Brothers Karamazov Essay

Gautam Bhargava
Dr. Cappiello
English DP
IOP: The Brothers Karamazov

What are the underlying themes in the Brothers Karamazov? Religion? Morality?
Well, there is no right answer, but there is one theme that is especially pervasive in the Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoevsky; this theme is Justice. The theme of Justice is seen everywhere. It is a theme that is important to us. It is theme that is seen everywhere. In fact, We all experience justice everyday. It’s a part of all our lives. Whether we experience justice at home, when we question our parent’s judgments, or when experience justice at school, when we discuss our teacher’s grading policy. Justice…..is…….everywhere.
As a result, it is important to understand what Dostoevsky and
Brooks were trying to say about Justice in the novel and film the Brothers Karamazov.

Before I continue, I would like to pose a question to the audience. Based on your current knowledge of the novel, what would Dostoevsky think about our current system of justice?
Today, I am going to answer this question, by looking into the section of the novel that addresses this theme of justice. But, before I continue, let me give you some context.

This novel is introduced with the character of Fyodor Karamazov. Fyodor Karamazov is a wealthy patriarch who lives a materialistic life, filled with hedonistic pleasure. Obsessed with greed and lust, Fyodor fathers three legitimate childs by the names of Alyosha, Ivan, and Dmitiri, and one illegitimate child named Smerdyakov. Though the father of many, Fyodor shows no affection towards to his children, and is consequentially, detested. The story follows Fyodor’s eldest son, the bellicose Dmitri, who endeavors to take his inheritance from his greedy father. Dmitri, stricken with his own struggle against greed, is willing to do anything to acquire the inheritance from his father, claiming that it is rightfully his – going so far as to threaten to murder his father. As the story progresses, Fyodor is murdered and Dmitri is wrongfully accused of the crime. Dmitri is tried at a court, and wrongfully convicted.
Here in the trial of Dmitri Karamazov, the novel discusses the theme of justice.

In my IOP, I will analyze the Trial of Dmitri Karamazov in both the film and the movie of the Brothers Karamazov and address how Dostoevsky uses the technique of Allegory to portray his belief of Justice.
Allegory is a figure of speech in which abstract ideas and principles are described in terms of characters, figures and events. It can be employed in [literature] to tell a story with a purpose of teaching an idea and a principle or explaining an idea or a principle. The objective of its use is to preach some kind of a moral lesson.” In simple terms, Allegory is a literary technique that uses symbolism to show
meanings.
This technique is widely used in the trial of Dmitri Karamazov to convey Dostoevsky’s negative belief of the justice system. Dostoevsky uses the technique of Allegory to demonstrate the abstract idea of the unjustness of the court system. The information that you will receive today, regarding Dostoevsky’s belief of the jury system proves beneficial to you, as it provides a more robust understanding of the weaknesses of the jury system, as well as, provides a more in-depth understanding of Dostoevsky’s intentions with this novel. We can truly understand what Dostoevsky was saying about justice. And we can truly understand how he felt about our current jury system. Additionally, we can understand the importance of justice and apply it to our daily lives. We can use this understanding of justice to make sure that our actions are fair and just.

I will discuss my topic of the negative view of the court system using three points.
My first point will address the portrayal of the jury in the novel. I will discuss how Dostoevsky uses the literary technique of Allegory to present the jury as inadequate, and how this presentation contributes to Dostoevsky’s negative view on the jury system.
In my second point, I will discuss Dostoevsky’s portrayal of the audience and how the audience is an allegory to represent bias in the courtroom.
Once again, I will discuss how Dostoevsky uses the literary technique of Allegory to present the audience in the trial, and how this presentation contributes to Dostoevsky’s negative view on the jury system.
My last point, I will discuss the portrayal of the witnesses and how this is an allegorical representation of the inconclusiveness of the court system. I will conclude by discussing the trial in the film and the implications of Dostoevsky’s
beliefs.

Dostoevsky begins his allegorical criticism of the jury system through a thorough examination of the jury process. In the Brothers Karamazov, The jury is described as of consisting “four of our officials, two merchants, and six local peasants and tradesman.” Even the officials were “minor persons of low rank . . . scarcely known in our society . . . who most assuredly had never read a single book.” This demonstration of the illiteracy, and apparent low rank of the jury members, illustrates the unqualified nature of the jury – Dostoevsky asserts that someone who cannot comprehend basic text cannot be trusted to make a decision affecting the life and death of a man. This scene uses allegory as a representation of the unqualified nature of the jury – the jury as a whole is representative of the inadequacy of the jury process. In other words, the jury in the Brothers Karamazov does not provide an accurate representation of justice because they cannot comprehend and read all the facts. By demonstrating the jury as illiterate, Dostoevsky allegorically asserts the inadequacy of the jury, and attacks the whole principle of a jury system.

Dostoevsky continues his allegorical demonstration by illustrating the nature of the trial crowd. The woman of the crowd find Dmitri innocent, not because of the given evidence, but rather of Dmitri’s portrayal as a “conqueror of women’s hearts;” the women of the trial crowd pleaded for Dmitri’s innocence because of their attraction towards him. Jealous of Dmitri’s popularity amongst the women, the men attack Dmitri as guilty. This is an allegorical representation of the bias in the courtroom. Furthermore, the lawyers “cared not about the moral aspect of the case, but only, so to speak, about its contemporary legal aspect.”
The women want Dmitri acquitted because of his amorous reputation, the men want him to be convicted for the same reason and the lawyers want to see a show of legal tactics. No one in the crowd is concerned about whether Dmitri actually committed the crime and the moral ramifications of his conviction or acquittal. The crowd is there to enjoy the drama of it all, to see the hero (in the case of the women) exonerated, or the villain (in the case of the men) denounced, while the lawyers are simply there for the technical mastery of the actors (lawyers). Whether the court reaches the correct outcome, either morally or legally, is wholly irrelevant.

Though Dostoevsky provides an important point in the incompetence of both the trial jury and trial audience, Dostoevsky’s most critical point arises from the jury witnesses. Three expert doctors testify as to Dmitri’s mental state, and the narrator admits, the results are “partly even comic, as it were, owing to some disagreement among the doctors.” The first doctor to testify is a local German by the name of Dr. Herzenstube. He testifies that Dmitri’s “mental abnormality is self-evident” based on the fact that “he kept his eyes fixed straight in front of him” and not at the ladies to his left. The famous Moscow doctor, “considered the defendant’s condition abnormal, ‘even in the highest degree,’” because he “ought not to have looked so fixedly in front of him . . . that he ought to have been looking . . . precisely to the right, seeking out his defense attorney.” Finally, the young local Dr. Varinsky concludes that “by looking straight in front of him, he thereby precisely proved his perfectly normal state of mind.” However, Dostoevsky gets his point across comically with all three “experts” citing the same observation for mutually exclusive conclusions. This demonstrates allegory as this is a symobolic representation of the inconclusiveness of the justice system. All expert testimony is highly malleable: the experts can reach different conclusions based on their own biases, imprecise observations, which side sought their testimony, and other selfish motivations. To Dostoevsky, medical and psychological experts have no special ability to discern the mental state of the accused based on their observations, just as lawyers and juries have no special ability to discern the truth about a crime based on the evidence and testimony of witnesses.

In all of these instances, Dostoevsky introduces flaws with in the jury system. The jury’s, audience, and witness representation in the novel is one of ineffectiveness and unjustness. Dosteovsky asserts that the jury is inadequate because they cannot read. He asserts that the audience is biased because they only care about Dmitri’s looks. And finally, he asserts that the witnesses are inconclusive because 3 different witnesses can testify three different things, even if they look at the same facts. Additionally, this attack on the jury system further accentuated in the movie similarly titled, “The Brothers Karamazov.”
In the movie, Dmitri’s trial is portrayed in a slightly different manner: instead of discussing the inadequacy and illteraracy of the jury, the movie allegorically discusses the problem of evidence. First, the movie shows the death of Smerdykov. -

Being the actual killer, Smerdykov is the only man who can prove Dmitri’s innocence. However, the scene in the movie demonstrates that Smerdykov kills himself. This indicates that the only evidence that could be used to free Dmitri is destroyed. This is an allegory representing the trials are not just because they do not look at ALL the evidence.

Additionally, the film continues to highlights the allegory of faulty evidence by letting the viewers know of Dmitri’s innocence but showing submitted evidence that contributes to his guilt. This indicates that evidence is being submitted for Dmitri’s guilt, even though he is innocent. Right as Ivan confesses to the murder of Fyodor, Katrina submits evidence indicating that Dmitri stated that he would kill his father. Though true, this evidence does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Dmitri was, indeed, the killer. This is allegorical for unjustness of the courts through the submission of faulty evidence.
Though portrayed differently, the movie’s intentions mirror those of the novel: the trial is satirized in the eyes of the viewer. Smerdkyov’s death indicates that the jury does not look at all evidence. Katrina’s submission indicates that some faulty evidence can lead to unjust outcomes.

In both the film and the novel, Dostoevsky provides a clear opinion towards the jury system – he believes the inadequate nature of the jury, biased nature of the audience, and inconclusive nature of the witnesses undermine the credibility of the jury system. To recap, in my first point I discussed the jury and how Dostoevsky used allegory to demonstrated the inadequate nature of the jury. In my second point, I discussed the audience, and how each audience members was an allegorical representation of bias in the courtroom. In third point, I discussed the witnesses and how they were allegorical representations of the inconclusive nature of the trials. Lastly, I discussed the film and how it asserts that the lack of evidence and the ambiguous nature of evidence does not allow for a just sentence. Now towards the beginning of this IOP, I asked a question regarding what Dostoevsky would think about our current justice system. This question was what would Dostoevsky think about our current system of justice?
Now, knowing that Dostoevsky felt our system was inadequate, biased, inconclusive, and faulty, we understand the answer to this question. Dostoevsky would greatly disapprove of system, stating that is not an accurate representation of justice.