Crime and Punishment Raskolnikov and Justified Murder The most important feature of this work is Raskolnikov's justification of his crime, and the emotional stress this causes him. You have a young man by the name of Raskolnikov who has convinced himself of the justness of a to-be perpetrated murder. This is done in two ways, by criticizing the victim, and with the aid of a new theory. First, the victim was merely an old spinster with no friends or acquaintances. No one would grieve her loss, and if the murder would be committed swifty and confidently; the woman herself would feel no pain. She was probably in pain as it was because of her advanced age, killing her would actually benefit her! Besides, the occupation of the woman was that of a pawner. She was single handedly giving incentives to drink, rob, and even murder for the purpose of easy money. Punishment was necessary for such selfishness. If any business person were a danger to Moscow, it was this old woman. By preying on the weak-willed and paying off lawbreakers this lady had horded a large amount of money. Certainly this money could be put to better use? Say this money could feed the homeless for a month. Wouldn't that be preferable to having this money stashed away in a closet while the poor starve to death? Certainly the fact that no suffering would befall the victim and that no later grievances would result either should be taken into account. Yet, we still have the theory of Raskolnikov to consider. Basically, he takes the Machiavellian view that the ends justify the means. Similar to the earlier claim of killing societal parasites to feed the poor, this theory would also allow even crueler (killing of the absolutely innocent) means to attain positive ends. Raskolnikov uses the example of Napolean. Say he stole, murdered, and used otherwise treacherous methods to attain the highest military ranking. He then uses this power to save France from the depths of the Great Terror, saving tens of thousands of lives and thoroughly maintaining control in the country for years to come. Surely his youthful indiscretions are justified by the good that came of them? Most would agree, so then, how is this case any different from that of Raskolnikov's? He would save lives from starvation, while Napolean saved lives from the guillotine. This coupled with the unimportant, even damaging position of the old woman in the city, and the fact that no suffering would follow, allowed Roskolnikov to murder with a clear conscience. These seem to be compelling arguements, and are so much so that the murder scheme is followed through with. Yet in the end Raskolnikov nearly loses his mind and must confess his crime. What is Dostoyevsky trying to say?  The door is left open to two interpretations. First, and the most obvious take, is that the horrendousness of the crime and theory and realized, and Raskolnikov's surrender are vindication of this. Second, the more controversial and interesting take, is that the guilt felt by Raskolnikov was not caused by feelings about the immorality of the crime, but by his realization that he was no Napolean. The insanity insued because he realizes how he had not had the importance to efficiently use his great idea. Whichever the interpretation, a great book for those who prefer to have their literature iced with philosophy.