What Is Charles Dickens Retributive Justice

“What goes around comes around”
EAE 3U

Presented to: Mrs. Shields
By: Jessica Lisiecki

Monday June 3rd, 2014
ESA
Retributive justice is a very pronounced element in Charles Dickens’ novel, Oliver Twist. Common knowledge to the experienced reader, Dickens was a man of sarcasm, who played on words and had a very straightforward, honest way of writing, unlike most of his characters’ personalities. Oliver Twist, who led a twisted lifestyle as a young boy, was influenced by various people: some good, some bad. Like karma, Dickens made sure to give the dishonest, viciously cruel characters what they truly deserved, which may have been just about the only honest thing to happen in their lives. Some of these characters
Sikes considered himself a “professional” burglar, which wouldn’t be so bad if being a burglar could be considered anything positive. He was brought up in Fagin’s gang and trained by Fagin, himself. Sikes is Nancy’s so-called, “lover”. He treats this young woman with a rather odd combination of cruelty and envious affection. Sikes gets the real sense of Dickens’ capabilities in his use of retributive justice after he brutally murders Nancy. While trying to avoid an angry mob of people, who have recently discovered that his identity is a match to Nancy’s murderer, he then accidentally hangs himself. Not only does his name imply that Sikes is somewhat psychotic, but he proves this to the readers. While attempting to evade the angry mob, he decides to climb up through buildings, rather than away. He ties a rope to swing to another roof-top, but mistakenly and regretfully hangs
On the contrary, he gave the readers numerous ones, some less apparent, dramatic or damaging than others, yet still present. One example of the less apparent demonstrations of Dickens’ power with retributive justice happened to Monks, whose formal name is Edward Leeford. Monks, who happens to be Oliver Twist’s half-brother through their father’s side, was awarded part of Mr. Leeford’s estate after his passing. Oliver was rightfully entitled to a portion of the estate, but on the condition that the family name’s reputation hadn’t gone wrong. Monks, by concealing Oliver’s true identity, along with his plan to give the young boy a bad reputation, prevented Oliver from being awarded his fair share. When Mr. Brownlow approached Monks about the will, Monks denied everything Mr. Brownlow had mentioned and stated the following sentence: “ 'I have no brother, ' replied Monks. You know I was an only child. Why do you talk to me of my brother? You know that as well as I '” (Dickens 434). In the end though, with the help of Mr. Brownlow, Dickens permits Oliver to be awarded his share of the estate, by forcing Monks to give Oliver his