Paper on Crime and Punishment ... Need inputs

[123crime]

Hi everyone.

I'm writing a paper on Crime and Punishment, and I'm having a hard time really pointing out some key elements that Dostoevsky wanted to express in the book.

First of all, it seems clear that in Dostoevsky's point of view, there is a separation between law and morality.  At first, Raskolnikov try to pretend that his crime would be justified morally, but then as the novel goes on we find out that he cannot escape morality and the consequences of the law still applys.  

Anyhow, I need some arguments on that matter related to the book.  I need to have strong points on if and why Dostoevsky thinks that there could be a separation between law and morality.

Finally, I need also to know what conception is privilegied by Dostoevsky between these 3 : Classic Natural Law, Modern Natural Law or Legal Positivism.  Our teacher told us that the answer is best found in Chapter V in Part I, but even after a third reading of that part, I can't seem to find it.

Thanks

[123crime]

Anyone ?

[axon]

123Crime,

no one here will do your homework for you. Put forth some effort and I'm sure you'll get more feedback. You're basicallya sking us to give you answers to your questions - how about telling us what you think about em?

Also, you can get some great ideas from the previous threads on this board; have you even looked?

[123crime]

Hi
I'm not asking to do my homework ...  If that's what came up from my 1st thread, then I'm sorry.

Yes, I have looked at all previous threads before writing my post, but all the information I've got can't really apply to my case.

As for the first question about the separation of law and morality, I have already told you that I think there is one, especially at the end, when Raskolnikov finds love, he also understands at the same time that his crime couldn't be justified morally like he once thought.  
I would also like to point out that he did his murder for the "best interest of everyone", and it's only further down the book that he realizes he was wrong ...
What I am really asking is if there are any more arguments going in the same direction?

As for the 2nd question, I honestly don't know ...  I'm pretty sure it doesn't involve Classic natural law, as this is a concept that is now modernized into Modern Natural law ...  I'm leaning more into legal positivism, mainly because I have the strong impression that it isn't natural law material.  With that being said, I don't really found any book-related arguments into chapter V in part I that can justify my choice of legal positivism.