After committing a crime, two possible outcomes will appear before the criminal; the success of committing the crime and ultimately not being caught or failure and being caught. Which of the outcomes is best for the criminal, and which is best for the common good? There is no answer to this question however, every person is different, and every mind is unlike any other mind in the world. In Fyodor Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment the main character, Raskolnikov, has to deal with this situation after committing the worst crime imaginable: murder.
A desperate young Raskolnikov, poor and starving, plans the perfect crime. Raskolnikov murders an old and loathsome pawnbroker; a woman that no one cares for and that no one will mourn. Raskolnikov makes sure to plan this murder so that there will be no flaws, however as reality is, there will always be a catch. There is no perfect crime. Raskolnikov believed that by killing this woman the world would benefit from the outcome. Is it not right, Raskolnikov figures, for a man of learned intelligence to commit such an offense, to break the rules of moral law if it will benefit humanity? Many however, would follow Raskolnikov, such as two men that Raskolnikov overheard in a bar talking about the same pawnbroker- one man said, "You are talking and speechifying away, but tell me, would you kill the old woman yourself?" The other responded saying, "Of course not! I was only arguing the justice of it. It's nothing to do with me- In addition, the other man came back analyzing, " But I think, if you would not do it yourself, there's no justice about it" (Page 64). Raskolnikov heard this, and he had the same theory, he wanted to test it out, he wanted to be the one that would rid the world of the despicable old woman and benefit humanity. Raskolnikov performed the task, and afterwards, he faced his punishment.
After committing the "perfect" crime, Raskolnikov went into a deep lapse of illness and delirium.
