One of the major themes of Dostoyevsky's novel The Brothers Karamazov is the concept of justice, both earthly and divine . Dostoyevsky studies the differences between the two forms and examines several aspects of justice. The novel presents several different philosophies on justice and shows what the people who follow each of them are like. The investigation of these concepts culminates in a trial, which provides the setting for the final demonstration of the power of divine justice. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Earthly justice is the much more fundamental concept introduced in the novel. This is simply the idea of ​​the current legal system, the laws imposed by the government, the trials and the sanctions imposed by them. In the novel, earthly justice is represented by several characters with careers in law enforcement, who are introduced towards the end of the novel when Dmitry's arrest is imminent. In the earthly justice system, guilt means that the person actually committed the crime of which they are accused. For example, in this novel, Dmitry is guilty before earthly justice if he actually killed his father and stole the money his father had hidden. His previous thoughts and desires are irrelevant in determining whether he is guilty or not, all that matters is whether he performed the action he is accused of. In the earthly justice system, it is up to those charged with upholding justice to find concrete proof that the person they are accusing committed the crime. This evidence must involve outside witnesses and physical evidence to establish that the accused person was definitely involved. On the other hand, divine justice is the moral code transmitted by religion. The punishment according to God's justice system is to end up in hell rather than heaven after death. The system of divine justice is based on the notion of human immortality. The only punishment received during earthly life is the burden placed on people by their own conscience, which is really just the deep-rooted teachings of religion that help them avoid ending up eternally damned. People can avoid punishment in the afterlife through atonement. One of the major distinctions made between divine justice and earthly justice is the distinction between sins of omission and sins of commission. Divine justice is based on the principle that sins of omission are worse than sins of commission and should be punished more severely. Manipulating someone else into committing the crime for you is infinitely worse than committing the crime yourself, because it means that you are not only guilty of desiring a crime to be committed, you are responsible for someone else committing a crime. However, in earthly justice, the only sin that can be punished is the sin of commission. It is not the business of juries and judges to punish those who lead others into temptation; it is something that must be left to God. The Karamazov brothers demonstrate numerous occasions for sins of omission. Smerdyakov is a great agent of temptation and is responsible for a number of sins in others. It does not appear that any punishment was inflicted on him; his suicide is not the result of a feeling of guilt, but rather a method of revenge against the Karamazov family. He arranges the murder of Fyodor Pavlovich and his own suicide in such a way that all members of the Karamazov family end up injured. Smerdyakov is described as thethe only truly conscienceless character in the novel. He is living proof of what would happen to society as a whole if belief in God and immortality did not exist. He does not fear earthly justice and does not believe in divine justice. Without the threat of divine justice to keep him within the bounds of the moral code, he does what he wants to get the revenge he deserves and has sought for years. He exists to tempt others into the temptation to do evil, committing sins of commission and omission simultaneously, all for his own selfish purposes. While Smerdyakov is portrayed as Ivan Karamazov's tempter and foil, Grushenka bears his fair share of sins. of omission as well. When Dmitry is first accused of the murder, she proclaims her own guilt, which is entirely true according to the principles of divine justice. This whole thing happens because Dmitry and Fyodor are trying to woo Grushenka and Dmitry doesn't have the money to be able to impress her the same way his father did. He believes that Fyodor has money rightfully left over from his mother's death and therefore believes that the 3,000 rubles he learns that Fyodor has set aside for Grushenka rightfully belongs to him. Grushgnka is fully aware of this conflict and encourages it, refusing to choose between men. She continues to bring out the competition between them, so that she can continue to benefit from the attention of both. When Dmitry is first accused of parricide, she recognizes her own guilt and proclaims her love for him. She becomes determined to follow him everywhere and share his punishment as best she can. The major sin of omission comes from Ivan Karamazov. He allowed Smerdyakov to convince him to make the murder possible. He himself was fully convinced, albeit unconsciously, that he had no idea what would happen if he left the city when Smerdyakov asked him to, although Smerdyakov had practically declared that Fyodor Pavlovich would be assassinated . He confronts Smerdyakov after being convinced of Dmitry's innocence and accepts the fact that he is in fact highly responsible for the murder. He had previously wished for the parricide to take place, which within the bounds of divine justice already makes him guilty of parricide, and then leaves town to let Smerdyakov do as he pleases. This leaves him doubly guilty, as he had the first guilt for wishing his father dead and the second guilt for committing the sin of omission that would have allowed this to happen. Not only did he help provide the opportunity for parricide, but it was he who helped convince Smerdyakov that there is no God and that there is no reason to obey earthly laws . He also let Smerdyakov know that he wanted his father dead, thus making Smerdyakov believe that he was acting according to Ivan's wishes. Ivan ends up terribly ill and hallucinates while talking to the devil. This is a pretty clear example of divine justice being served, as these hallucinations become strong immediately upon realizing one's guilt and the image is that of the devil. The devil talks with Ivan about all the theories he proclaims during the novel. These theories are the same ones he passed on to Smerdyakov, the ones that helped influence Smerdyakov's decision to kill Fyodor Pavlovich. Thus, the hallucination is a clear manifestation of Ivan's guilt. The devil is the master of temptation, and by repeating Ivan's theories to him, he helps demonstrate how Ivan was responsible for Smerdyakov's temptation. The devil haunts Ivan until he confesses his crime at Dmitry's trial. Although he knows he has no way of provingactually that Smerdyakov committed the crime, he brings the 3,000 rubles to the court and declares that Smerdyakov is the real murderer and that he himself is guilty of planting this idea in Smerdyakov's head. . However, at this point he has become mad with guilt and must confess his crime in order to relieve himself of the burden. In this novel and in Crime and Punishment, Dostoyevsky describes confession as one of the most necessary steps for the atonement of sins and the alleviation of guilt. Ivan's confession allows him to begin to atone for his guilt, which he continues to try to do by trying to help Dmitry escape after the sentencing. Throughout the novel, Dostoyevsky demonstrates how earthly justice and divine justice are linked. The characters frequently debate whether there would be any morality in the world if there were no God. If people stop believing in God, and therefore in life after death, then they no longer have reason to follow the current moral code. After all, as Ivan Karamazov said during the trial: “Who does not want his father to die? (Dostoyevsky, p. 651). If divine justice did not tell us to honor our fathers and mothers and not kill, everyone would be condemned to commit parricide. Earthly justice could not exist or be maintained without divine justice, for there would be no basis for creating laws. Earthly justice is only a tool that provides a secondary method of upholding divine justice and helping those who commit sins atone. The entire trial is a demonstration of how earthly justice can become the tool of divine justice. Dmitry spent the entire novel struggling with his paradoxical personality, trying to find a balance between his base, animal side and his noble, honorable side. After his long interrogation at Mokroe, he dreams of an innocent baby suffering and realizes that he has the opportunity to take on some of the innocent suffering. This appeals to his better nature and he begins to accept that even though he has not committed any crime in an earthly sense, he can atone for his past misdeeds by suffering for the innocent. At that moment, despite all his previous prevarications, he found himself firmly anchored in the honorable side of his personality. This is especially important because until now it seemed to have settled on the lower side. He had gone to use the 1,500 rubles left over from his initial theft of Katerina's money, which was the only thing that had firmly cemented him as not being completely vile. As long as he kept this money, he could always return it to him and thus cease to be a thief and simply become a scoundrel again. When he went to Mokroe, he was ready to spend all that money and die a thief. Instead, prosecutors arrive in time to stop him from committing suicide, and thus allow him to atone for his past sins and embrace his honorable side. During the trial, the prosecutor who had intervened earlier to prevent Dmitry from committing suicide continues to act as the hand of divine justice, so that the man who is convicted is not the one who actually physically committed the act of murder. It is not his role to examine the thoughts of the accused; if it were purely earthly justice, he would simply review his actions. Many people tell them about Dmitry's proclamations of parricide and use that fact to determine that he must in fact be guilty, then ignore the evidence that shows that Dmitry was not the one who actually killed his father. There is an impressive amount of evidence indicating that Dmitry did not own 3,000 rubles in Mokroe, which would be a key element in determining that he did not steal from his father and that he was saying in.