humanity despite its darkest moments. The importance of companionship was fully shown through the pure heart of Dmitri Razumikhin, who despite the coldness of Raskolnikov towards their friendship, still stayed by his side throughout his struggles and at the end of the novel, offered his hand to protect Raskolnikov’s mother and sister when Raskolnikov finally turned himself in (793-805). Sonia Marmeladov represents the pureness of a person’s heart, who despite being in a tough situation of poverty, the death of his parental figures, and the daunting task of providing for her family through acts of prostitution, still holds on to her faith in God and compassion for the people she holds dear. This is further exemplified in the Epilogue where she promises Raskolnikov to forgive him and stay by his side until he finishes his sentence in Siberia. Raskolnikov’s sister, Dunya Romanovich, through her sacrifices for her family, has shown us the lengths that we will go to for the betterment of our family, in which she was willing to “sell” herself and marry Luzhin, despite not loving the person, but just to find a way to provide for her family financially. Also during the Epilogue, reference to the journey of Jesus Christ and his miracles for Lazarus, whom Jesus miraculously raised from the dead. This greatly signifies the importance of faith to us, and Sonia used this analogy for the redemption of Raskolnikov, in which “resurrection” is akin to Raskolnikov’s salvation from his crimes and the all-forgiving nature of God if he chooses to direct his life towards faith. This is proven to be the path that Raskolnikov chooses, with the help of Sonia’s words with him (850). The people around Raskolnikov further support the importance of human connection to the well-being of oneself, as we are not the “Superhuman” we ought to be, as we cannot fully alienate ourselves from others, as we need all the help we can get from our loved ones, friends and family to survive this hardship we call living.

The novel is certainly for people who wish to gain more understanding of the grim situation of society. Due to its main themes of violence, abuse, poverty, and existentialism, it is not suitable for audiences who find these kinds of themes repulsive, and for children who may not yet grasp these concepts properly. But besides that, this novel is highly valuable for what it gives us the readers, and I recommend it to everyone who wants to be exposed to such media, for it gives us a comprehensive view of the human psyche and the implications of societal elements and intellectual dissonance to a person’s view of the world.

Dostoevsky’s writing is certainly unique and impactful which in turn paved the way for contemporary writers in the space of psychological drama to create more captivating stories. The impact created by contemporary philosophy is also understated. He had a great impact on the writings of some great philosophers such as Friedrich Nietzche and Jean-Paul Sartre, to name a few. The use of religion in the novel, can be seen in the characters and their relationship with God, as can be seen in Marmeladov’s speech:

‘You too come forth,’ He will say, ‘Come forth ye drunkards, come forth, ye weak ones, come forth, ye children of shame!’ And we shall all come forth, without shame, and shall stand before Him. And He will say unto us, ‘Ye are swine, made in the Image of the Beast and with his mark; but come ye also!’ And the wise ones and those of understanding will say, ‘Oh Lord, why dost Thou receive these men?’ And He will say, ‘This is why I receive them, oh ye wise, this is why I receive them, oh ye of understanding, that not one of them believed himself to be worthy of this.’ (Dostoevsky 36-7)

Marmeladov’s speech signifies the impartiality of God for his forgiveness, for all kinds of people. These kinds of messages from the book have ushered a new era for modern philosophy, mainly Western existentialism, which is ironic in the sense that existentialism emphasizes the non-existence of God, yet Crime and Punishment’s main resolution is through Raskolnikov finding solace through his faith, as Dostoevsky specifically intended to portray in the importance of God and faith to our overall well-being and an opportunity for a better life.

Crime and Punishment is a massive novel containing dozens of chapters in which we learn about the life of Rodion Raskolnikov and his path to salvation. Crime and Punishment pushed the limits of what we can achieve in writing, for its heavy psychological and highly philosophical writing that has truly left a massive influence on the world of literature, and society at large. It was truly a great reading experience, as reading the novel allowed me to take a peek at the mind and the thought process of a person who possesses intellect but due to his circumstances, was driven to do heinous acts of crime and the path he took to come to terms with this fact and finally, the release he deserves through the help of his companions. Crime and Punishment provides a gruesome point of view in which we can view morality in the light of someone who is stricken with the ailments of society and allows us to show the importance of human connection and faith as a way to keep us grounded to reality. Crime and Punishment will be a staple read for a deeper inquisition of the human psyche and Dostoevsky certainly will not disappoint with his masterful writing and storytelling, which has made this piece of literary work relevant after hundreds of years and will for more centuries to come.

In 2001, Portugal became the first country to decriminalize the consumption of all drugs. The result was a decline in the proportion of drug-related offenders in the Portuguese prison population (Murkin, 2014). This led many to question if drug laws — and not the drugs themselves — cause the most damage to society. Proponents of this argue based on utilitarianism and Mill’s (1849) harm principle. On the other hand, arguments for criminalizing the consumption of drugs include legal paternalism and Feinberg’s (1984) take on the harm principle. This essay is in favor of decriminalizing the consumption of cannabis, with strict age limits imposed to protect children, in the United States.

According to Mill (1849), people have the freedom to act however they wish, unless their actions cause harm to others. Harms, in this case, refers to the infringement of baseline rights. Mill takes on a liberal approach to argue that there exists a public sphere in which the individual is concerned and a private sphere where individuals should be left to make their own decisions. He asserts that showing disapproval of action through persuasion or avoidance is encouraged, but mere disapproval or dislike for a person’s actions is insufficient to justify intervention by the government. He emphasizes that silencing an individual’s personal choices is a dangerous thing for a government to do. Mill further argues that an individual’s right to harm himself must be respected, and governments must only intervene if someone else’s liberties are in jeopardy.

Meanwhile, Feinberg (1984) proposes a modified version of the harm principle. He defined harm as a wrongful setback to interests and states that there exists different extents of public harm — those that are direct and serious; and those that are highly dilute and unnoticeable. However, public harm of the latter form still should not be allowed to become normalized as it will lead to a great collective loss for the institutions involved.

Applying Mill’s harm principle, the consumption of cannabis should be justified due to the respect for one’s liberty. The mere act of consuming cannabis causes no direct harm to others and the only direct harm inflicted is to the user’s own body in terms of health, but self-inflicted harm is considered a personal right under the harm principle, and thus governments should not intervene lest they interfere with individual liberties. Notwithstanding, others may dislike the smell that comes with the consumption of cannabis, but dislike — despite the psychological harms that may follow — is insufficient to warrant government intervention. Thereafter, users may end up committing crimes under the influence of cannabis. However, instead of being criminalized for the consumption of cannabis, they should be held liable for failing to fulfill their responsibilities in the public sphere. A drunk driver who crashes into someone else gets punished for the act of drunk driving, and not for being intoxicated. Similarly, for cannabis-related car accidents, these combined practices — and not the mere act of consuming cannabis — should be restricted by the government. Therefore, the government possesses no moral authority to criminalize cannabis as users deserve the right to consume cannabis as long as they do not harm others.

Despite this, cannabis consumption is still morally unacceptable and therefore criminalized in most societies. A paternalist may argue that the government knows what is best for its people and thus has the right to criminalize cannabis consumption to protect them from themselves. Adversaries of cannabis also put forth the slippery slope argument, claiming that greater future harm will ensue resulting from the generalization and practice of immoral behavior if cannabis consumption were to be decriminalized. As such, there are certain special circumstances — such as the possible exploitation and corruption of the vulnerable — that necessitate the intervention of the law for the greater good of society (Devlin, 1965). Cannabis consumption is deemed immoral because it derives pleasure at the expense of one’s cognitive functioning (Hsiao, 2017). In this case, government intervention seems necessary, especially for the vulnerable young, to prevent users from descending deeper into immorality and to safeguard society from disintegration.

However, individuals still know themselves best. Given a utilitarian approach to the harm principle, individuals can make the best choices for themselves and thus contribute to the greatest good for the greatest number. In the case of cannabis consumption, the risks attributed to its consumption may be negligible as compared to the benefits the users are experiencing. Even if the long-lasting impacts are regrettable, the state is still more likely to misjudge the utility of cannabis consumption due to its deficit of knowledge. Thus, individuals are more likely to make the decision that maximizes their utility and consequently society’s utility. There should thus be some limitations to the state’s power over its people. For children who lack rationality, legal force may be put in place to restrict their access to cannabis until they are deemed of age to increase the net benefit to society; after which, they are expected to be responsible for their own decisions. Therefore, adults should be given the liberty to consume cannabis as long as no direct harm is inflicted upon others.

Although there are some secondary harms associated with cannabis consumption, it is still justified because the harms are often remote. With the example of poisons, Mill (1849) points out that it is not possible to use just potential harms to justify government intervention especially when there is no direct correlation between the act and the harm caused. If a person were to get intoxicated on cannabis in a knowingly safe space, the mere act itself does not create harm. However, his act of consuming cannabis could have influenced someone else to consume cannabis and consequently commit a crime, or even more remotely caused gang warfare relating to the suppliers of the cannabis in another state. The aforementioned events transcend the responsibility of the cannabis consumer and thus, she or she should not be culpable for cannabis consumption. Therefore, there should be some limits put on the definition of Harm to ensure that the evaluated harms must concern the agents themselves (Von Hirsch, 1995).

On the other hand, it may be argued that acts that create a reasonable risk of harm should be criminalized for the betterment of society. By criminalizing cannabis, harm or the unreasonable risk of harm to parties other than the agent is prevented. This aligns with the harm principle and thus provides an appropriate reason for legal coercion (Feinberg,1984).

However, in reality, the decriminalization of cannabis may reduce the most significant of remote harms and free up enforcement costs to be channeled to rehabilitation and medical models. Under certain circumstances, it may be necessary to commit a lesser evil to avoid a greater evil. In the case of cannabis, this would involve decriminalizing cannabis to cut off the black market for cannabis and remove the largest source of funding for criminal gangs. By treating cannabis addicts as patients who needed help, and not as criminals, the police could also concentrate on traffickers and dealers, freeing up resources for the government to invest in treatment and harm reduction practices. By eliminating the threat of criminal penalties — and the stigma that is attached to it — it has become easier for people to seek treatment. After the decriminalization of drugs in Portugal, social services were put in place to educate adducts on treatment, and the available medical services and drug consumption facilities were built to provide a safe space to consume drugs with trained assistance. By decriminalizing drugs and adopting a health-centered approach, the per capita social cost of drug misuse decreased by 18% and the number of people in drug treatment increased by over 60% (Bajekal, 2018).

In conclusion, the consumption of cannabis should be decriminalized, with strict age limits imposed to protect children, in the United States. When utilitarianism and harm principles are applied, the consumption of cannabis is morally justified because each rational adult has the personal liberty to decide if they want to inflict harm on themselves. Like the prohibition of alcohol promoted organized crime and illegal trafficking, the criminalization of cannabis has had unintended consequences. Fuelled by the exorbitant profits associated with acquiring and selling illegal cannabis, the cannabis trade now bolsters organized crime and gang warfare, taking countless casualties. For the sake of our liberties and to win the war on drugs, we must reconsider the legality of cannabis.

References

1. Bajekal, N. (2018, August 1). Want to Win the War on Drugs? Portugal Might Have the Answer. Retrieved from https://time.com/longform/portugal-drug-use-decriminalization/
2. Devlin, L. (1965). Mill on Liberty in Morals. The University of Chicago Law Review, 32(2), 215. doi: 10.2307/1598689
3. Feinberg, J. (1984). The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law Volume 1: Harm to Others. doi: 10.1093/0195046641.001.0001
4. Hsiao, T. (2017). Why Recreational Drug Use Is Immoral. The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, 17(4), 605–614. doi: 10.5840/ncbq201717462
5. Mill, J. S. (1849). Liberty. Mill, 49–60. doi: 10.1002/9781444305746.ch4
6. Murkin, G. (2014, June). Drug decriminalization in Portugal: setting the record straight. Retrieved from https://transformdrugs.org/drug-decriminalisation-in-portugal-setting-the-record-straight/
7. Von Hirsch, A. (1995). Extending the Harm Principle: ‘Remote’ Harms and Fair Imputation. Harm and Culpability, 259–276. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198260578.003.0020

In his famous book “Crime and Punishment”, F. Dostoyevsky explores a variety of issues that concern the aspects of crime and the relation between the criminal and his victim. Although the old lady killed by the main character Raskolnikov died unfairly, she evokes very little or no sympathy as her life was a mere process of wealth accumulation, and her entire character was completely negative provoking thoughts that perhaps she deserved to die. Thus, among many other burning topics, Dostoyevskyy raises the debate over the guilt of a victim.

Regardless of whether the act of wrongdoing was deserved or not, we believe that the victim is always guilty if it represents something negative or evil. The history of the world, as well as the events of nowadays, proves this seemingly ambiguous statement.

If we look back for several centuries, we will remember the period in the history of the Catholic Church when the Inquisition was raging all throughout the catholic countries. Church officials or “witch hunters” represented the only possible truth, and thus anyone who found themselves not corresponding to the established views of the Church as to the religious behavior was found guilty, although oftentimes no actual court hearing was held. Victims of inquisition were always found guilty.

During World War II, Jews were killed in every country that witnessed the reign of the Nazis. These people were victims by the right of birth without the need for any particular behavior or actions. To those affiliated with the Nazi party or fond of Hitler theories, they embedded the evil and danger, thus not having the right to continue living (Stark, Goldstein, 1985).

There is no need, however, to go back that far as vivid examples of this statement can be found even in the world of nowadays. International wars are started and lead to massive killings of people under the pretext that the military actions are aimed at finding and eliminating the weapons of mass destruction, and thus are directed at the good for all people, even if the weapons are never found (Combs, Nimmo, 1996). Those who fell victims to such events inevitably represented evil, and thus were found guilty.

It is worth noting that the statement can be proved not only on the global level. In our everyday life the victims of domestic violence – women as a rule – are often believed to be guilty of what happened to them (Hejden, 2000). It is frequently considered that by their behavior, they provoked the act of violence.

Similarly, many victims of rapists are treated not as victims, but almost the same as criminals as supposedly it was their provoking or even aggressive behavior that caused the crime (Campbell, 1998).

Although eventually, the history proves different, at some point in the existence of the world certain type of victims, was always considered guilty as they did not correspond to the criteria of good and bad. Even though at the present moment looking at such examples through the prism of contemporary values, the opposite is obvious, we do not realize that many of those whom we associate with evil these days might be considered as the “victims who were always guilty” by the next generations.

References

Campbell, Rebecca. “The Community Response to Rape: Victims’ Experiences with the Legal, Medical, and Mental Health Systems.” American Journal of Community Psychology 26.3 (1998): 355-360.

Combs, James E., and Dan Nimmo. The Comedy of Democracy. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1996.

Der Heijden, Manon Van. “Women as Victims of Sexual and Domestic Violence: Criminal Cases of Rape, Incest, and Maltreatment.” Journal of Social History 33.3 (2000): 623.

Stark, James H., and Howard W. Goldstein. The Rights of Crime Victims. Toronto: Bantam Books, 1985.

A great Russian writer and thinker Dostoevsky illuminates the impact of distorted utilitarianists’ ideology on a simple Russian student in his novel Crime and Punishment. Implementing his own views concerning the progress and happiness, the author proves the inconsistency of the misinterpreted and not successfully adapted Western European conception, developing the themes of suffering and universal values.

The main character of the novel Crime and Punishment by Dostoyevsky was influenced by the ideas of West European utilitarianism, based on the theories of correct actions and values. “New, “strange, unfinished ideas’ ‘ of Western origin take a hold in his mind” (Hudspith 104). Raskolnikov tried to evaluate his every decision mathematically, considering the worth of its possible impacts, attempting to measure even the things, which can not be measured. “He draws up his theory to the Napoleonic superman, permitted to step across conventional moral boundaries in pursuit of glory, while the ordinary masses are compelled to live within the restrictions of these boundaries” (Hudspith 104). Regarding himself a superman, Rodion thought that his unique intellectual abilities allowed him to break not only the moral rules, but the society laws as well. It was characteristic of the utilitarian ideology, according to which “Mankind… obtains a greater sum of happiness when each pursues his own” (West 213). Still, Raskolnikov’s decisions can not be regarded the consequences of the utilitarian influence, they rather reflect the misrepresented propositions of European theory in the consciousness of a haughty Russian man. The main character misinterpreted the main points due to his personal views and adapted them to his intentions so as to find in them support and theoretical basis for his reasoning. “Raskolnikov’s scheme to rebuild Petesburg, based on the same principles of utilitarianism and superior will that underlie the crime, should have buttressed his conviction that the murder is justifiable” (Peace 46). His reasoning, though spoken mostly to himself, was not sincere, the whole city improvement was not his main goal. Being isolated and discriminated by the society, Rodion could not think of making it happier, this idea could not occur to him, this was only a plausible pretext for committing the crimes. “He committed his crime not to help them, but to tower above them” (Hudspith 104). Thus, Raskolnikov’s mathematical evaluation of the moral dilemma can not be regarded empirical implementation of the ideas of European utilitarianism, being misinterpreted at the discretion of an arrogant young man, claiming to have extraordinary abilities and the right to rule the destinies.

Describing the consequences to which the young man’s passion for the utilitarian philosophical theories led, Dostoyevsky opposed his conception of the human happiness to that accepted by European philosophers. “The whole meaning of progress, Dostoyevsky had written as early as 1861, comes down to ‘self-enlightenment in the name of love of one another’” (Scanlan 191). While the European standards of progress emphasized the importance of the personal happiness of every individual, Dostoevsky proclaimed the priority of brotherhood and love for others. He regarded Chernyschevsky’s utilitarianism to be “an unintended distortion of such English utilitarianists as Bentham and Mill” (Hudspith 78). Chernyschevsky’s theories were rather popular among the young people, but Dostoevsky found misconceptions in them. For example, Chernyshevsky believed that “Good is superlative of utility, a very useful utility. Evil consists in what is not useful, and theoretical miscalculations have caused humanity more misery than the plague” ( Hudspith 188). But the reasons for Rodion’s plans failure are not only his miscalculations, his failure demonstrates inability of common people to calculate the universal values mathematically and the imperfection of the human nature in general. Proclaiming the importance of the spiritual side of life, Dostoevsky regarded the earthly period of life to be transitional and developing before the paradise of Christ. (Scanlan 191). Putting individual interests on the first place and realizing all wishes of the earthly life were out of the question for him. Dostoevsky’s attempt to criticize the misconceptions of the utilitarians’ ideology is reflected in the novel Crime and Punishment. Certainly, the main propositions of European theories are intentionally exaggerated and distorted demonstrating the possible impact of this distortion. The crime was followed by the punishment and the moral suffering of a man who was assured that he would manage to calculate everything mathematically. But such categories as psychic pain and remorse can not be measured or calculated. The plot of the novel is aimed to contrast the European standard of progress to its Russian unsuccessful implementation.

The theme of suffering, that runs the entire novel thorough, reflects Dostoevsky’s ideas of an ideal man opposed to the Napoleonic ideas of a superman. “He insisted that to make progress the individual must strive toward an ideal that is ‘opposed’ to his nature and which he must continually ‘negate’” (Scanlan 191). Every character of the novel goes his/her path of suffering. Every member of the Marmeladov’s family suffers much. Living in poverty Sonia was induced to go on the streets to support her family. Raskolnikov himself suffers from the feeling of remorse having committed the murders. At the beginning of the novel Rodion follows the postulates of utilitarianists’ ideology, trying to change this world for the better, having the false idea of his extraordinary abilities and his exceptionality. But the miserable condition of the main character at the end of the novel leads the readers to the conclusion that his choice was wrong notwithstanding his calculations and reasoning. Dostoevsky denies the right of the individuals that got a false idea of their superiority, to rule the destinies and neglect the interests of the minority whatever calculations they may be guided. Suffering of the main character was inevitable for the progress, according to Dostoevsky’s views. A person, ignoring the spiritual side of life, guided by the material profits only was sure to suffer a defeat. Not taking into consideration the moral values which are one of the compulsory propositions of the utilitarianists’ ideology, the main character suffers from his lack of education, which could help him to interpret the European conceptions and lack of self-efficiency, which resulted in the desire to tower above the society in which he was isolated.

Another theme that helped the author to implement most of his philosophical views was the theme of moral values. Though the universal values in their accustomed sense are denied during the characters’ conversations, the ending of the novel proves the failure of the life position deprived from spirituality. The main character is contradictory and it is noticeable that two sides of human nature or different ideologies are struggling inside of him. It is obvious, that the spiritual side was to win in Dostoevsky’s character. In some episodes it seems that Raskolnikov does not believe in his words himself. “One death and a hundred lives in exchange – it’s simple arithmetic!” (Dostoevsky 157). But the arithmetical calculations did not seem so simple to the main character as he said. He was misled by the wrong ideas, got carried away by the philosophy that seemed convenient to him at some moment and forgot about the importance of moral values. But this was not characteristic of Rodion, as he was kind and sensitive by nature, in several episodes he was able to empathize with others, though criticizing himself after calculating the worth of his actions, he did not realize his own motivation and it was only impulse that guided him.

He wants to help the girl that who has been seduced, but then pours scorn on the feebleness of the necessary “percentage” that must go to rack and ruin; he leaves some money at the Marmeladovs’, but scolds himself for a gesture that in economic terms is a useless drop in the ocean (Hudspith 105).

In other words, Dostoevsky’s main character suffers from the inner struggle of the distorted interpretation of the utilitarianists’ ideology and moral values which were cultivated to him by Russian culture.

The inner struggle in the soul of the main character represents the opposition of two doctrines. Intentionally distorting the main propositions of the utilitarianists’ ideology Dostoevsky demonstrates the inconsistency of the conception of progress as it floated around Western Europe in Russia due to differences in the people’s mentality and different historical ways of development.

Bibliography

Dostoyevsky, Fedor. Crime and Punishment. EasyRead Large. 2006: 512.

Hudspith, Sarah. Dostoyevsky and the idea of Russianness: A New perspective on Unity and Brotherhood. RoutledgeCurzon. 2004: 228.

Peace, Richard. Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s Crime and Punishment: A casebook. Oxford University Press. 2006: 198.

Scanlan, James Patrick. Dostoyevsky the Thinker. Cornell University press. 2002: 251.

West, Henry. The Blackwell Guide to Mill’s Utilitarianism. Blackwell Publishing. 2006: 275.

Introduction

The death sentence and how it infringes on people’s rights and regional values are topics of discussion in the United States and other countries today. People who support the death sentence do so because they think the accused should be killed for their crime. Others oppose the punishment because they believe that killing someone is immoral or that the culprit should spend the rest of their life in prison. Killing a wrongdoer does not make the wrongdoing go away or aid in the criminal’s rehabilitation (Greenspan 639). Punishment is intended to change a person’s moral values and attributes. Since humanity is primarily concerned with deterring, it must employ the most humane deterrents available to prevent crimes, and brutal punishments like the death sentence are not among them. Since assassinations still happen in the modern world, only a few assassins will think twice before acting if they are found guilty of murder and executed. From this standpoint, the death penalty has not produced very much. Discipline and Punish and Crime and Punishment books will be used in the essay to elaborate on cruel punishments.

Discipline and Punish

Discipline and Punish by Michael Foucault focus on the modern criminal justice system. The book examines the social context of punishment and the implications of shifting power. Foucault starts his analysis by focusing on the eighteenth century, when society used the worst forms of punishment, such as public hanging and physical discipline. Torture was used to interrogate a suspect to force them to admit to crimes they did not commit. Punishment was a celebration of the death of those accused of committing crimes. The jail department organized the activity as a ceremony to restore the king’s power. Campaigners first demanded reforms in punishment in the nineteenth century. Research indicates that reformers were more concerned with altering the way power was exercised than with the welfare of the convicts receiving harsh punishment (Foucault). The goal was to increase the electricity system’s effectiveness—by introducing disciplinary measures designed to regulate behavior and reduce punishments. Timetables and military training exercises were two procedures implemented to direct people’s behavior.

Foucault contrasts the public executions in 1757 with the prison regulations in effect in 1837. The evolution of the criminal justice system over that period demonstrates how society is introduced to new rules of law and order. One of the most significant changes was removing torture as a method of interrogation, which caused the criminal’s body to vanish from view. The main change was the elimination of public executions where convicts were shown for cheering crowds (Foucault). People were guaranteed to avoid crime by locking up those who had committed crimes.

In contrast to simply punishing a person for their crime, today’s sentences attempt to alter the person’s behavior and help them become better citizens. Executions are carried out painlessly in Europe, damaging only the soul, not the body. The removal of pain from criminal punishment put an end to the spectacle. The development of new technology helped lessen the suffering the victim would experience in the event of execution for a criminal who has been given a death sentence (Foucault). To ensure the prisoner was executed without torture, tactics like the guillotine and the injection of poisonous medicines were used.

The punishment format was changed to safeguard the condemned criminal’s body from injury. Therefore, the introduced alterations addressed the soul and successful reintegration of criminals into the community. The definition of crimes also changed, and judgment is now rendered by looking at the offender’s instinct, enthusiasm, and reasons. In contrast to prior torture techniques, investigators and the jury now rely on scientific understanding to compile sufficient evidence to charge. The judge considers the accused person’s soul and the alleged offense in Europe. Making a final determination about the criminal’s destiny was challenging to decide. The judge had to rely on additional intelligence sources, such as medico-legal specialists, to reach a ruling (Foucault). By examining how modifications to the criminal justice system affected the political influence of various European leaders, the book establishes a connection between human sciences and the history of the penal code. The author notes that when it comes to political power, historians have never given much attention to the human body. Presidents in the past relied on intimidating people who might threaten their reign by torturing and openly executing their rivals to keep control.

The panoptic is at the center of Foucault’s book, exploring his observations of contemporary society and his idea of how punishment and discipline are ingrained. Foucault contrasts the old day’s execution and the present day’s schedule. Foucault uses the European plague of the 17th century to illustrate his analysis. The author ignores the actual plague’s description and concentrates on the actions taken to stop it. Text and reality, according to Foucault, are intertwined. The definition of discipline was formed through procedures that were made possible by government action (Foucault). Public order was lost due to the disease, but several people were publicly executed when it was restored.

When the plague struck Europe, people went beyond the bounds of what was expected. People who grew ill were labeled as abnormal, which became risky. The author concludes that manipulating individuals through observation and analysis is still practiced in contemporary culture. Governments and businesses worldwide keep a careful eye on people and categorize them based on their behaviors. Movement restrictions exist, and getting authorization to migrate from one nation to another requires an application (Foucault). Companies classify and oversee their employees. To penalize those who are not meeting expectations, they are expelled. Because they risk losing their jobs and means of subsistence, workers constantly live in terror of making mistakes.

Judgment was the first social norm that was adopted before discipline. It took a micro-penalty of time to create the penal code. Along with appropriate speech and behavior, the system included. Punishment was used to reprimand those who did not behave as was anticipated. Although non-observance was also significant, using bad behavior as punishment was comparable to how the courts did it. People were condemned and punished for acting in a way that did not conform to the law (Foucault). Different sentences with a corrective purpose were used for discipline. When someone misbehaves, they are reminded of the pending disciplinary actions.

A person’s behavior is categorized as either good or evil, and punishment uses two pleasure systems. The separation of hierarchy caused by social discipline also rewards good behavior and penalties for bad behavior. Following the awarding ranks, people are either awarded or punished. To understand how hierarchical groups are formed and how a group of people is divided into cells, Foucault concentrated his research on the power that allows the government to punish individuals. Understanding power structure requires knowledge of how people are divided (Foucault). People in positions of authority could watch a particular group of people’s behavior and compare it to the established standard average behavior. The technique assisted the authorities in instilling discipline through training and observation.

It was crucial to train people to fit into a specific disciplinary category, and authorities depended on observation as a technique to do this. How the people responded to the exercise was altered when the focus shifted from punishing to enforcing discipline. In addition to other forms of coercion, the government used them more frequently. By keeping an eye on people, the government could keep people under control by ensuring they always did what was expected of them without having to punish them. The new method of enforcing discipline became close surveillance (Foucault). When someone is being observed, their behavior often changes because they are always self-conscious. Leaders used this tactic to ensure their followers and consolidate their power. The method above illustrates the power of operation, which allows a person’s body to be controlled without physical harm or violence.

Foucault also emphasizes how premodern societies created written laws. Laws that were codified altered the position of judgment. The rule sets forth the anticipated behaviors for specific categories of individuals. Since then, the actions of troops, students, factory workers, and inmates have been evaluated concerning this law. In society, two basic norms are distinguished between normal and aberrant behavior. When an action went well, it was accepted as typical. A poor deed was considered unusual, and the offender received punishment (Foucault). Since then, individuals have been classified into ranks based on normalcy. The employment of this criterion, according to Foucault, is flawed since it influenced people’s reasoning in a predetermined way. People were not allowed to express their fundamental beliefs without fear of being labeled weird and punished.

Crime and Punishment

The book Crime and Punishment present the earliest modern, scientific viewpoints on crime. The 1764 book was the foundation for the classic criminological paradigm, which dominated attempts to understand crime for more than a century. Some people believe, that humans are rational beings who care about lessening their suffering and increasing their pleasure. The book opposes harsh punishment since it agrees that such measures do not work to reduce crime and should not be used. Penalties should be proportionate to how serious the offense was, not the other way around. Inflicting pain on the offender is not the intended result of punishment; rather, it is meant to deter future offenses and criminal activity. Dostoevsky concurs that retribution should be used to promote moral change.

The book does not quite approach crime and punishment as one might anticipate. The crime occurs in Part One, and the penalty is delivered in the Epilogue several pages later. The novel’s primary emphasis is not on these two events but on what transpires in the interim—a comprehensive investigation of a criminal’s mentality. Dostoevsky is more interested in how Raskolnikov is forced to deal with his agonizing guilt from murder than in dealing with the fallout from the murder itself. Dostoevsky suggests that actual punishment is significantly less horrifying than the tension and worry of attempting to dodge the penalty by placing little emphasis on Raskolnikov’s imprisonment (Dostoevsky). The writer believes that Raskolnikov will eventually confess or go insane because he knows that a criminal who is tortured by conscience must necessarily be tortured mentally. By performing skilled mind games on Raskolnikov, Foyder increases his belief that the nature of the human psyche predetermines the novel’s outcome.

The book shows the reader how the protagonist’s moral character develops over time as he suffers from guilt’s mental torment. Most people do not realize that there are other forms of punishment than physical violence, but Dostoevsky was aware of one that might help people change their moral values. The book shows that hurting a criminal mind can be just as effective as physically torturing them. Raskolnikov decides to confess to stop his mental torment and make an effort to start again. Raskolnikov spends the book’s last pages in Siberia, where he faces seven years of hard labor but emerges spiritually strengthened. His choices were a one-way trip to damnation or a new start in life gained through repentance. One does not need to be spanked or punished to learn from mistakes (Dostoevsky). It is feasible to draw a lesson from the human psyche’s tendency toward guilt. Spending seven years in Siberia did not raise Raskolnikov’s moral standards; instead, his guilty conscience helped him become a better person. A conscious intellect can always tell right from wrong.

Conclusion

The idea that individuals have the authority to determine who lives and dies and what punishment they deem appropriate for an individual is cruel. Because it goes against the laws of nature, humans have no right to claim power over that. People should not decide if anything or someone is worth living or not. The right to life belongs to everyone and everything on this planet. Foucault’s philosophy explains the relationship between discipline and punishment and how they impact power. The sentence includes causing physical harm to the body, whereas power governs it without damage. People were tortured and cruelly executed in front of the public in early societies. Individuals no longer suspected of committing a crime are no longer slain in public due to changes in the system. People who have been charged with a crime go through a disciplinary process to rehabilitate them through training and reintegrate them into society. As a result, humanity has adapted to a set of norms and laws that govern their discipline.

The concept of judgment is a crucial subject in Crime and Punishment, including the judgment of oneself and others, judgment by society, and judgment by religion. The novel challenges individuals to evaluate not just the people themselves but also their evaluations of one another. As people navigate this maze of judging, individuals and the characters are searching for justice, or, to put it simply, fairness. The book makes the case that jail is a crucial component of social justice because Raskolnikov learns how to become a nonviolent member of society while there. Love and friendship can operate in tandem with judgment to help bring justice, as shown by the characters who continue to support Raskolnikov even after his crime is made public. Thus, cruel punishment should not be some of the modes implicated in reverting a criminal.

Works Cited

Dostoevsky, Fyodor. Crime and Punishment. Gutenberg.Org, 2022.

Foucault, Michel. “Discipline and Punish.” Internet Archive, 2022. Web.

Greenspan, Stephen. “Cruel and Unusual Punishment in the USA.”Public Integrity, vol 22, no. 6, 2020, pp. 637-639. Informa UK Limited.

Days 1-4

During the first week, I read the first and the second parts of Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky. The most important moments from the first part occur in the second chapter, when Raskolnikov, in a conversation with Marmeladov, expresses his opinion that poverty is not a vice – it is the truth, while severe poverty is a vice (Dostoevsky, 2001). Marmeladov tells Raskolnikov about his family that lives in extreme poverty because of Marmeladov’s drunkenness. Raskolnikov interprets Marmeladov’s opinion in his way, forming the idea that poverty is a vice, for which some members of society must bear responsibility. In Raskolnikov’s morbid imagination, this thought later develops into the idea of murdering Alena Ivanovna.

Days 5-7

Later, in the fifth chapter, after the news about his sister’s Dunya upcoming marriage, and heavy thoughts, Raskolnikov drinks vodka and falls asleep under a bush. After waking up, he heads to the market, where he overhears a conversation that his would-be victim will be home alone the next day. Raskolnikov decides that fate has sent him a sign and says to himself that now everything is finally decided (Dostoevsky, 2001). The next two chapters describe the preparation for the murder and the killing of the old woman. It is interesting that, although the novel consists of five parts, the central idea of the plot is laid out in the first part.

The remaining five parts present a setting for the repentance of Raskolnikov. The second part has an interesting twist that caught my attention. After Raskolnikov finally comes to his senses after the murder and hides the stolen jewels under a stone in a nearby yard, his friend Razumikhin comes to him and notices Rodion’s difficult state of mind. Importantly, this attention somehow alleviates Raskolnikov’s suffering, because he is horrified by his act and now wants to find someone who would notice the fact of the evil committed. Someone who would have a fairly clear conscience and judge him as God’s punishment judges a person.

Days 8-12

During the second week, I read the remaining parts 3, 4, 5, and 6. In the third part, the fifth chapter, investigator Porphyry expresses suspicions about Raskolnikov, referring to his article, where Rodion divides people into ordinary or the so-called ‘material’ and extraordinary – talented, capable of saying a new word (Dostoevsky, 2001). Rodion writes that ordinary people must live in obedience and do not have the right to break the law, and extraordinary people have the right to commit all kinds of crimes and violate the law in every way, precisely because they are extraordinary (Dostoevsky, 2001). In such a concise form Dostoevsky conveys the moral basis for the life of townspeople in Russia. In part four, chapter four, the episode when Raskolnikov bows at the feet of Sonya Marmeladova is descriptive, as he sees her as his salvation. Raskolnikov says that he bows to all human suffering, and later Sonya falls in love with him and follows him to prison.

Days 12-14

In the fifth part of the fourth chapter, Raskolnikov explains to Sonya that he committed a crime to find out whether he could cross the boundaries of his conscience, to which Sonya replies that Rodion must confess to what happened, and then God will forgive him and give him new hope. Finally, in the sixth part, chapter eight, Rodion confesses to the crime, and in the Epilogue, the reader learns that Raskolnikov was sentenced to eight years of hard labor, where his love for Sonya healed him.

References

Dostoevsky, F. (2001). Crime and punishment.

The novel Crime and Punishment portrays and analyzes events and psychological factors which led the main character, Raskolnikov, to a terrible crime. This is by no means to say that Raskolnikov’s crime is the socially determined effect of these abstract causes. Dostoevsky had a streak of the naturalist in him, but it was always subsidiary to other conceptions. Isolation, poverty, fever, the unnatural city and psychological changes are the main drivers and factors which led Raskolnikov to crime and wrong doing.

Psychological changes and depressions were the main drivers of crime, which upset Raskolnikov’s nervous system. The young doctor Zossimov, whom Razumikhin fetches to attend to Raskolnikov, says that Raskolnikov’s condition has both a material origin caused by the squalid circumstances in which he lives, and a moral one. Zossimov is a lightly drawn character, but he is firmly credited by the author with a shrewdness equal to Porfiry’s—and considerably more benevolent. Later in the book Raskolnikov’s mother says that the meanness of his lodging must have caused his melancholy; Raskolnikov answers, listlessly, “yes, the lodging had a great deal to do with it” (Dostoevsky). It is evident that the mother in accepting this explanation as total is grasping at a delusive comfort, and that Raskolnikov’s abstracted reply can only deepen her anxiety.

Poverty was another factor which forced Raskolnikov to commit a crime. Dostoevsky portrays that Razumikhin like Raskolnikov is poor; unlike Raskolnikov he keeps himself by working. It seems that we are not going to find an answer easily. We must drop premature theorizing and attend to detail. Raskolnikov, socially isolated, becomes fascinated by a theory according to which freedom consists in total emancipation from convention. He is violently excited by a conversation he overhears in which someone who holds a theory like his puts the theory in the form of a practical challenge: Kill this socially harmful person. The person is, by chance, known to Raskolnikov. He plans and carries out the murder in a sort of stupor, proceeding methodically and yet uncomprehendingly, with just enough consciousness of what he is doing to experience inarticulate terror when the real world presents him with awkward, accidental features not formulated in his plan. Despite the fact that the crime according to his theory was to provide a financial basis for an ambitious future, Raskolnikov does not even count the money he takes from the old woman, and, having hidden it away, makes no further use of it. At the moment of the killing his body seems to perform independently of his mind:

He pulled the axe quite out, swung it with both arms, scarcely conscious of himself, and almost without effort, brought the blunt side down on her head. He seemed not to use his own strength in this but as soon as he had once brought the axe down, his strength returned to him (Dostoevsky).

Similarly, when Razumikhin offers him money Raskolnikov gives it back though his need is dire. Lest the reader should take this for some sort of chivalry, Dostoevsky has Raskolnikov mistaken for a beggar a page later and given twenty copecks; this time he has no opportunity to return the money. If Raskolnikov’s plight was merely economic he would obviously have lost no time in buying himself a square meal. Instead he throws the money in the Neva. When after the murder Raskolnikov is able to help the Marmeladov family, he finds that his nervous condition is greatly improved; he says that his life has become “real.” Further, when his mother and sister visit him in his lodgings, after their long arduous journey, he speaks to them in a disconnected fashion, breaks out in great anger against the proposed marriage of Dounia to Luzhin, and then lies down on a sofa and turns his face to the wall. The next day he appears much calmer and his friends are delighted. He soberly apologizes to his mother and sister and his language is somewhat more orderly.

Unnatural city was another factor which led the main hero to a crime. Raskolnikov wonders in a moment of reverie “why in all great cities men are not just impelled by necessity, but somehow peculiarly inclined to live and settle in just those parts of the city where there are no gardens or fountains, where there is most dirt and stench and all sorts of filth” (Dostoevsky). He himself is drawn to them, as if by an instinctive and obscure fellow-feeling that is a refutation of his intellectual theory about himself. Here, for all its squalor, is quintessential urban life. The streets are Raskolnikov’s contact with life; it may seem tautological to add, with urban life, but his walk to the islands gives the addition a special point.

Here is Nature and, as might be expected, “the greenness and freshness were at first pleasing to his tired eyes, accustomed to the dust of the city and the huge houses that hemmed him in and oppressed him. Here there were no taverns, no closeness, no stench. Soon even these new, pleasant sensations turned morbid and irritating” (Dostoevsky). The world of nature offers no lasting solace and no way out because Raskolnikov’s whole world is the man-made one of the city; there and there alone his drama arises, and there it must be played out. Theories, like cities, are made by men and their creators must come to terms with them; escape cannot remove the problem of reconciling “living life” with the conditions of city life. Looking for a place to sit, he notices a woman walking in front of him, and his attention fastens on her, “at first reluctantly and, as it were, with annoyance, and then more and more intently” (Dostoevsky). So even amid the sickly life of the streets, Raskolnikov finds a kind of tentative community. His own is a tragedy of the garret, and it is kept significantly apart from his experience out of doors.

Preceding the doubt about what is or is not hallucination, and giving it foundation, are actual illness and fever. The illness is often—as with Raskolnikov—unspecified, apparently a generally run-down condition that leaves the body weak and the mind dangerously active. This is the natural state of the dreamer, his physical debility reflecting his alienation from “normal life,” his feverish mental freedom representing both a contributing cause and a compensation. The fever is the badge of alienation, poverty, malnutrition—the mark of the Petersburg hero or antihero in Dostoevsky’s heroically antiheroic Petersburg. Dreams are born of it, which represent themselves as spiritual illness, and they move the dreamer “to see the fantastic in everything” (Dostoevsky). The earliest essays in this direction are the most extreme: Neither of them was fully appreciated until the twentieth century—though it is only fair to add that this latter-day appreciation was prompted by a desire unknown to earlier critics, the desire to see their place in the process that led to the later works. Through Raskolnikov’s fever and distraction, objective time, place, and situation shine through; their color is that of the filter, but the outlines are their own.

Isolation and loneliness in a city led Raskolnikov to a murder. Isolation comes finally to define so much of Dostoevsky’s myth of Petersburg.It is first of all symbolized by the tiny and sordidly furnished rooms and apartments: Raskolnikov’s “coffin,” Alyona’s spotless and characterless den, the crowded pigsty of the Marmeladovs—and before them the underground man’s “mouse hole,” the cubicle Ivan Petrovich takes over from old Smith, the room of the narrator of ” White Nights,” “into which a different sun shines,” Golyadkin’s refuge, and Devushkin’s side of the kitchen. Located often at the top of dark and dirty stairways, in huge blocks of apartment buildings, these are the discrete cells of which the city is made, and their trapped inhabitants are a product or outgrowth of the fantastic city. It is possible to dream in such places, but hardly to live, as the physical and spiritual health of Dostoevsky’s characters plainly testifies. After months spent in a sort of private dream, Raskolnikov, indeed no free man but rather a solidly programmed being, hears quite objectively from another’s lips the imperative which has before existed only within the dream. Hardly knowing why, he finds himself moving into action.

In sum, part of the horror of these mental states consists in the fact that a process is started in the mind which then continues in a sort of disengagement from the rest, independent of the subject’s control. Raskolnikov reconstructs the circumstances of seduction and even imagines the scene of her return home. The causes of crime are both social and psychological reflecting personality disorders and poverty affected a common man. To some extent, fever abd isolation are caused by poverty and lack of money, the emblem of their spiritual states—that this becomes a feature in its own right of the city. Dissolution dominated his personality and creates fear and terror.

Works Cited

Dostoyevsky, F. Crime and Punishment. Web.