Crime and Punishment, by the Russian author Fyodor Dostoyevsky, tells the story of a poor college student, Raskolnikov, who murders a loan shark and her innocent sister. Although someone else takes the blame for the murder, he eventually confesses his crime to the police after a long internal struggle. The book focuses on the life and tribulations of people in the lower classes of 19th-century Russia. The book asks the reader to consider the question, “Would I kill that loan shark, if I were in the same position as the protagonist?”

Raskolnikov, a young and destitute student, gives a lot of thought to the murder and its consequences, and I have to admit that I agree with his assessment of his victim. His position is that, those who practice usury are like parasites living on other people, and they should be eliminated as their actions keep people like Raskolnikov in their poor condition. In addition to all this, due to his bad habits, he loses his job, and he must find a way to earn money for himself and stop his family worrying about him. He breaks into the house of the loan shark and kills her, and because of an accident, kills her unfortunate sister as well. He then steals some money and escapes.

After killing the loan shark, Raskolnikov descends into fear and paranoia, and begins to doubt whether his actions were truly just or not. He buries the stolen money in his house; Dostoyevsky says this is because of his (Raskolnikov’s) fear of discovery, but I think there could be another reason. If it were truly about hiding evidence, he could have simply spent the money at once, or otherwise he could have not killed the old lady in the first place, as he definitely knew he might be found out and convicted of murder. More likely, fear is merely a cover for his doubt regarding the morality of the murder: no matter how bad the behavior of the loan shark is, she still earned the money through an understanding between herself and every borrower. But he stole the money, without the consent of the old woman, and as a result, he comes to doubt the “legitimacy” of the money. In the end, although Raskolnikov can escape from punishment, he chooses to suffer for it, and in my opinion, this suggests that his doubt finally overcomes his initial belief in the justness of his actions.

Sonia, a woman Raskolnikov meets in a tavern who becomes quite important to him, contrasts his decisions and thoughts. She comes from the same background as Raskolnikov, and is forced to become a prostitute to keep her family from starvation. The difference between them is that, though she suffers physically and mentally in much the same way, she never thinks of harming others. She has a strong sense of morality, and she helps convince Raskolnikov to go to the police and tell the truth, and they become peers in the end. For most people like Raskolnikov, driven to the edge of insanity by guilt and doubt, the support of other people can help them recover; unfortunately, normally the government and even the public ignore their pain until everything ends badly.

This book is a mirror of the reality of what was happening to the lower classes during the 19th century in Russia, and it shows the disadvantages of a capitalist society. Eventually, it leads to a vicious circle, like the caste system in ancient India: people born with money and assets have all the benefits, and it is next to impossible for the poor to have a better life.

In the end, after pondering the moral question of the book, I have to conclude that, in the same circumstances, I would do the same as Raskolnikov. Though it is a serious crime, he was driven to it by the conditions of society. But how can I know whether I will find myself in the same state as Raskolnikov? Many critics judge it as anarchism, but how can it be? Killing a bug to save and help more people. It can’t be bad at least when it comes to me. But I will never know whether I will be the same as Raskolnikov, as I will never mean to do harm.