Gentlemen of the Jury
(illustration by Fritz Eichenberg)
The bell rang. The jury deliberated for exactly an hour; and a profound silence reigned in the court as soon as the public had taken their seats. The President’s first and chief question was about whether the prisoner committed the murder for the sake of robbery and with premeditation. There was a complete hush. The foreman of the jury, the youngest of the clerks, pronounced, in a clear, loud voice, amidst the deathlike stillness of the court:
“Yes, guilty!”
And the same answer was repeated to every question: “Yes, guilty!” and without the slightest extenuating comment.
No one had expected this; almost everyone had reckoned upon a recommendation to mercy, at least. The death-like silence in the court was not broken–all seemed petrified: those who desired his conviction as well as those who had been eager for his acquittal. But that was only for the first instant, and it was followed by a fearful hubbub. Many of the men in the audience were pleased. Some were rubbing their hands with no attempt to conceal their joy. Those who disagreed with the verdict seemed crushed, shrugged their shoulders, whispered, but still seemed unable to realize what had happened.
But the ladies! I thought they would create a riot. At first they could scarcely believe their ears. Then suddenly the whole court rang with exclamations: “What’s the meaning of it? What next?” They leapt up from their places. They seemed to fancy that it might be at once reconsidered and reversed. At that instant Mitya suddenly stood up and cried in a heart-rending voice, stretching his hands out before him:
“I swear by God and the dreadful Day of Judgment I am not guilty of my father’s blood! Katya, I forgive you! Brothers, friends, have pity on the other woman!” Then he broke into a terrible sobbing wail that was heard all over the court. And from the farthest corner at the back of the gallery came a piercing shriek–it was Grushenka. She’d succeeded in being re-admitted to the court before the beginning of the lawyers’ speeches. Mitya was taken away. The passing of the sentence was deferred till next day. The whole court was in a hubbub…
Since the reader knows that Mitya didn’t kill his father, what is the significance of his being found guilty in the trial?
Considering Karamazov 
This was a big scene in the novel, it dealt with crime and punishment as we discussed in class. Throughout the novel we heard these to ideas that man is either an individual or humanity as a whole. This chapter obviously revealed that humanity relies on everyone. At the point where the crowds felt moved by Dmitri’s story and were outraged when sentenced guilty offers the idea that people are more good than evil.
To me, the fact that the jury found Dmitri guilty of Fyodor’s murder despite the lack of substantial evidence, signifies how flawed humanity is and how biased it can be. I also think that his conviction was based on how he had lived his life up to that point than on this particular case. I think had someone else murdered him, they would have gone easier on that guy. Who didn’t want Fyodor dead? In a way the jury was a bunch of hypocrites. Individually, Ivan may have enabled his father’s death, but socially, the community was just as responsible.
I think Mitya takes the punishment for all the Karamazovs when he is found guilty. Excluding Alyosha, the Karamazov men have done some very bad things in their lives, and in a way, Mitya is the one being punished for the acts of two of his brothers even though he is innocent. It is a shame that the fact that Mitya had had a revelation at some point and is changing the person that he is has not affected the punishment that is going to be inflicted on him on behalf of Ivan and Smerdykov.
I am not quite sure about how the courts were in Russia during Dosoevsky’s time, but I think he was trying to criticize how the legal system worked through this part of the novel.
I think the people of the jury and the people of the court room already had their minds made up before the trial began. Everyone in the town knew the Karamazovs. The boys and their father were very well known, not for reasons worthy of praise either. No one in the town like Fyodor and I think Mitya is being punished for the acts of his father. He has to live with the consequences of all the things Fyodor did and all the things the town opposed of. Dmitri is clearly innocent but they are associating him with his father, his blood. Most of the men are pleased that this is happening whereas the women are in hysterics. The women are completely right for feeling this way. We as readers, know that Dmitri is guilty and we cannot but have pity for him at this point because he has had a revelation and wants to change. However, he is found guilty and will not be given a chance.
I agree a great deal with what Helen said. It is unfortunate that in a system of law it is incredibly difficult if not impossible to have a completely unbiased opinion. Also, going along with what Mara said, everyone in the town already knew the infamous Karamazov brothers and the reputations that went along with that family name. I do not at all agree with the juries conclusion, however, it does not surprise me. Even in todays world peoples biases and stereotypes get in the way of fair judgment, so it is easy to see how in a small town that is full of gossip how a man can get unfairly judged.
I agree with Helen and Krzysztof. I believe Dostoevsky was criticizing the judicial system in Russia at the time, as well as commenting on the flaws of humanity. As we all know, Dmitri was innocent, but because he was a Karamazov and because of his personality and character earlier in the novel, many people had an opinion already formed of him. He seemed like the “type” of person who would commit a murder due to his drunkenness and his outrageous temper. Not only that, but people also had a contempt for Fyodor, so Dmitri was also judged on his father’s reputation. It just goes to show that even a “fair” trial is necessarily going to be fair because of biases.