Turgenev's passage, "The Execution of Tropmann", is about him being invited by a friend to the execution of a recently condemned murderer. The text is about his experiences through out the night leading up to the execution at 7 o'clock in the morning. The murderer, Tropmann, is calm, cool, and collective the whole time before his execution; he is stripped, clothed, bound, and embarrassed and never loses his cool.
The author's tone is depressing and bleak. He describes the situation as awkward; many of the privileged few that saw all the pre-execution "ceremonies" could talk of nothing else but the condemned criminal because that is all that was on their tired mind. He also speaks of the extreme dreariness which is "...a hundred times worse than boredom." A very depressing scene is "the toilet of the condemned man". The author describes Tropmann as a very young clean cut man who looks too innocent to have committed such a crime. He is stripped of his clothes and his dignity (although it doesn't seem like it); this whole time Tropmann shows no emotion and the men watching seem more affected by the ordeal than of the criminal himself. Turgenev also talks of the grotesqueness of the crowd; the spectators wait in restless boredom to watch a gruesome execution. When Tropmann is finally killed, some deranged viewers soak their handkerchiefs in his blood. Turgenev is disgusted by the entire night and its events; he does not even watch the execution.
Turgenev's purpose is to describe the weaknesses of capital punishment. He takes the reader through the whole pre-execution process to show the dehumanizing affects in the last half-hour of the condemned's life. He mentions the murder of Noir and the acquitting of his murderer Prince Bonaparte; he also adds how Tropmann insists on having accomplices. The public is thirsty for blood for the murder of Noir--they don't want to find Tropmann's accomplices and bring them to justice--since Bonaparte was acquitted, they await the murder of Tropman to receive some closure.
Turgenev's point of is that of his own. He was a reporter that was invited to the execution. Without hesitation he accepted but then had regrets for doing so. He did not want to be a coward so he stayed until the end of the execution. He views capital punishment as a corrupt institution for the enjoyment of the public. I disagree with Turgenev's argument; today the death penalty has improved from 140 years ago, it is not influenced by the public's need for closure. People who do bad things should be brought to justice and pay for their actions.
The author's argument is of the corruptness of capital punishment. At the time this was relevant and I believe he was right in finding it a terrible institution. But today, the system isn't like it used to be; people don't like to see others die (at least most people) and the process of execution isn't as inhumane as it once was. The cruel and unusual punishment clause has gone a long way and prisoners, especially those condemned to die, are treated better than in the 1800's.
