Nature of the crime in The Brothers Karamazov Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay The central act in The Brothers Karamazov is the murder of Father Fyodor Karamazov. As such, the novel could be thought of as a detective story, the aim of which is to find out who committed the heinous act of parricide. At the heart of every crime story, however, are three important elements: first, it is the process of finding out who perpetrated the crime, the "whodunnit" part; second, it is the determination of what that individual is responsible or guilty of; and third, verification that the crime was committed based on the individual's free will. This novel, however, fulfills none of the three elements of the traditional detective story. Instead, Dostoevsky sets out to write in The Brothers Karamazov a crime in which more than one person is guilty but where it is not even clear what each person is guilty of; is a story that examines the assumption of free will and the implications it has on our judgment of crime. While the story begins with Ivan's theory that “if there is no immortality of the soul, then…everything is permissible” (90), it eventually moves to the opposite extreme of “everyone is truly responsible towards all men for all men." and for everything” (328). Dostoevsky, however, through the novel's indeterminate ending, rejects both of these extremes and suggests that the true nature of crime and guilt lies somewhere between two theories. The first element of the crime that Dostoevsky examines and rejects is the traditional “mystery” part of a detective story, that is, the idea that there must be a person who caused and committed the crime. Yet, in The Brothers Karamazov, the line between who is guilty and who is innocent is not so easy to draw. It is true that there is a trial in which Dmitri Karamazov, the older brother, is accused and convicted of the murder of his father. Even though all the evidence seems to point to the contrary, it turns out, as Dmitri has always claimed, that he "is innocent of [his] father's blood" (870). The real killer is Fyodor Karamazov's illegitimate son, Smerdyakov, who confesses to Ivan that "I killed him" (725) and shows him the three thousand rubles he also stole. At this point, a traditional murder mystery would have been solved. Smerdyakov is the murderer and the culprit of the crime. Yet, in this story, the killer sincerely proclaims his innocence. Smerdyakov says to Ivan: “You are the murderer! I was but your instrument, your faithful servant, and I did so by following your words” (721). Smerdyakov was inspired by Ivan's theory that "all things are lawful" (730) without God, and believed that Ivan "wanted [him] to do it, and went away [to Cermashnya] knowing all about it" (725). Suddenly, what appears to be a simple murder mystery becomes much more complicated. Who is responsible for the crime? Dmitri at one point confessed that he "wanted to kill [his father], and maybe I really could have killed him" (590). Ivan finally comes to terms with his implicit guilt in the crime, for "if [Smerdyakov] is the murderer...then I am the murderer too" (714). Indeed, the whole city longed for and rejoiced at Fyodor's death, as Liza points out, "everyone loves that he killed your father" (673). Dmitri is the one convicted of the crime at trial, but in a way aren't they all partly guilty? Everyone wanted the death of old Karamazov: is it so important who performed the physical act? If everyone is guilty to some degree, it raises the question of what exactly each person is guilty of. Is Dmitri guilty of the same thing as Smerdyakov or Ivan? Clearly, Smerdyakov is guilty ofphysically committed the murder, yet did so because he thought he was following Ivan's orders. But what exactly is Ivan guilty of? To have a philosophy that “everything is permitted if there is no God”? Smerdyakov tells Ivan that going to Tchermašnja “for no reason, simply by his word, proves that you should have expected something from me” (712). But then is Ivan guilty of simply leaving the city at Smerdyakov's request? The murder shows that it is difficult, if not impossible, to blame someone for causing a crime. Everyone's action is so interconnected with everyone else's, it is influenced by so many factors that it is foolish to say that only one person is responsible for the murder. Dmitri, although he did not physically kill his father, decides that he too is guilty after having a dream in which children cry from hunger and cold. Dmitri asks "why is the child poor?" (657) and accepts that “it is for that child that I will go to Siberia. I'm not a murderer, but I have to go to Siberia!” (657). Dmitri believes he is somehow responsible for the suffering of others. Here he rejects Ivan's philosophy – that if everything goes, no one can be guilty or responsible for anything – instead, Dmitri embraces a concept of shared responsibility that comes from the belief that we are all interconnected and that our actions impact many others. This is a philosophy advocated by Father Zossima who believes that "everyone is truly responsible towards all men and for all men and for everything" (328). As the novel's moral compass, Father Zossima seems to tell us that we are all implicated in the injustice of this world. However, another way of saying that we are all responsible for everything is that each of us is not responsible for anything. That is, Father Zossima's theory takes away the individuality of crime and guilt: if we are already responsible for "everything", then where is the responsibility of those who commit a crime? We can therefore see that Father Zossima's and Ivan's theories are actually two sides of the same coin: both absolve the individual of responsibility for the crime. In order for a person to be guilty of a crime, that person must commit it based on free will, but free will as a concept is attacked several times in The Brothers Karamazov. Most famously, Ivan, in his account of the Grand Inquisitor, states that “nothing was ever more unbearable to a man and to a human society than freedom” (286). Human beings need bread and material security, rather than free will and the burden that comes from the autonomous exercise of their own minds and judgment. Ivan believes that we are all burdened by the “fearful burden of free choice” (289) and are looking for someone to take that burden away from us and want to “[be] led like sheep again” (292). “All that man seeks on earth,” according to Ivan, is “someone to worship, someone to guard his conscience and…universal unity” (293). Therefore, for Ivan, submission and obedience to higher authority is the ideal antithesis to the burden of free choice. But not only Ivan, but also Father Zossima supports the rejection of individual autonomy in favor of obedience to superior authority: the ancient system is based on this. An elder is someone “who transforms your soul, your will, into his soul and his will” (27). When you choose your elder, “you renounce your will and yield it to him in complete submission, complete self-denial” (28). However, by giving up one's free will, one cannot be held responsible for any crime or wrongdoing, as there can be no guilt and responsibility when there is no free will. By challenging the assumption of free will, Dostoevsky also challenges the nature of crime. Because when?