In "The Bet," the lawyer and the banker argue over the issue of solitary confinement versus the death penalty. Specifically, the banker believes that the death penalty is a more "humane" way of dealing with a criminal. In contrast, the lawyer argues in favor of solitary confinement, saying that it is better to "live anyhow" than to not live at all.
In response, the banker continues to disagree with this opinion. He believes that nobody could endure the conditions of solitary confinement.
As this heated discussion continues, the banker proposes the following bet to the lawyer:
I'll bet you two million you wouldn't stay in solitary confinement for five years.
The lawyer is so confident in his belief that he ups the stakes. He says that if the banker is offering a serious bet, he will stay in solitary confinement for 15 years, three times that proposed by the banker.
Their discussion about the death penalty versus solitary confinement has quickly turned into a high-stakes betting situation, therefore setting the scene for the rest of the story's action.
The banker and the young lawyer are arguing over whether the death penalty or imprisonment is the more humane method of punishment. The young lawyer argues that both forms of punishment are equally immoral, but if he had to chose between them, then he'd plump for imprisonment. The banker, probably thinking of the terrifying prospect of being deprived of his opulent lifestyle, opts for the death penalty. The fractious debate ends with a wager, the bet of the title. The banker bets the lawyer a whopping two million rubles that he couldn't manage to stay in solitary confinement for five years. The lawyer accepts the wager, but goes one better, vowing that he will stay in solitary confinement not for five, but fifteen years. The bet is on.
No comments:
Post a Comment