Throughout time, there have been different documented, and usually highly publicized, cases that reflect different perceptions of the guilty party. Often, the individual has committed a heinous crime against individuals in society for reason we can never be certain of; being viewed as a “monster.” Yet, upon interviewing close family and friends in regards to this individual, the perception is quite different. The novel, Crime and Punishment, depicts a scenario of a crime that is justified by the individual as being okay since the intended victim was mean by nature, in his opinion, and the benefit of the crime, the financial gain, would assist the people he cared for most (Kliger, 2010). During this analysis, the focus will be on the question, Did Raskolnikov find it still morally acceptable, after taking lives of two individuals, in order to increase his financial status and share the wealth with members of society close to him that he thought needed it most?
Based on the documented life of the author, Fyodor Dostoevsky, it can be assumed that in fact often the author is placing circumstances and social class of the main character, in which he had lived through as a child himself. In the novel, the author depicts a scenario of a young man whom is restricted to poverty, along with his mother and sister. This social class can be related to the author himself, having had his mother and father die at a young age. Adding to the comparative lifestyle that of the author and the main character in Crime and Punishment, Dostoevsky eventually rose in social class status within the Russian Army; however this too ended and he was exiled to Siberia due to his involvement in a liberal group with Utopian society ideas.
In the beginning of story, Raskolnikov, the main characters is depicted as believing above the rest of society even though he is restricted to poverty, he does not have this mind set however. He feels confined to his small room, his life and especially to his financial status. He resents the fact that evil, mean members of society, like the old pawnbroker, have wealth when others do not. One cannot help but ponder on the idea that perhaps this is the same way Dostoevsky felt after his parents past away; of course, Raskolnikov is constantly contemplating on the committing the murder of the old pawn broker, where this was not a document issue in the life of the author (Dostoevsky, 2000). However, when reading the book, the reader could analysis Raskolnikov ideas somewhat, in some circumstances, as a Utopia. He wants to be a good man to the members of society, this hero to society. He feels as though it is okay to commit a crime against one, if the outcome is in the benefit of humanity. Specifically, the novel describes the conversation between Porfiry Petrovich, the investigator assigned to the case, and Raskolnikov, where Raskolnikov openly states that extraordinary men hold the rights remove; dispose of any obstacles that may lie in the path to a Utopia, even if this removal shall lead to committing an act of murder (Kliger, 2010).
Again, the characterized goodness, hero like man, on numerous occasions is depicted throughout the story. The first incident highlights the goodness within Raskolnikov when he assists the alcoholic Marmeladov home (Dostoevsky, 2000).
Upon venturing to a local bar one evening, Raskolnikov interacts with a man by the name of Marmeladov. While the man clearly has issues with alcoholism, Raskolnikov takes to him and feels a sense of sorrow to his poverty-stricken lifestyle with a wife, three children, and a prostitute sister. During his exit from the family home, he not only leaves money, but also, it is at this point that he decides that the pawnbroker is worthless to society and humanity on a whole would profit from her wealth and therefore it is acceptable and justifiable to murder her (Stuchebrukhov, 2012).
Furthering this goodness, he actually plans the murder of the pawnbroker when the mentally challenged sisters, Lizaveta will not be at the family residence. Yet, due to carelessness, he forgets to lock the door to the home and Lizaveta comes home and witnesses his heinous act. Being cornered, he fills compelled to dispose of her as well, the only witness to the crime; this is the precise moment that things take a dramatic turn for Raskolnikov for this leaves a longing guilt within him because Lizaveta was innocent and sweet (Dostoevsky, 2000).
Continuing on still in this heroic state, Raskolnikov pushes his feeling aside and takes on a protective role of his friends and family, especially his sister, whom is about to get married to a wealthy businessperson (Dostoevsky, 2000). He believes her finance to be a louse and feels as though she can do better. In addition, he can help but think of Marmeladov little sister Sonja and how a lifestyle of prostitution was forced upon her in order to bring money to the family. He keeps comparing Sonja with his sister and her marrying for wealth (Dostoevsky, 2000). In addition, it is often insinuated by the main character that it he did not actually murder the pawnbroker. The author is not insinuating that the main character did not physically kill her, for this is clearly depicted; yet, the author is suggesting and allowing the reader to assume that the heinous act against the pawnbroker was her fate in life as a repercussion of her cruelty to members in society.
It is for all of these reasons listed above, the people he cares for most, which is supported through several passages, that will not allow him to morally accept the responsibility for the pawnbroker’s murder; there never seems to be the feeling of guilt for her death at all (Crime And Punishment, 2010).
Yet, with that said, he cannot not seem to overcome the guilt of taking the life of her sister; often referring to the second crime as ending his life. It is at this point that the author allows the reader to speculate on the meaning behind this phrase and wonders if it is implying that Raskolnikov knows that he will convicted for this crime, which will end his life. On the other hand, is the phrase insinuating that the remorse, and guilt stricken feelings will overcome him for the rest of his life, hense not ever finding solitude, essentially ending his life in the emotional, moral sense?
Regardless of the intended meaning, the interpretation is that of the reader and it becomes clear that that the punishment may not necessarily be physically being exiled and incarcerated, but living a lifetime with the guilt of murdering the innocent sweet sister of the pawnbroker.