Summary
The courtroom drama reaches its climax as the defense attorney concludes his passionate speech to thunderous applause. The audience is moved to tears, convinced that Mitya will be acquitted. But the prosecutor fights back, arguing that the defense has woven romantic fantasies rather than addressing facts. He warns that excusing parricide undermines the foundations of society itself. When the jury deliberates for exactly one hour, everyone expects mercy. Instead, they return with a shocking verdict: guilty on all counts, with no recommendation for leniency. The courtroom erupts in chaos. The ladies who had championed Mitya are outraged, while others celebrate justice served. Mitya himself breaks down, proclaiming his innocence one final time before being led away. The chapter reveals how justice often depends not on eloquence or public sympathy, but on the quiet deliberations of ordinary people—in this case, peasants and clerks who weren't swayed by theatrical performances. The title's significance becomes clear: while the educated elite expected acquittal, the working-class jurors 'stood firm' in their judgment. This moment exposes the gap between different social classes and their values, showing how those with less education but more practical experience can see through emotional manipulation to focus on evidence.
Coming Up in Chapter 94
With Mitya facing twenty years in Siberian mines, his friends and family refuse to accept defeat. Plans begin forming for a desperate escape attempt that will test everyone's loyalty and courage.
Share it with friends
An excerpt from the original text.(~500 words)
The Peasants Stand Firm This was how Fetyukovitch concluded his speech, and the enthusiasm of the audience burst like an irresistible storm. It was out of the question to stop it: the women wept, many of the men wept too, even two important personages shed tears. The President submitted, and even postponed ringing his bell. The suppression of such an enthusiasm would be the suppression of something sacred, as the ladies cried afterwards. The orator himself was genuinely touched. And it was at this moment that Ippolit Kirillovitch got up to make certain objections. People looked at him with hatred. “What? What’s the meaning of it? He positively dares to make objections,” the ladies babbled. But if the whole world of ladies, including his wife, had protested he could not have been stopped at that moment. He was pale, he was shaking with emotion, his first phrases were even unintelligible, he gasped for breath, could hardly speak clearly, lost the thread. But he soon recovered himself. Of this new speech of his I will quote only a few sentences. “... I am reproached with having woven a romance. But what is this defense if not one romance on the top of another? All that was lacking was poetry. Fyodor Pavlovitch, while waiting for his mistress, tears open the envelope and throws it on the floor. We are even told what he said while engaged in this strange act. Is not this a flight of fancy? And what proof have we that he had taken out the money? Who heard what he said? The weak‐minded idiot, Smerdyakov, transformed into a Byronic hero, avenging society for his illegitimate birth—isn’t this a romance in the Byronic style? And the son who breaks into his father’s house and murders him without murdering him is not even a romance—this is a sphinx setting us a riddle which he cannot solve himself. If he murdered him, he murdered him, and what’s the meaning of his murdering him without having murdered him—who can make head or tail of this? “Then we are admonished that our tribune is a tribune of true and sound ideas and from this tribune of ‘sound ideas’ is heard a solemn declaration that to call the murder of a father ‘parricide’ is nothing but a prejudice! But if parricide is a prejudice, and if every child is to ask his father why he is to love him, what will become of us? What will become of the foundations of society? What will become of the family? Parricide, it appears, is only a bogy of Moscow merchants’ wives. The most precious, the most sacred guarantees for the destiny and future of Russian justice are presented to us in a perverted and frivolous form, simply to attain an object—to obtain the justification of something which cannot be justified. ‘Oh, crush him by mercy,’ cries the counsel for the defense; but that’s all the criminal wants, and to‐morrow it will be seen how much he is...
Master this chapter. Complete your experience
Purchase the complete book to access all chapters and support classic literature
As an Amazon Associate, we earn a small commission from qualifying purchases at no additional cost to you.
Available in paperback, hardcover, and e-book formats
Intelligence Amplifier™ Analysis
The Road of Elite Assumptions - When Your Bubble Blinds You to Reality
When privileged people mistake their bubble's values and reasoning for universal truth, leading to shocked disappointment when others don't respond as expected.
Why This Matters
Connect literature to life
This chapter teaches how to detect when people's private decisions will contradict their public statements.
Practice This Today
Next time you're trying to build consensus at work or home, ask yourself: what aren't people saying, and what do they have to lose?
Now let's explore the literary elements.
Terms to Know
Parricide
The crime of killing one's father or parent. In Russian society, this was considered the ultimate crime against natural order and family structure. The prosecutor emphasizes this because it represents the breakdown of all social bonds.
Modern Usage:
Today we see similar moral panic when crimes violate our deepest taboos, like child abuse cases that make national headlines.
Jury nullification
When a jury ignores the law and votes based on their own sense of justice or morality. The educated audience expected this - they thought the jury would acquit despite evidence because they felt sorry for Mitya.
Modern Usage:
We see this in cases where juries refuse to convict people they sympathize with, even when evidence is strong.
Class consciousness
Awareness of social class differences and how they affect judgment. The peasant jurors weren't swayed by upper-class sympathy for Mitya - they judged by different standards than the educated elite expected.
Modern Usage:
Working-class juries often view wealthy defendants differently than middle-class observers expect them to.
Rhetorical manipulation
Using emotional appeals and dramatic storytelling to influence people's judgment rather than sticking to facts. The prosecutor accuses the defense of creating romantic fantasies instead of addressing evidence.
Modern Usage:
We see this constantly in political campaigns and social media, where emotional stories often matter more than facts.
Moral panic
When society becomes obsessed with a perceived threat to its fundamental values. The prosecutor argues that acquitting a parricide would encourage the breakdown of family and social order.
Modern Usage:
Every generation has moral panics - from comic books corrupting youth to social media destroying attention spans.
Popular sentiment vs. justice
The conflict between what the crowd wants and what the law demands. The audience's emotional response doesn't match the jury's careful consideration of evidence and consequences.
Modern Usage:
Social media outrage often demands immediate punishment, while actual legal proceedings move slowly and consider different factors.
Characters in This Chapter
Fetyukovitch
Defense attorney
His passionate closing argument moves the courtroom to tears and seems to guarantee Mitya's acquittal. However, his emotional manipulation backfires with the working-class jury who see through the theatrics to focus on facts.
Modern Equivalent:
The celebrity lawyer who wins in the media but loses in court
Ippolit Kirillovitch
Prosecutor
Despite being shaken by the defense's emotional appeal, he fights back by warning that acquitting parricide threatens the foundation of society. His practical argument about consequences resonates with the jury.
Modern Equivalent:
The prosecutor who focuses on public safety over sympathy
Mitya
Defendant
He breaks down when the guilty verdict is read, proclaiming his innocence one final time. His emotional reaction shows genuine shock - he truly believed the crowd's sympathy would save him.
Modern Equivalent:
The defendant who thinks public support guarantees acquittal
The jury
Working-class judges
Described as peasants and clerks, they deliberate for exactly one hour and return a harsh verdict with no mercy. Their practical judgment contrasts sharply with the educated elite's romantic expectations.
Modern Equivalent:
The blue-collar jury that doesn't buy into lawyer theatrics
Key Quotes & Analysis
"All that was lacking was poetry."
Context: The prosecutor mocks the defense's emotional storytelling
He's calling out how the defense created a romantic narrative instead of addressing hard evidence. This highlights the difference between entertainment and justice - the jury wasn't there to be moved by a beautiful story.
In Today's Words:
You turned this into a soap opera instead of dealing with the facts.
"The peasants stand firm."
Context: Describing the jury's unwavering guilty verdict despite public pressure
This reveals class differences in values and judgment. The working-class jurors weren't impressed by upper-class sympathy or lawyer theatrics - they focused on evidence and consequences for society.
In Today's Words:
The working folks weren't buying what everyone else was selling.
"He positively dares to make objections!"
Context: Their outrage when the prosecutor challenges the defense's emotional appeal
Shows how the audience was completely caught up in the drama and saw any challenge to their hero as unfair. They confused entertainment with justice and couldn't handle having their emotions questioned.
In Today's Words:
How dare he ruin our feel-good moment with facts!
Thematic Threads
Class
In This Chapter
Working-class jurors reject the emotional appeals that moved the educated elite, focusing on facts over feelings
Development
Culmination of class tensions that have run throughout—now showing how different classes literally see justice differently
In Your Life:
You might assume your coworkers share your priorities, only to discover they value completely different things about the job.
Justice
In This Chapter
True justice emerges from ordinary people's deliberation, not from eloquent speeches or public sympathy
Development
Evolution from earlier focus on guilt/innocence to this revelation about how justice actually works in practice
In Your Life:
You might learn that fairness at work isn't about who argues best, but about who the decision-makers actually trust.
Reality vs. Performance
In This Chapter
The theatrical courtroom drama crashes against the jury's practical assessment of evidence
Development
Continuation of the book's theme about authentic truth versus constructed narratives
In Your Life:
You might discover that your carefully crafted explanations matter less than whether people believe your basic story.
Social Expectations
In This Chapter
Everyone expected mercy based on the emotional response, but the jury operated by different standards entirely
Development
Climax of how characters consistently misjudge what others will do based on their own assumptions
In Your Life:
You might expect understanding from family or friends, only to find they're judging by completely different criteria.
You now have the context. Time to form your own thoughts.
Discussion Questions
- 1
Why were the educated people in the courtroom so shocked by the jury's guilty verdict?
analysis • surface - 2
What does it tell us that the working-class jurors weren't swayed by the emotional defense speech that moved everyone else to tears?
analysis • medium - 3
Think about your workplace or community - when have you seen educated people completely misread what regular folks actually think or want?
application • medium - 4
Before making your next big request or presentation, how could you test whether you're stuck in your own bubble?
application • deep - 5
What does this verdict reveal about the difference between being persuasive and being right?
reflection • deep
Critical Thinking Exercise
Flip the Perspective
Think of a recent disagreement you had where you felt completely right but the other person didn't see it your way. Write a short paragraph from their perspective, explaining why your argument didn't convince them. Focus on their values, experiences, and daily reality - not just their 'stubbornness' or 'misunderstanding.'
Consider:
- •What pressures or concerns might they face that you don't?
- •How might their past experiences shape what they prioritize?
- •What would need to be true for their position to make perfect sense?
Journaling Prompt
Write about a time when you were completely confident everyone would agree with you, but you were wrong. What did you learn about your own blind spots?
Coming Up Next...
Chapter 94: Desperate Plans and Painful Truths
Moving forward, we'll examine guilt and pride can trap us in destructive cycles of self-blame, and understand sometimes the hardest conversations are the most necessary ones. These insights bridge the gap between classic literature and modern experience.